Localisation, shifting power and decolonisation are among the most talked about phrases in social development spaces today. If pursued earnestly, they have the potential to positively alter the impact of social development efforts globally. It is imperative, however, to ensure that they do not get reduced to a shiny veneer of a transient linguistic dressing.   

The term Localisation was officially introduced into the first ever World Humanitarian Summit convened in May 2016 in Istanbul. ‘It brought together 9,000 participants representing 180 Member States, including 55 Heads of State and Government, hundreds of civil society and non-governmental organizations, and partners including the private sector and academia. Together, they generated more than 3,500 commitments to action … to turn the Agenda for Humanity into meaningful change for the world’s most vulnerable people.’ Those commitments included:

• localisation of humanitarian assistance
• reducing the humanitarian development divide
• promoting inclusion of marginalised and vulnerable groups.

A specific commitment was made to give at least 25 percent of humanitarian aid funding ‘as directly as possible’ to local and national organisations, a figure that has not been met seven years after the Summit. As per a 2021 report, the percentage of official development assistance directly reaching civil society in the Global South has only marginally increased from 2.8 percent in 2016 when that commitment was made.

Challenges to Localisation are many. First and foremost, we need to accept that localisation of giving requires decolonisation of systems and minds. Localisation is one of the key elements in realising decolonisation. Decolonisation is about correcting historical power imbalances created through centuries of colonialism and reproduced through ideological, financial, and institutional dominance of greater Europe.

Localisation is one tangible step towards dismantling the dominance of the colonial lens in conceptualising the universe of social development, in general, and analysing the problem, designing a solution and evaluating its effectiveness, in particular.

Why Localisation?

The question of development – both, its ‘lack’ and ‘denial’ – is inextricably linked with the social distribution of power, which is derived from resources like wealth, knowledge, and decision-making opportunity. For an equitable and humane world, those endowed with power have the responsibility to use it to empower others. Without sharing, shifting and using it for common good, power creates an unequal and unhappy world.

Unpacking Localisation

Many people view Localisation as localisation of foreign assistance. This is because the changing regulatory landscapes in the Global South have begun to restrict the operational space for the INGOs, necessitating direct giving to local NGOs. Amendments in foreign contribution acts in countries like India and Indonesia illustrate the case. Covid-19 shone further light on the limitation of INGOs’ ability to reach the unreached communities of the Global South.

Localisation viewed singularly from the logic of greater transfer of funds, however, limits its potential. Localisation is much more than just an economic argument. It is the kernel of democratising development efforts, resources, agencies and insights and, thus, central to shifting power and correcting continuing colonial excesses. It as a process that requires ‘an imaginative creation of a new form of consciousness and way of life.’

This creation is the decolonization of imagination that involves ­­­the colonizers and the colonized­­ and that reflects ‘the relationship between power and culture, domination and the imaginary.’

It’s true that to respond to crises highlighted by Covid-19 and to realise the SDGs, there is a need for a far greater flow of funds from the Global North/greater Europe to the Global South/ex-colonies. For the same reason, the call to strengthen domestic philanthropy has been rightly welcomed. Yet, the ideological import of Localisation must not be lost to enhanced domestic philanthropy.

Localisation is not merely about mobilising and giving better wages to the ‘labouring bodies’ in the development sector of the Global South. It is equally, if not more, about engaging with the ‘thinking minds’ of the Global South.

It must be pursued as a ‘decentring’ process, primarily located in trusting the people most impacted by the current and historical systems and structures to lead according to knowledge and priorities that are local. It entails equalising relationships and power dynamics between funders and their partners. It requires strengthening of the entire eco-system engaged in the process of social change in the Global South.

How to localise?

Localisation starts with deep listening; listening to learn, unlearn and challenge a familiar knowledge system with systems and insights that have remained less-engaged. To prevent ‘deep listening’ from turning into condescension and infantilisation of the local, philanthropies must integrate the Global South into reimagining development and grant-making processes, which, could be realised through:

• Diversifying their board to include current/ex local civil society partners, people with lived experiences, academics and impact evaluators.
• Resourcing and developing local knowledge practitioners – designers of interventions, impact evaluators, social development thinkers, and academics from the marginalised regions and social groupings. Philanthropies working with indigenous communities (Adivasis and Dalits in South Asia, for instance) must invest in sourcing and supporting technical and intellectual resources from these communities. The overwhelming number of consultants engaged by INGOs and philanthropists continue to be, either from, or trained in, the Global North.
• Working with the community-led organisations; scoping mission-aligned, local organisations from the South that often are off-the-radar of the intermediaries.
• Supporting locally registered organisations working with unregistered social movements, networks, and community-based groups. This is critical given the shrinking civic spaces world over. INGOs and philanthropies are yet to evolve adequate frameworks to design and assess social movements in the South.
• Building a pool of funders in the North and a pool of not-for-profits in the South invested in aligned causes for a greater exchange of ideas and sectoral impact. There is a need to enable local partners to play a greater role in localising giving and decolonising knowledge.
• Moving from limited period project-support to nurturing partnerships through long-term institutional support to local organisations
• Investing in local philanthropic ecosystems to ‘grow the domestic pie’ in the Global South and make giving more effective
• Designing multiple ways of showcasing transparency and trust-building efforts.

It’s a journey that the actors of the Global North and South must undertake together.

Arun Kumar, a social justice advocate with a grounding in sociology and modern history, collaborates with local and international organisations to develop purpose-driven entities and programmes.

Ritesh Datta is a senior social impact professional who has designed, delivered and advised high impact interventions across the Global South. He co-founded Footbridge Consulting Ltd. to promote localisation as a process to democratize international development and foster genuine partnerships for impact.