The Politics of the Multi-Local in Disaster Governance

Abstract

‘Localisation’ became the new buzzword after the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. However, the nature of the commitment to localisation since has been questioned. What is ‘the local’? How does localisation work in practice? With little empirical research, generalities in theory and practice have prevailed, preventing a nuanced approach to conceptualising the local. This study aims to build a foundation for the understanding of connotative, nuanced ‘locals’ and to explore the multiple dimensions of the local in both theory and practice. The methodology of a case study research, with a semi-structured and flexible approach, facilitated the identification of different elements of a locally led response that resounded in each of the cases. Combined with a literature review, this article aims to answer the questions: What underlying assumptions regarding the local are found in localisation rhetoric, and how do multi-local dynamics challenge locally led disaster response in practice? Answering this question necessitates deconstructing the multi-local in theory and critically examining expressions concerning the local in practice. In this study, one dimension of the local that was observed was ‘the local as locale,’ with the local describing primarily national actors as opposed to the international, without taking local power dynamics into account. The local was also seen in terms of governance, where local–national relations and intranational strife characterised locally led responses, and the national focus excluded local actors who were not usually involved in governance. The local also became a source of legitimation, with local, national and international actors all using the discourse of ‘the state in charge’ and ‘the community knows best’ to legitimise their own role as response actors while disputing others’ capacities. The multi-local lens provides a perspective with potential to change current practices and contribute to a more transformative agenda.

NGO-isation, Local Faith Actors and ‘Legitimate’ Humanitarian Action in South Sudan

“…Our analysis of the process to select LFAs for participation in BtG, as well as the reflections of LFAs on the assumptions that are made not only about their capacity to engage in humanitarian action but also the type of capacity they need to develop in order to become 'legitimate' humanitarian actors, reinforces observations made in other studies that 'power dynamics are at the heart of the localisation agenda and also one of its most significant obstacles' (Barbelet et al, 2021: 60;Wall and Hedlund, 2016;Van Brabant and Patel, 2018;Barbelet, 2019;Fast and Bennett, 2020;Melis and Apthorpe, 2020). Our data suggests that LFAs were keen to participate in BtG to learn how to become the kind of 'legitimate' humanitarian actor that is trusted by the international system, and not simply because they felt that they did not know how to be humanitarians per se.…”

“System aisa hi hai” – exploring local researchers' perspective on barriers toward conducting locally relevant disaster research

“…To break free from this, there is need to pay greater respect and recognition to research that engages with uneasy questions, voices subaltern narratives and aims at improving the conditions of the researched. There is also a need to acknowledge the “multi-local” (Melis and Apthorpe, 2020, p. 371). Multi-local implies that even within the local there exists “diversity between communities, differences between local and national state and non-state actors, and variation within bodies such as the different layers and institutions of the state” (Melis and Apthorpe, 2020, p. 371).…”

“…There is also a need to acknowledge the “multi-local” (Melis and Apthorpe, 2020, p. 371). Multi-local implies that even within the local there exists “diversity between communities, differences between local and national state and non-state actors, and variation within bodies such as the different layers and institutions of the state” (Melis and Apthorpe, 2020, p. 371). Recognition of the multi-local will enable researchers to engage in research which is nuanced and grounded in the local context.…”

The promises and pitfalls of disaster aid platforms: a case study of Lebanon’s 3RF

“…The call favored institutionally capable, experienced CSOs, which prevented newer CSOs and not-yet-institutionalized initiatives to apply. This was a common pitfall of other disaster platforms as well (Melis and Apthorpe, 2020). Of the 60 CSOs who applied, 15 were selected and were allocated to serve on a rotational basis.…”