What we talk about when we talk about ‘capacity’: The barriers to localisation in humanitarian aid include how we talk about local partners

September 26, 2019 by Hayley Umayam

The idea of ‘localisation’ in humanitarian aid counters what has been seen as an unbalanced system where decision making and power lies far from those affected by crises. ¹

Essentially, calls for localisation recognise that more funding and decision-making power should be directed to the ‘frontline’ of humanitarian responses, including to local and national NGOs (L/NNGOs). ²

Why is localisation important in South Sudan?

There is broad recognition for the positive role L/NNGOs play in the humanitarian response in South Sudan, ³ such as their understanding of the context, which is linked to more relevant community engagement. ⁴ However, limited resources and decision making power can undermine this. L/NNGOs are simultaneously at the frontline of potential community tensions, while having less allowances or procedures for staff safety than their international counterparts and less say in strategic decisions that could mitigate such tensions.

Despite importance, little progress

Some of the major aid agencies and donors operating in South Sudan, are signatories to global commitments on localisation. So why aren’t we seeing more progress on localisation in the humanitarian response here? ⁵ The most common reason cited for the lack of progress towards the commitment to direct more funding and decision making to L/NNGOs is a lack of ‘capacity’.

Capacity discourse masks the nature of the problem

In informal conversations, it has become apparent that international organisations and L/NNGOs utilise the phrase ‘capacity’ in ways that are subtlety distinct and yet consequential for their overall view of local actors. International agencies tend to use it in a functional sense, with a focus on the ability to perform core functions of the humanitarian system. This includes reporting, technical ability and compliance requirements. Conversely, L/NNGOs tend to understand ‘capacity’ in an intrinsic sense, with a focus on the ability to overcome structural barriers to their autonomy, such as accessing humanitarian coordination systems and long-term supportive partnerships.

Therefore, the persistent critique of L/NNGOs having ‘low capacity’ functions as a catch-all for the very structural imbalances that localisation aims to address: namely inadequate resources and the inability to make meaningful decisions as humanitarian actors. For instance, international agencies often say their L/NNGO counterparts ‘lack capacity’, then cite support functions such as poor reporting quality. However, reporting quality is a symptom of having inadequate resources: without adequate resources, L/NNGOs are unable to invest in the systems, structures and human resources that would enable them to improve something like reporting quality. It also means that the L/NNGO faces barriers to meaningful decision-making and participation. Their ‘poor reporting’ can also be seen as the inability to speak the ‘language’ or understand/conform to internationally-led norms of the humanitarian response. This further complicates efforts to gain access to and tacit knowledge about coordination and decision making bodies, and ultimately limits their ability to be recognised for the value they add.

Reframing ‘capacity’

Access to resources affects the ability to strengthen systems for delivery and access to meaningful decision-making affects the ability to shape the effectiveness and appropriateness of humanitarian and aid responses. Without addressing these more fundamental issues, the inability to break through these barriers simply reinforces a narrative that L/NNGOs ‘lack capacity.’

Situating criticisms of function-oriented ‘capacity’ as part of larger structural barriers may help to mitigate negative perceptions of L/NNGOs and encourage localisation efforts to more meaningfully work towards eliminating these barriers.

Reflections to prompt action

Of course, humanitarian settings are complex and risky, features that both necessitate the responses of local actors and make them difficult to get right. In such contexts, some reflections about capacity can help foster localisation. These are aimed primarily at donors/international agencies partnering with or contracting L/NNGOs.

What are the long-term goals of your L/NNGO partners? How will your training or capacity building session help them reach those goals? How might it undermine them?
In what ways is your organisation ensuring the meaningful participation of L/NNGOs in strategic planning, information sharing and decision making? In what ways is your organisation supporting increased leadership opportunities for L/NNGOs?