Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation

Interrogating the evidence base on humanitarian localisation: A literature study is a 2021 publication by the Overseas Development Institute about localisation in humanitarian aid.
The report details the power imbalances between the government donors who fund humanitarian work, the international agencies that are contracted to delivery most of it, and the local and national agencies who lack funding, power and influence.
It documents that much of the decisions made by the international stakeholders who hold power in the humanitarian system are made based on perceptions, rather than evidence.
It makes a series of recommendations for improvement to increase localisation.
Production
The report was produced by the Humanitarian Policy Group of the Overseas Development Institute in 2021 and authored by Veronique Barbelet, Gemma Davies, Josie Flint and Eleanor Davey.
It was commissioned by the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Synopsis
The report covers recent history of localisation efforts that governments who fund humanitarian aid agreed to as part of the Grand Bargain agreement, struck at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016
It notes that even the term "localisation" is rejected by some humanitarian practitioners and use of it can be counter productive to shifting power.
It notes that in the humanitarian system it is international stakeholders who hold the power and local stakeholders who do not and invites reflection on the amount of power that local organisations have and funding that they receive
The report points out that international humanitarian aid agencies have an obvious desire for "self preservation" and that acts as a barrier to more localisation
The authors report that local organisations feel excluded from forums where important decisions are made.
It talks about the lack of consensus between stakeholders in defining localisation, with some humanitarian practitioners believing that the definition should change depending on the country and emergency. It also documents a lack of consensus in defining who is a "local humanitarian actor."
The desire of local and national humanitarian agencies to have more funding, less bureaucratic contracts with donors, and more support is documented, noting that high levels of compliance regulations imposed by international intermediaries on local organizations create perverse reporting and operational incentives at the expense of fairer partnerships.
The report documents that there despite the logical of such conclusions, there is a lack of evidence to support the perception that local aid organizations are more effective in the delivery of humanitarian aid.
It speaks about helpful things that donors can do, including the importance of funding the normal operating costs of local organizations.
It notes that international agencies could not move international staff around during the COVID-19 pandemic, forcing more responsibility onto local organizations, and called that temporary power shift a missed opportunity to transform how humanitarian aid is delivered.
Other included recommended solutions to encourage more localisation are:
* Provision of multi year funding agreements
* Donors requiring localisation of international agencies
* Investing in more research and reviews
* Inviting local organisations to meetings
* Donors requiring international agencies to plan the end of international humanitarian interventions
Despite claims that local groups lack impartiality there are few examples of this and little evidence to support claims that international agencies comply better with humanitarian principles.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu