The Localization Spirit: Shifting Power or Accountability?
By Nonso Jideofor
How has localization impacted the roles of international humanitarian actors? Has localization resulted in shifting power to national and local humanitarian actors? These were some of the questions that UNHCR’s Innovation Service set out to answer through the research to understand the nature and progress of localization to date, and to learn what this means for international, national, and local actors. The undertaking also explored questions like — How might localization drive systems change and transformation in the humanitarian sector? How have disruptive events like the global pandemic impacted localization?
The origins of localization
In 2016, The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) described localization as “making humanitarian action as local as possible and as international as necessary”. A report from the British Red Cross in 2019 also characterized localization as:
“the need to shift the dial to invest more in local capacity, reduce dependence on international organizations and promote and facilitate increased community engagement and accountability in the design and implementation of humanitarian programs.”
Localization can also be defined as the willingness of international humanitarian actors to increasingly and intuitively cede the leadership of humanitarian actions and responses to national and local actors.
Localization and localization concepts have been in existence for a long time in diverse spaces. In 1991, The United Nations General Assembly Resolution (46/182) on humanitarian assistance underlined the prominent role of national authorities in coordinating humanitarian response. Fast forward to 2016, The Grand Bargain — a landmark agreement between some of the largest humanitarian agencies and donors to improve humanitarian action — was launched, representing the most recent and significant push for localization. The Grand Bargain, among other things, was an effort by the humanitarian sector to ensure that the goal to “leave no one behind” is met.
Five years later, some goals specific to localization according to the Grand Bargain have been achieved, and more remains to be pursued. Beyond the progress made, pertinent questions remain on how the localization work should be approached — such as whether existing approaches are focused on shifting power or accountability, needs to be incremental or radical, and if certain postures undermine localization?
Localizing humanitarian action
The research arm of UNHCR collaborates with independent researchers to expand innovation and learning at The Commission. As part of the research thrust taken in November 2020, “localization in humanitarian action” took the spotlight for its increased occurrence in humanitarian debate owing to the global pandemic. Interestingly, by the time the pandemic struck, localization had been 5 years in the making. And we were keen to understand localization in the context of humanitarian aid, past, present, and future as captured in this research brief, Localizing Humanitarian Action. The brief opens by surfacing the contrast between localization and the 2030 Agenda, comparing and synthesizing several definitions of localization in use, and then analyzing the progress made with localization across different spheres since 2016. The research ends with recommendations that address issues in the current principles and practice of localization.
To meet the goals of The 2030 Agenda, the humanitarian sector is primed to adopt approaches that pose a risk of stagnating the localization process. Localization needs to be reinvigorated as an independent agenda in order to advance at its own pace. The research brief sets forward four ideas for advancing the localization cause.
- Normalize Financial Losses, Don’t Shift Accountability
The main argument for localization within the Grand Bargain appears to be saving financial costs and, more recently, beating the travel restrictions imposed by the global pandemic. Although these aspects are important, they are not, nor should they be, the only drivers of localization. At this stage, where localization is still being figured out, financial losses are inevitable. A focus on financial loss only serves as a distraction from the deep work that is required to make sense of how localization might propel transformation in the sector.
The primary motivation of cost efficiency results in shifting accountability — the burden for results — towards national and local actors, and not power. According to a Human Policy Group (HPG) 2020 report, the localization practices of international humanitarian actors, with an emphasis on saving costs and incremental change, lean towards holding onto more power, while distributing accountability to national and local actors. We need to be driven by having national and local actors that wield power and lead humanitarian action, even if the change process may be more uncomfortable for international actors.
2. Change Leadership, Retire Regressive Terminologies
In the last five years, the main actors within the Grand Bargain have spent significant time identifying the national and local actors who are supposed to lead on localization. This may be because national and local actors are not the people in the room having the debate about it. If national and local actors still need to be invited into processes and activities for humanitarian action, that means localization is a distant reality — the chances that national and local actors will harness their agency to lead and advance the collective outcomes of the humanitarian sector.
Shifting leadership to the national and local levels will remain incomplete while we think about the localization process in terms that imply that national and local actors are excluded. Switching over means that international actors sit in to learn from national and local actors’ work. Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG) research shows that this has to be approached with some delicacy because often, the efforts made in this direction can undermine the goal, as international actors go through the motions and miss the actual lessons.
3. Embrace Diverse Perspectives, Allow Time for Maturity
Localization in practice should be diverse depending on location and context, resulting from a blend between approaches, ideas, and capabilities of local, national, and international actors. At this early stage, instead of getting bogged down with establishing a single meaning and approach, localization should steer away from creating mini versions of international organizations. Investing time to discuss and predefine all aspects, policies, categories, and localization frameworks is only part of the process. Localization theories need to develop and evolve through time and practice.
It is impractical for localization to develop and evolve if it continues to be used as a means to an end for other goals and agendas — like closing gaps in financing indicated in The Grand Bargain. The haste to systematize localization shows up in the need to make sense of it sooner and in the process casting away divergent views, particularly those misaligned with established ways of working and thinking about humanitarian action. Aiming for uniformity does not help to further localization; the process and practice should be as diverse as possible and allowed time to reach maturity.
4. Fund Unfamiliarity, Focus on Learning
Embracing differences in the process and practice of localization comes with the daunting task of putting money in places that are unfamiliar and less certain. Within the global paradigm of localization, national and local actors have taken on or are set up for more responsibility. Yet, often there is a lack of confidence in their finance or programme management capabilities. Such reactions are not in line with the spirit of localization. They set off a power dynamic that disarms national and local actors from stepping up to leadership.
Localization needs unsupervised time and space to experiment, fail and learn without the process being stifled, controlled, or constrained. An experimentation space that allows local actors to ‘try stuff’ and is unshrouded by training and capability building, one in which failure is almost celebrated as learning one more thing that does not work. It should be a space where the goal is a deliberate choice to try something different than what has been done so far. While experiments should be done responsibly, they should not be limited to or defined solely by financial accountability and cost efficiency — both of which are important but often magnified to overshadow the relationship dynamics between international actors engaged with national and local actors.
However, the fact remains that we fund models that we recognize and that real localization may ask us to do the opposite — fund the things we do not yet recognize. The risk estimation should move away from national and local actors towards what we could lose as a collective if we do not localize rightly, sooner.
The true spirit of localization
This calls for brave actions from international, national, and local actors, who all need to step away from their usual roles and trust each other. Bravery is required to conceive localization as its own agenda, not subsumed within other goals and agendas. If at all, other goals and agendas should be tweaked to serve the purposes of localization.
Concerns such as lack of capability, need for more training and minimizing financial risks, although important, need to be de-emphasized momentarily as they serve to distract from localization. Localization requires new vocabularies, actions, and commitment to navigate uncertainties and changes that will come along with it developing an independent structure.
Click here to access the full report detailing localization applications in the humanitarian aid sector. Please reach out to us on innovation@unhcr.org for more on this conversation.
