Localization has increasingly become a buzz word, used by donor agencies aiming to collaborate more effectively with people, institutions and communities impacted by development efforts. But what does localization actually mean in practice, and how well are these efforts shifting power dynamics to truly empower local communities?

As Oheneba A Boateng writes, localization approaches have multiple goals:

  1. Rights-Based Approach: Aid recipients should be involved in setting their own priorities
  2. Efficiency: Localization should enable a quicker and more effective response to development challenges
  3. Addressing Power Imbalances: Localization seeks to shift the structural power dynamics between the Global North and South
Figure 1 The Start Network’s Framework For Localization (startnetwork.org)

While it’s easy to agree on why localization is necessary, the Global North has struggled to advance this agenda effectively. Here are some of the key challenges.

Challenges in Advancing Localization

  • Funding Gaps: The 2016 Grand Bargain pledged to allocate at least 25% of humanitarian funding to local and national stakeholders by 2020. However, only 3.4% of assistance was channeled to local stakeholders in 2016, falling to 1.8% by 2022.
  • Shortfall in Donor Commitments: USAID, for example, pledged that local organizations should receive 25% of eligible funding by 2025, with a goal of local communities leading 50% of programming by 2030. Yet, by 2022, USAID was directing only slightly over 10% of eligible funding to local organizations.
  • Limited Representation of Global South Researchers: Studies indicate that Global South researchers only generate 16% of development research, and Global South universities account for just 9% of conference presenters.
Figure 2 How Much do USAID’s American Partners Pass on to Local Organizations as Sub-Awardees? (Source: Center for Global Development)

The Role of Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning in Localization

As a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (MEL) practitioner representing a local MEL and Research firm, I’ve observed that traditional localization metrics fail to capture the shifts in power dynamics necessary for true localization. To make localization meaningful, we must consider three critical aspects: the process, the narrative, and the outcomes.

  1. Process of Localization: To avoid tokenism in both participation and partnership, key questions to ensure the desired shift in dynamics include: To what extent are the various practices instilled generating local ownership and agency? In which ways are local agency and ownership demonstrated? To what extent is this local agency and ownership impacting strategic decision-making?
  2. Reporting on Localization: To ensure that local voices are captured, authentic storytelling —as noted in encapsulated in the Pledge for Change 2030—critical to ensuring accountability to localization. The influence on and ownership of the localization narrative needs to be validated and owned by those actors who are experiencing the story, partnerships, and influence of localization.
  3. Outcomes of Localization: If localization is effective, we observe the outcomes of localization in sustained programming and a shift in the power dynamics where the local entity, through agency and ownership, is self-reliant programmatically andfinancially. These outcomes are rarely captured.
Figure 3 The Pledge for Change 2030 re-imagines the role of INGOs in the global humanitarian and development aid system (source: pledgeforchange.org)

Towards a More Effective Localization Framework

Existing localization frameworks do not sufficiently capture the pathway to sustainability or self-reliance, and they rarely capture the intended shift in power dynamics. To make localization meaningful, frameworks need to:

  • Clearly articulate the pathways to a balanced power dynamic.
  • Continuously assess and refine metrics for agency, ownership, and the local narrative.
  • Measure the ultimate aims of localization – relevance, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

Where better to focus these efforts than in local monitoring, evaluation, research and learning? By enhancing MERL systems locally, we can better refine localization frameworks and genuinely capture the localization narrative, while being accountable to the process and the outcomes?

As practitioners, how can we ensure that the power dynamics in our localization efforts truly empower local communities? What steps can you take to promote authentic storytelling, agency, and ownership in your work? The path to meaningful localization requires a collective effort to shift mindsets, refine metrics, and hold ourselves accountable to the communities we serve.