“When we talk about localization, it is when total power and decision-making authority has been handed over to communities, irrespective of gender, education, age, or existing power structures." — Nana Ama Nketia-Quaidoo, Advocates for Community Alternatives

The international aid community’s resistance to confronting power imbalances baked into the system long ago is its original sin, but there is hope on the horizon. Long led by local actors in the Global South, reinvigorated by the Black Lives Matter protests in the summer of 2020 and, more recently, given renewed prominence by USAID Administrator Samantha Power’s remarks late last year, more organizations are grappling with how to shift power to promote an equitable aid system and localize social and economic development.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the World Bank estimates at least a 100 million people have been forced into extreme poverty and millions more families struggle to meet their basic needs. The challenge is especially acute for women, who communities often charge with caring for families and households but deny decision-making authority. The sector is at a critical juncture and philanthropy needs to reorganize its priorities and structures to support local leadership and meet the moment.

Understanding Localization

While there is no set definition of localization, the concept generally refers to efforts to shift power from international development and humanitarian actors to organizations at the community, or local, level. Depending on the context, power could refer to funding, program or research design, decision-making authority, and more. At its heart, however, localization reflects a desire to invest in people who experience challenges like poverty or climate change directly and acutely, and to see “them as active participants and agents of change in development.”

For the last ten years, Spark Microgrants has quietly worked to do just that. Spark’s key innovation – the Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP) – pairs a village planning process with a seed grant that facilitates community-led solutions to poverty. It puts control over decisions, plans, and resources in the hands of communities. Research shows that the FCAP results in families doubling the meals they eat and a sevenfold increase in women’s civic engagement. Since 2010, Spark has reached more than 500,000 people in eight countries, and it is currently piloting a national-scale program with the Government of Rwanda.

Achieving Scale

Spark trains partner organizations and works with governments because it believes the sustainability of a localized project will depend largely on the depth of government involvement and how that work is incorporated into national policy. Although scale may appear at odds with localization at first glance, Spark sees the two as symbiotic. To be effective at scale requires highly decentralized approaches and robust power at the local level. The FCAP strengthens government structures and civil society by nurturing their connection at the local level, spurring civic engagement, and promoting inclusive and equitable governance. For donors who are laser focused on sustainability, strengthening government systems and structures is how to spur uptake of localized approaches.

Yet, as the COVID-19 pandemic has shown, many governments do not have the resources to independently finance their social protection and services budgets. Institutional and individual donors can play a pivotal role in supporting national efforts to localize. NEID Global, a national peer-to-peer learning network of passionate and dedicated global philanthropists, has been focused on this issue and recently hosted a conversation on how to scale localization efforts that featured Spark, Advocates for Community Alternatives, a West-African based community organization, and World Bank representation. Particularly for private donors who are motivated to align their giving with localization, the conversation surfaced three key learnings.

1. Define It

Because localization lacks an accepted definition, different interpretations exist that can be contradictory or in keeping with the letter but not the spirit of the approach. To identify meaningfully localized projects, donors should ask themselves these questions to gauge the degree to which the project reflects the identities, perspectives, and values of the people and community for whom it is designed. 

  • Who identified the issue or challenge that the project seeks to address?
  • Who designed the project using whose knowledge base to inform solutions?
  • How inclusive is the project? For example, did it involve (not just consult) all community identities, regardless of gender, ethnicity, wealth, or political power?
  • Who defines success and how to measure it?
  • Who is responsible for sustaining the project? Is that necessary?

2. Leverage Niche Power

While larger institutional funders can deploy multi-year, multi-million dollar grants, they are often slower to adapt their policies and procedures. Private philanthropy on the other hand can quickly deploy financial support and play a vital role supporting early-stage, innovative, or experimental approaches. These donors can provide seed funding, invest in new research, and generate momentum to accelerate uptake of best practices. Private donors can also be more nimble, for example, by adopting reporting metrics created with local organizations. Using this niche role to effectively cede power is in keeping with both the letter and spirit of localization.

3. Bridge Gaps through Intermediaries

On the other hand, donors have every right to desire assurances that their investment will be managed responsibly and utilized wisely. Community-based organizations with comparatively less capacity may not meet funder standards, particularly if these organizations are governed by different laws and customs. One solution is to use verified intermediaries with a proven track record of working locally. For example, the World Bank has long supported development projects led by communities but, like other large International Financial Institutions, it initially lacked a funding mechanism flexible enough to disburse funds at the local level. In the mid-2000s, it partnered with three Indonesian national NGOs in an effort to establish a roster of trusted community partners in Southeast Asia. The NGOs provided financial oversight and served as a go-between for the Bank and village organizations. And it worked! When the Bank audited these projects, it found that they met technical requirements and were responsible uses of public funds. Private donors can employ a similar approach with their giving.

By now, most donors have heard the call for multi-year, unrestricted grants that can be used for general operating expenses. Localization takes this equity conversation a step further. It asks for a genuinely trust-based approach. In return, localization shifts power and resources to communities and people historically denied decision-making authority. True localization is not a rapid approach, but a sea change that will require new norms and systems to achieve more equitable partnership.

For more information about localization, watch NEID Global’s recent webinar with Degan Ali of Adeso, follow the NEAR Network on social media, and read this piece on changing the aid approach to the Global South in The New York Times.