Why Do I Make the Case for Equitable Partnerships with Local Actors?

Friends and colleagues ask me why I am so persistent in what is referred to as ‘localisation’ i.e. supporting and reinforcing rather than replacing or instrumentalising national/local organisations? Surely, I am asked, I must realise that there have been enough problematic experiences with national and local (non-governmental) actors in crisis situations; we cannot simply fund them and trust they will do the right thing with good quality and financial integrity? And have we not a responsibility for the good stewardship of the money taxpayers and individual donors have given us?

The questions are appropriate and after more than three decades in international cooperation in and on crisis situations, I am not naïve. But there are strong reasons why I will continue to argue that as international agencies we need to support and reinforce, not replace national and local actors – or only in exceptional circumstances and more briefly than is currently the case.

What influences have shaped my current outlook on national and local voluntary agencies?

• My curiosity in other societies, how its people see and experience the world and what shapes their views and behaviours. That made me chose to train as an anthropologist but also stimulates a deep interest in history, as the present is partially shaped by the past – through the narratives of the past and the past as we imagine it. An ‘anthropological posture’ brings with it an awareness that, even if on the surface our behaviours seem similar, I cannot assume I really understand what shapes the worldviews and behaviours of people who grew up in another society (or other socio-economic conditions than me).  I need to continue listening and learning. Secondly, I am strongly conscious that I am in other societies as a guest, not a master and certainly not a settler, so I need to behave with appropriate care and respect. Thirdly, other societies have managed their own affairs for centuries without me – I should not be overly rash and confident that I know better what can work well for them.
• My first and very defining experience with ‘aid’ programming: By coincidence I found myself working in the late 80s with the Afghanistan Vaccination and Immunisation Centre (AVICEN). It had been set-up by a few French doctors who knew Afghanistan and the Afghans well and had noticed that many Afghan children in the rural areas died from vaccine preventable diseases. While working Mèdecins sans Frontières and Médecins du Monde clinics in rural Afghanistan during the war, they heard other internationals argue that vaccination programmes were too complex for Afghans to be able to carry them out (the protocols at the time were indeed more so than they are today). However, these particular individuals disagreed and believed in Afghan capabilities. So, from day one they set up a comprehensive training and support centre, updating and mentoring Afghan doctors as instructors, and then training Afghans as vaccinators, supervisors, cold chain technicians, epidemiological surveyors, administrators, logisticians, etc. They developed a mobile vaccination approach, highly appropriate for the context but contrary to the established guidance of the World Health Organization (WHO) which imagined vaccinations at and around static health posts. The WHO evaluated this ‘positive deviance’ approach and could only praise it. These French colleagues saw it as laying the foundations for a future, Afghan-run public health programme that extended also to people in rural areas. Never after have I come across an international relief agency with similar belief in the capabilities of the people of another society, and the courage to take such long-term strategic vision in the midst of ongoing conflict and instability.
• My extensive peacebuilding experience with an INGO that acknowledged that peace cannot be imported or imposed by foreigners in a society that has been violently divided. Durable peace can only come from within, and that requires peace-capacities at all levels, from the village to the highest office. The ‘partners’ in different countries therefore were strategic partners, respected colleagues, and once they had grasped the multi-stakeholder process methodology, they would lead. The INGO would provide support where it could add value e.g. help with fundraising, introduce the partners to donors, and open high-level doors in the West for them to provide the analysis, perspective and recommendations ‘from within’. For the INGO, it was clear that their initially strong footprint when introducing a tried and tested process approach that few are familiar with would deliberately shift to a supporting role.
• Regularly watching Al Jazeera in English. Although I am long used to the admirable BBC World Service, there is still a difference to seeing European star journalists travel around the world, compared to seeing journalists with Al Jazeera, many of them women, from the countries or regions they report on, and how much voice they give (also in documentaries) to ordinary people from the region. Another significant difference is their connections to analysts and political commentators -of colour- around the world. Hearing an Iranian, Palestinian, Indonesian, Black-American, Bulgarian, Ugandan, etc. analyst about developments in their country or region, is not the same as a French, British, Belgian, Swiss, Spanish, etc. commentator about these places. There is extensive intellectual life outside the West, and plenty of high quality ‘sources’ of information, insight and advice – if you look for them.