Session Proponent: Sally Angelson (Otago University)

Session Contributors: Open

 

Could the localisation wave of desire for change be harnessed to undo some of the sticking points of the industry, and imagine a different way of achieving social justice, equality, and peace – through solidarity and finding a way to nurture everyday humanitarianism, everyday peace, everyday development towards a new imagining of the global aid architecture? This also comes at a time of universally wicked problems such as the Covid-19 pandemic or Climate Change, where borders, boundaries and cultures show no difference.

The localisation agenda that blasted into our existence formally in 2016 through the Grand Bargain sent the aid sector into a bit of frenzy to adapt. Questions like how to define it, how to shift our policy and practice to adapt, how to become more locally led, how to find these perfect partners who could manage the reporting and monitoring required, or how to maintain the status quo due to the unclearness about it all, arose. It could be brushed off as yet another buzzword that means everything and nothing and fade out of fashion. Or we could use the momentum and commitment to the agenda to drive forward changes to the flawed system we are currently in and re-engage with the purpose for why we are doing this work, the people at the centre of proposed changes and the make better use of the resources available to support the complex issues at hand.

As Chambers asked in the 1980s “whose reality counts” and suggests that “those who are powerful and dominant – the uppers, gain and interpret information in ways which fit their preconceptions and fulfil, their needs; while those who are subordinate-the lowers, behave and communicate in ways which generate, select, distort and present information to fit what they believe uppers want, approve and will reward”. (Chambers, 1994 p15)

In contrast, Gegeo and Watson-Gegeo from the Solomon Islands ask “whose knowledge counts” (Gegeo & Watson-Gegeo, 2002), and investigate the use of ‘local’ or indigenous knowledge as it most frequents the literature on people’s existing knowledge. They challenge that when villages (which make up 85% of the population) apply indigenous knowledge in development, they are involved in a process of constantly (re)theorizing, (re)creating, and (re) structuring knowledge to fit local practices, experience and culture.

So when we talk of localisation, who is leading this agenda? Through the seemingly inpassable barriers to shifting resources, power and capacities, could an alternative be to redirect the foundations of the agenda to start from local? Could this reversed discourse lead to an insider led approach to the sector? Could this allow for a broader range of useful outsiders to be invited in to support their journey? Could this lead to a reframing of the roles across the local to international spectrum, recognising there is still an important role for all, but in a more equitable and solidaristic architecture?

Group Experiment: This experiment will challenge our continuation of the current construction of the development, humanitarian and peacebuilding sectors and attempt to reorient us to the foundational principles for which we work – those of justice, equity, honestly, humility, solidarity and regarding each other as contemporaries rather than rivals.

If we can agree on these guiding principles, we can begin to reorient the way in which we connect, from that of binaries to that of peers, or a collective working with the tools and resources we have available to solve the problems we are faced with.

Insiders: The experiment will consider defining and framing the problems and potential solutions at the place (community, group, place) of the proposed intervention. Questions such as:

1. What future do you desire for your children, family, and community?
2. How do crises (conflict or natural) affect this?
3. What are the assets to get you there?
4. What are the barriers to get you there?
5. What resources or supports to you need?
6. What does that support look like – skills? Funding? Networks?
7. How would you define success?

Outsiders: While that is happening with the targeted community, the international team (academics, practitioners, donors, activists) can refine and articulate what they can offer. Questions such as:

1. What support can you provide and what are the management requirements of such support?
2. What thematic areas do you work with?
3. What geographic areas do you work with?
4. How do crises (conflict or natural) affect this?
5. What are the assets to get you there?
6. What are the barriers to get you there?
7. How would you define success?

Then beginning from the insider’s perspective, the outsiders listen to understand exactly what the issue is and what is the desired solution or intervention. The insiders then articulate the support that is needed and seek to work with those who can provide that support. If there is not a perfect match, there could be negotiations or ideas for alternative paths for support or collaboration.

Reflections and potential ways forward: How does flipping the dialogue open the potential for collaboration? What possibilities does this unlock? How could this benefit all parties? Could this way of thinking address issues of colonising binaries, racism, top-down approaches and zero sum thinking in terms of the available resourcing of programmes?

Speakers tbc