At Xavier Project we
want to see organisations founded and led by people affected by humanitarian
crises having control of the resources and decisions that will affect their
future.
At the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit commitments were made
towards localising humanitarian assistance. Eventually 25% of humanitarian
funding is to be channelled via “Local or National Humanitarian Actors”. Actors
with a more relevant connection to a humanitarian crisis, such as mass
displacement, or a natural disaster, will play a more significant role in terms
of decision making and control of resources. This is still a worthy target
despite the fact that it is no closer to being reached in 2019 than it was in
2016, with only 0.2% of humanitarian funding going directly to local or national responders in the last year.
12.4% of this funding reaches local and national responders
but via intermediary international organisations, but I think it is important
to look at who local and national humanitarian actors (LNHA) are considered to
be. Included as claimants to this tag are national and local governments, parastatals,
national NGOs, national faith based congregations, national civil society
groups, the national private sector including associations and co-operatives
and community based organisations among others. More controversially, NGOs that
are part of an international “federation”, clearly run by a centralised
leadership, have claimed a “national” classification for their in-country
representatives. Rarely, is the concept of “local” separated from “national”,
and rarely is the concept of “local” really scrutinised. What is not rare for
organisations founded and led by affected populations, such as refugees, to be
side-lined from the conversation, or left-out entirely from the LNHA
designation.
This is particularly significant in a refugee hosting
context. A report on Dignity and
Humanitarian Action in Displacement by ODI found that whether humanitarian
responders were international, or national was not of concern to new arrivals
as long as they get the protection they need. In fact, respondents in the
report stated that they could not tell the difference. Statements like “all
NGOs are the same” were recorded during the research.
But in research such as this, “local” usually refers to
national NGOs rather than responders who were themselves from affected
populations, such as refugees or hosting communities transformed by a sudden
influx of displaced people. The refugee led community based organisations that
we work with at Xavier Project, however, should be included in this category as
local responders. Our experience, documented over five years, has been that a
response led by affected populations, albeit not in all sectors at all stages
of a crisis, can lead to a more effective sustainable and dignified response;
dignified both for the responders as well as those engaging in the services
they offer. It is in examples such as we have seen that the full potential of
the concept of “local” is realised.
An example of this would be our valuable partner SIR
(Solidarity Initiative for Refugees) founded by enterprising young refugees in
Kakuma Refugee Camp. SIR have just opened a new training hub where they teach
refugees, and host community members in northern Kenya relevant skills for
income generation, largely centring on technology. Indeed, the have just
started printing useful day to day items on their 3D printer, which acts as an
opportunity for training while being productive at the same time (see left). Stories about
groups such as SIR still seem to be told by the humanitarian press as if they
are exceptional, but innovative leaders in all pockets of refugee hosting areas
of Kenya and Uganda (and surely beyond) are looking for ways to have a positive
impact on their immediate community.
There is no doubt that increasingly handing over the
humanitarian response to genuinely “local” actors has associated risks. For
example, when friends and family are potential beneficiaries or participants in
a provided service, it is harder to remain unbiased. Other risks to do with
security and accountability have been documented.[1]
Also, a lot of work will need to be carried out by the International NGOs to
build the capacity of genuinely “local” responders to be able to bring the
potential of the Grand Bargain to reality and I would advocate that we should
all allocate more resources to doing this. For by leaving out organisations led
by members of affected populations, the localisation agenda is at risk of neglecting
the best opportunity for a vital shift in the power dynamics of delivering
humanitarian aid.
[1]
MSF Emergency Gap Series 3 The Challenges
of Localised Humanitarian Aid in Armed Conflict November 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment