This presentation was designed to be powerpoint free. However, the major points discussed are found below. If you would like more information, please email Dave Hodgkin, firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Localisation vs Nationalism
- More and more often we are seeing Nationalistic agendas that limit humanitarian access being touted as localisation. A perfect example of this was the Nationalistic agenda that kept SAFR teams out of Palu in the critical first 72hrs of the liquifaction response, and the Nationalistic agenda that has kept international assistance out of both Lombok and Papua. How can we ensure humanitarian access and avoid nationalism, while promoting localisation
- Shared fundingLocal access to funding is often touted as a perfect measure of localisation. In reality traditional western funding pools are contracting, while the number of households impacted by disasters is on the rise. Existing western humanitarian agencies can not survive if their funding are diverted to local agencies. This would mean a great loss in learning, skills and standards. In reality local NGOs often have access to funding sources, such as Zakat, CSR and social media funding, that international agencies may not be good at leveraging. Perhaos assisting local agnecies to leverage local funds is a more logical outcome
- Localisation for what?The localisation agenda is often more driven by the global North than the global south, as a donro agenda to reduce costs rather than any actual analysis of improved outcome. The success or failure of localisation is commonly being measured by slef predicating indicators such as teh amount of local NGOs attending coordination meetings, or getting direct access to funds, rather than by any measurment of improved humanitarian outcome. How do we ensure the humanitarian imperitive comes first and that localisation leads to improved humanitarian response