Localisation in the Context of UK Government Engagement With the Humanitarian Reform Agenda

Abstract

Localisation is a key element of the humanitarian reform agenda. However, there are continuing debates regarding its form and emphasis, linked to understandings of the local, the role of the state and the implications for interpretation of humanitarian principles of “de-internationalised” humanitarian response. This paper considers UK engagement with the localisation agenda, particularly through examination of the policies and programmes of the Department for International Development (DFID). The UK was a major contributor to dialogue on localisation at the World Humanitarian Summit of 2016 and has subsequently shown strong support for Grand Bargain commitments and implementation of a larger proportion of programmes involving cash transfers. Overall, however, advance on this agenda has been limited. The paper notes three major areas of constraint. First, logistical concerns have frequently been noted, particularly with respect to tasks such as procurement and financial monitoring. This has limited the engagement of many local actors lacking organisational capacity in these areas. Second, conceptual ambiguity has also played a significant role. Localisation is poorly theorised, and the roles, functions and capacities—beyond procurement of supplies and emergency technical assistance—that local actors may be able to fulfil far more effectively than international ones are not frequently addressed. Narrowly framed understandings of principles such as independence and impartiality, for instance, appear to severely limit confidence in engaging with local religious actors. Third, political considerations appear to have increasingly limited the space for more radical interpretations of the implications of localisation. Successive UK Secretaries of State for International Development have defended the commitment to a fixed proportion of Gross National Income (GNI) for development assistance based on strong public support for UK aid expenditure to reflect national interests and values. In this context, there are few clear political incentives to cede power over decision-making regarding UK Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to national and local actors in a manner required for fundamental localisation of humanitarian response. Even where there is a clear potential UK interest—for example, bolstering capacity of local actors in contexts vulnerable to humanitarian emergency to avert more costly emergency response—the public perception of capacity strengthening (compared to life-saving humanitarian actions) mitigates against such moves in a climate of contested public spending. The establishment of a merged Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office in 2020 signals the likelihood of a reframing of localisation. While some advancement in terms of some logistical and conceptual barriers may be anticipated, issues of both national interest and public perceptions of national interest seem likely to continue to constrain a more radical implementation of localisation, particularly with current suspension of the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA.

Urban Governance, Multisectoral Action, and Civic Engagement for Population Health, Wellbeing, and Equity in Urban Settings: A Systematic Review

“…In fact, in 1977, the World Health Organization (WHO) launched the “Health for All” initiative. This initiative aimed to achieve health and wellbeing by 2000 and called for a mobilization of resources to be invested in health, highlighting the role of multisectoral action and community involvement in doing so ( 44 ). Motivated by this initiative, the WHO Healthy network project was launched 30 years ago.…”

“…Civic engagement enables discussion of the city issues not only from the perspective of the government but also from the citizens, who can accurately express what they need and play an active role in prioritizing options and solutions. However, specific political and cultural contexts often interfere with the engagement of citizens during policy-making processes ( 44 ). Government systems are complex structures, and questions on who should participate, what level of knowledge is needed, and how to represent the interests of all population groups are frequently asked.…”

The ‘conflict paradox’: humanitarian access, localisation, and (dis)empowerment in Myanmar, Somalia, and Somaliland

“…This leads to discussions routinely overlooking the importance of localisation as a broader process of civil society (and local and national authority) strengthening and sustainability, and what should preferably be a process of decolonising the humanitarian system. What is more, domestic politics can place significant limitations on potentially more emancipatory approaches to localisation (Goodwin and Ager, 2021).…”

“…However, this agency faces distinct challenges owing not only to international, specifically 'Western', dominance of the humanitarian system, but also pervasive and persistent neoliberal values within the sector. The seeming stagnation of localisation progress following heightened attention immediately after the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 (Goodwin and Ager, 2021) suggests the need for a deeper ideological shift within the sector, not simply altering incentives. We argue that this is also a prerequisite for efforts to decolonise aid, which we believe is incompatible with the current neoliberal underpinnings of the aid system.…”

Toward a Third Local Turn: Identifying and Addressing Obstacles to Localization in Peacebuilding

“…Enhancing local ownership of peacebuilding also requires the approval of national governments and local elites, who are in turn eager to secure international resources to stabilize their rule and enrich themselves (Barnett and Zürcher 2009; Paffenholz 2015). National and local elites prohibit or interfere with peacebuilding activities that could threaten their power (Schenkenberg 2016; Barakat and Milton 2020; see also Goodwin and Ager 2021). Legislation to constrain civil society, corruption, and deliberate underfunding of potentially supportive institutional entities are only some strategies to marginalize local peacebuilding initiatives (Cammack 2007).…”