# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When spiderwebs unite, they can tie up a lion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This African proverb is about the power of working together. That seems so obvious, but there is a lot involved.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Decolonizing evaluation and its framework is a journey, not a destination. It requires ongoing learning, reflection, and collaboration.

# data[].attributes.headline
A consideration of grassroots in humanitarian 

# data[].attributes.subject
A consideration of grassroots in humanitarian 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
View of Digging in: A consideration of 'grassroots' in localisation discourse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Return to Article Details Digging in: A consideration of 'grassroots' in localisation discourse

# data[].attributes.body
This guide is developed by Intrac for DRC and gives good insights on working in partnerships and how you can transition from a transactional relationship to an equitable and strategic partnership.

# data[].attributes.headline
Locally led research- how to use local expertise in data collection, analysis, 

# data[].attributes.subject
Locally led research- how to use local expertise in data collection, analysis, 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
Elisa Sandri Maryana Zaviyska Myroslava Keryk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Locally-led humanitarian research - Humanitarian Leadership Academy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In this episode, we are focusing on locally-led humanitarian research. On the SHIFT programme example and reflecting on our partnerships with researchers in Ukraine and Poland, we discuss how local specialists are and should be involved in data collection, analysis, and research design. Tune in to hear from Maryana Zaviyska, Chief of Project Portfolio at […]

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.intrac.org/projects/shifting-the-power-through-monitoring-evaluation-and-learning/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
INTRAC reached its 30th anniversary in November 2021. During 2022, we planned to mark this milestone with a number of activities focused on the growing calls to shift power in the international development sector. This project focuses on the second and final phase, on shifting the power through monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL), which ran from May to August, 2022.

A series of blogs contributed by INTRAC staff, friends, and members of our network examined the topic from various perspectives:

In "Reimagining monitoring, evaluation, and learning through African folklore" (May 2022), Gervin Chanase from the West Africa Civil Society Institute (WACSI) explores how MEL processes can be more attuned to the culture of communities in Africa.

INTRAC Principal Consultant Rod MacLeod contributed the second blog, "Abuse of power? How M&E systems really operate" (July 2022). In it, Rod explores the power structure of MEL processes, which are rooted in the global North, and how these might be changed.

The third blog, "To what extent does feminist MEL shift the power?" (July 2022) is a collaboration between independent consultants and members of our network, Elanor Jackson and Kanwal Ahluwalia. In it, the authors describe their conception of a gender transformative MEL approach.

The fourth blog is titled "How can the shift the power process better reflect the unique insight of young people?" (August 2022). It is a condensed version of discussions between young civil society practitioners Willemijn de Bruin, Timothy Kisuule, Lily Maćków-McGuire, Marina Raoilimanantsoa, and Alastair Spray. A more full version of the discussions is available as a dialogue paper.

As a culmination to this phase of the 30th anniversary celebrations, INTRAC held the second of our two online events. Also titled "shifting the power through monitoring, evaluation, and learning", the event took place on 20 July 2022 and attracted over 200 participants from around the world. The full video recording is available below.

Additionally, an extensive written event summary is available as a downloadable PDF, and there is a playlist of short video highlights available on our YouTube channel. During the event, four speakers gave brief talks on different aspects of the interaction between MEL and shifting the power:

Franck A. Sombo (WACSI) on community-led monitoring and evaluation

Sophie Kange (DENIVA) on Culturally and contextually appropriate and effective MEL systems [Video]

Alison McKinley (Comic Relief) on knowledge asymmetries and participation deficits [Video]

Catriona Dejean (Tearfund) on Tearfund's localised change framework [Video]

To keep up with all of INTRAC's developments, be sure to sign up to our mailing list and to follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shifting the power through monitoring, evaluation, and learning - INTRAC

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Find out all about the second phase of our 30th anniversary celebrations, focusing on shifting the power through MEL.

# data[].attributes.body
https://statics.teams.cdn.office.net/evergreen-assets/safelinks/1/atp-safelinks.html

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.intrac.org/projects/shifting-the-power-through-organisational-development/

# data[].attributes.headline
Roles INGOs can play in localisation agenda

# data[].attributes.subject
Roles INGOs can play in localisation agenda

# data[].attributes.body
https://frompoverty.oxfam.org.uk/9-useful-roles-ingos-can-play-as-intermediaries-in-an-age-of-localization/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thanks to Ivan Campbell for alerting me to this really good (and brief) paper from Peace Direct, looking at useful roles for INGOs as intermediaries, as they seek to localize and/or step back from direct implementation. Edited down version below.

In recent years, there has been growing scrutiny of the largely unchanged role that INGOs have played in humanitarian, development and peacebuilding efforts. This scrutiny includes the push towards greater 'localisation', systems change processes that aim to 'shift power' towards more locally led development and global discussions around how to 'decolonise' the sector.

Peace Direct has identified at least nine additional roles for intermediaries, which reflect our experience working with local partners for over 20 years.

Interpreter

Donors and policymakers often publish statements and policies that are inaccessible and couched in jargon. This makes it difficult for local actors to interpret what they mean. Intermediaries can play a useful role in translating these policies to be more accessible. This can help to ensure that local groups can engage in wider geopolitical and thematic discussions, enabling them to share their perspectives and expertise.

Knowledge Broker and Producer

While the expertise needed to tackle complex humanitarian challenges is often found locally, there is also a wealth of knowledge and expertise elsewhere. It is found in the practice, research and insights generated by activists, communities and organisations all over the world. Yet local actors rarely have the time or resources to locate this knowledge and use it effectively. Intermediaries can play a useful role in bridging this gap. This can be between local actors in the Global South and actors in the Global North as well as facilitating knowledge exchange across different countries or continents in the Global South.

Intermediaries can also play a useful role in producing and sharing knowledge about the work that they support. This should be done with great care, since the production and consumption of knowledge is dominated by Global North actors. The need to decolonise research is widely acknowledged and any role for the intermediary as a knowledge producer should therefore be handled very sensitively.

Trainer, Coach and Co-Learner

Peace Direct's ' Time to Decolonise Aid ' report outlined how some INGOs and donors argue that local groups and communities 'lack capacity'. Local actors argue that INGOs use the 'low capacity' argument to justify their own plans, which results in them directly implementing activities, not working with local partners and maintaining a distorted view of countries and communities in the Global South. When local partners are included as partners, INGOs often justify their role as 'technical experts' even when this is not necessary.

While local organisations are rightly very critical of the problematic framing of 'capacity building' they also acknowledge that there are skills that they are keen to develop and strengthen and that they are keen to learn from others.

Intermediaries can plug this gap by providing training and coaching where necessary, for example training in donor reporting, advocacy and campaigning, or strategic planning. Intermediaries can also play a useful role in co-learning. This could mean developing a joint learning agenda with local partners and not assuming that their role is in facilitating the learning of their partners.

As with knowledge production, the role of trainer and coach should be handled with great care since 'capacity building' often masks deeply entrenched and often racist views of the superiority of 'Global North' approaches and expertise.

Convenor

Opportunities for collective reflection and learning among civil society actors are extremely limited. Shrinking civic space, increasing competition and suspicion among local actors means there are few opportunities to bring local groups together. In addition, the current system of funding for CSOs often pits local organisations against each other, which reinforces competition rather than collaboration. As a result, local groups rarely have the opportunity to strategise together and learn from one another. This leads to a weakening of local civil society.

Intermediaries can play a useful role in providing spaces for local groups to reflect, plan and learn together, either in-country or outside.

While in-person convenings are almost always the most rewarding, online convenings can be powerful spaces too, if online access can be provided.

Connector and Ecosystem Builder

Civil society in most Global South countries can be characterised as suffering from horizontal and vertical fragmentation. Horizontal fragmentation happens when local groups cannot connect with one another to learn and work together. There are a range of reasons for this: funding constraints, competition/suspicion, and logistical constraints such as poor roads, communications infrastructure, equipment, and lack of transportation.

Vertical fragmentation happens when local groups cannot connect to national and international organisations and processes. Horizontal and vertical fragmentation share many of the same causes. However vertical fragmentation often happens when 'elites' including INGOs and decision makers deliberately exclude local actors.

Intermediaries can help bridge these divides, by connecting local actors both horizontally and vertically. This can happen by playing a convening role (see point 4 above) but also through facilitating and funding exchanges and visits.

Advocate and Amplifier

One of the most impactful roles an intermediary can play is to use its power to advocate to policymakers on behalf of local actors, create space for local actors to advocate directly and ensure that local organisations receive a profile, credit and a platform for their work and achievements. The protection, power and influence, proximity to geopolitical power and visibility enjoyed by many intermediaries can be utilised to amplify the voices of those who aren't afforded these opportunities or who can't speak out due to security concerns.

Watchdog

In countries around the world, space for civil society to operate freely is declining. Civil society organisations, campaigners and leaders are facing increasingly repressive policies and actions by their own governments, leading to risks of impunity, violence and an erosion of human rights.

Intermediaries can play an important role as watchdogs, monitoring trends in the policies and practices of repressive and democratic states and raising this in the international arena. This is not only a way of utilising the power of the intermediary to uphold the rights of others; but is a powerful demonstration of solidarity which is highly valued by local partners.

Critical Friend

Many INGOs consider local actors as 'implementing partners' and treat them like subcontractors with commercial-style agreements to deliver specific outputs. Very few local actors want to be treated this way, but they feel that they have no choice. What local actors want are long term partnerships based on mutual respect, trust and flexibility.

Peace Direct has grown to understand that the role of the intermediary as a critical friend is highly valued. A critical friend does not use their power to dictate the terms of the relationship. Instead, they provide advice and guidance when asked and offer themselves as a sounding board for ideas, challenges and opportunities faced by the local partner. The 'friend' part of the equation is to be in solidarity with the aims and mission of their partner, to offer support when they make mistakes, and to see their partners as people we care about at a deeply human level.

Sidekick

The least known role for intermediaries is being the sidekick for local partners. By 'sidekick' we mean a subordinate role, one that supports the local organisation in whatever it needs, but doesn't overstep the support role.

While the role of the sidekick may mean performing many of the roles outlined in points 1-8 above, it is also a state of mind or philosophy which aims to reverse the status quo. This means that Global South actors are acknowledged as being in the driving seat, while Global North actors are passengers. The sidekick manifesto is a good example of how INGOs can conceptualise this commitment.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
9 Useful Roles INGOs can play as Intermediaries in an Age of Localization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thanks to Ivan Campbell for alerting me to this really good (and brief) paper from Peace Direct, looking at useful roles for INGOs as intermediaries, as they seek to localize and/or step back from direct implementation. Edited down version below.

# data[].attributes.headline
The New Humanitarian: Affected people are mostly missing from the localisation debate. Let’s change that.

# data[].attributes.subject
The New Humanitarian: Affected people are mostly missing from the localisation debate. Let’s change that.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/first-person/2022/04/19/reform-humanitarian-aid-talk-communities-crisis

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Crisis-affected Haitians prefer to receive aid from community-led groups that they see as honest, as treating them respectfully, and as understanding their predicament, they told us during recent research we conducted with The New Humanitarian.

This is a rare example of feedback from affected people about their preferences on who provides aid. For the most part, though, there is little effort across the humanitarian space to gauge the way they view the proposed localisation agenda - which shifts responsibility for aid provision from international to local organisations, a change that could have far reaching repercussions for them.

If we are to put affected people at the centre, they should have a say in who gets to implement aid programmes.

If we are to put affected people at the centre, the goal of the so-called "participation revolution," they should have a say in who gets to implement aid programmes.

Neglecting affected people's views on localisation reflects a broader tendency to ignore their perspective in the design and implementation of humanitarian aid programmes. Former UN humanitarian chief Mark Lowcock left office last year with a high-profile admission that attempts to improve accountability to affected people in humanitarian action hadn't worked.

It is not easy to find out whether affected people prefer local to international aid providers because the two categories are hard to distinguish from one another. This is because most aid workers whom affected people interact with are the local employees of international agencies or the staff of local organisations contracted to implement the programmes of their international partners.

We don't have robust findings on how people affected by crisis see the implications of localisation for their welfare, protection, and future prospects.

Then there are those omnipresent agency logos. The team collecting data for us, Ground Truth Solutions (GTS), in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh recently found that Rohingya refugees tended to associate all aid with the organisation that had the most prominent branding in the camps. In pre-Taliban Afghanistan, cash and voucher recipients saw the Afghan government as being behind cash programming rather than the World Food Programme or other organisations that were responsible.

These challenges go some way towards explaining why we don't have robust findings on how people affected by crisis see the implications of localisation for their welfare, protection, and future prospects. Another reason is that those who dominate the debate - donors, national organisations, and the established aid agencies - have not shown much interest in how affected people see these things. If they did, they might discover that affected people don't think it makes much difference who implements humanitarian programmes. Or, on the contrary, they might learn that affected people have strong views. Right now, we simply don't know, although the modest insights that emerge from some GTS survey findings warrant further inquiry.

In a 2017 project that looked at experience implementing the Core Humanitarian Standard by 15 aid organisations in four African and Asian countries, we learned that local organisations were seen by affected people as better at acting on feedback than their international counterparts.

The same year, in research looking at the impact of the reforms set out in the Grand Bargain, a majority of people in four of the six countries included in the study felt more comfortable making a complaint or a suggestion to an international agency than to a local one.

The views of humanitarian field staff are no substitute for the voices of affected people, but the way they see things is closer to realities on the ground than policy deliberations at the global level. Take our 2018 survey, in which we asked national and international aid workers how they saw each other's contribution. Respondents from national organisations rated their capacity higher and the support they received lower than their international counterparts - though the latter did consider national organisations capable of doing more and thought they should be better funded.

The localisation debate is often framed as an effort to throw off the neo-colonial yoke by shifting more responsibility and funding to local groups. This ignores another interpretation of humanitarianism's imperial pedigree, which holds that it is affected people who are most subject to neo-colonial attitudes and behaviours. It also overlooks the fact that in refugee situations, local structures may be viewed with fear. And in some places, using community leaders as gatekeepers is highly problematic, especially for women.

The questions thrown up by our admittedly limited research on the way affected people see some aspects of localisation suggest we should put more effort into finding out how they see the impact of this re-visioning of the aid architecture. If we do so, and heed their views, we may discover that humanitarian reform - whether it's localisation or something else - stands a greater chance of success.
The New Humanitarian collaborated with Ground Truth Solutions on Edited by Jessica Alexander assessing Haitians' attitudes toward aid, a project funded by H2H and the Gates Foundation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Affected people are mostly missing from the localisation debate. Let's change that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Crisis-affected Haitians prefer to receive aid from community-led groups that they see as honest, as treating them respectfully, and as understanding their predicament, they told us during recent research we conducted with The New Humanitarian. This is a rare example of feedback from affected people about their preferences on who provides aid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
'Dinosaurs' must become 'chameleons' and 'ostriches' change into 'eagles' as international NGOs fundamentally rethink their role so they can work in true partnership with local actors, says Oxfam's Adama Coulibaly. (Veuillez lire la version française de cet article ici.)

The impetus for decolonisation in global development is rooted in the recognition that the current system was built with a colonial mindset. This system perpetuates a power imbalance where those with resources and perceived knowledge dictate terms to those without. This long-standing imbalance has led to a disconnect between aid providers and recipients, often resulting in ineffective and culturally insensitive interventions.

Decolonisation is crucial to dismantling these outdated structures and building new, equitable partnerships. It means recognising the inherent power and agency of local communities and ensuring that their voices, rights and needs are at the heart of development efforts.

This shift involves procedural changes but also requires a fundamental change in the way power, agency and resources are distributed within the global development sector.

The what: identifying areas for change

Addressing the 'what' of decolonisation is a daunting challenge. It requires a comprehensive review of everything from funding models to programme implementation strategies as well as a profound shift in mindset, initiating a deep, reflective understanding of coloniality in all its forms: power, race, knowledge, gender and socio-economic relations.

Amitabh Behar, Oxfam's interim executive director, highlights four critical dimensions that global development must address to catalyse transformative change in his Devex opinion piece, "How to get from rhetoric to reality in decolonising development":

1. Decolonising design and structures: This includes relocating headquarters to the global south and democratising governance to ensure equal representation and decision-making power for all country units.

2. Decolonising money: This involves redistributing financial resources to the Global South, ensuring that most development funds are spent locally, and reducing the Northern bureaucracies that oversee these funds.

3. Decolonising Knowledge and Competence: This involves valuing local knowledge and frontline skills, investing in southern scholars and think tanks, and redefining competence to include field-based experience with higher pay and recognition.

4. Decolonising the theory of change: This approach advocates bottom-up design and decision-making in development interventions, ensuring that local groups have significant input and flexibility while also addressing broader issues of power distribution, resource allocation and knowledge production.

These are the pillars upon which colonial legacies are built and must be addressed to achieve true decolonisation.

The how: implementing effective strategies

Implementing decolonisation and localisation strategies requires strategic shifts within international non-governmental organisations (INGOs):

1. Dinosaurs to Chameleons: Moving from rigid structures to adaptable organisations that can respond to the diverse needs of communities.

2. Ostrich to Royal Eagle: Moving from risk aversion to strategic risk-taking to foster innovation and effective solutions.

3. Generalist to Specialist: Focusing on core competencies to maximise impact and effectiveness.

4. Cruise ship to speedboat: Transforming large, slow-moving organisations into agile entities that can adapt quickly.

5. Driver's seat to back seat: empowering local partners to take the lead while INGOs provide support and facilitation.

These strategic shifts are essential for INGOs to rethink their role and work in true partnership with local actors. You can read more about these in my article "Future of INGOs | Part 2: the era of shifting the power [from 'Global North' to 'Global South']".

Strengthening local voices

A crucial aspect of decolonisation and localisation is amplifying the voices of local actors. According to Mohamed Ali, founder and CEO of Iftiin Foundation, a local Somali NGO, this means ensuring that local communities have the agency to design, implement and evaluate development initiatives.

It underscores the importance of community agency and the need to recognise, value and strengthen the capacity, authority, influence and knowledge of local actors to ensure that those closest to the points of impact of development interventions are at the forefront.

It also means recognising and addressing inequalities within the Global South in order to create a truly inclusive and representative development sector. Two important areas to tackle are:

Representation and accountability: Ensuring that local actors have a seat at the decision-making table and holding donors accountable for their commitments are essential steps towards achieving true localisation. Transparency and accountability are critical to turning rhetoric into reality and making tangible progress on localisation.

Ground-level insights: Understanding how localisation is playing out on the ground is essential to addressing gaps and challenges. Examples such as the ASAL Humanitarian Network in Kenya, where local responders lead decision-making processes, highlight the potential of localisation but also the need for continued efforts in funding and capacity building.

Daily work and concrete actions

The journey of decolonisation and localisation is a collective one, requiring commitment and action from all actors in the global development sector. As we embark on this journey, it is essential to

Apply decolonisation principles to daily work and long-term strategies.

Take concrete actions to shift mindsets and challenge colonial legacies.

Foster a culture that values and integrates local voices in decision-making processes.

By addressing these areas, the sector can break down barriers and build a more equitable and just humanitarian and development landscape. Ongoing dialogue and joint efforts will shape a more inclusive future and demonstrate that global development can indeed be transformed through collective action.
Special thanks to my Oxfam colleagues Aleema Shivji, Abby Maxman, Lute Kazembe, John Kitui, Helen Stawski, Amy Croome, Marta Valdés García, Gloria Isabel García-Parra, John Samuel, Kathy Richards (she/her), Neelanjana Mukhia, Leela Ramdhani, Steve Price-Thomas, Francesc Cortada Hindersin and many more for sparking critical internal discussions on decolonisation and localisation; to our Interim CEO, Amitabh Behar, for insights on decolonising different dimensions of development; to Dr Salmah Eva-Lina Lawrence for her course on 'Conceptualising Decolonisation for Development'; and to Mohamed Ali Diini, Founder and CEO of This post is adapted from a post on the author's Positive Minds blog
On LinkedIn? Keep up with his latest posts by subscribing to the Positive Minds newsletter here Iftiin Foundation, Kate Moger, Global Director of Pledge for Change, Degan Ali, Executive Director of , Rose Maruru, co-founder and CEO of EPIC-Africa and Títílọpẹ Àjàyí, research and knowledge management consultant, for their contributions to the discourse on localisation and decolonisation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Want to decolonise your INGO? Get used to taking a back seat...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'Dinosaurs' must become 'chameleons' and 'ostriches' change into 'eagles' as international NGOs fundamentally rethink their role so they can work in true partnership with local actors, says Oxfam's Adama Coulibaly. (Veuillez lire la version française de cet article ici.) The impetus for decolonisation in global development is rooted in the recognition that the current system was built with a colonial mindset.

# data[].attributes.headline
The New Humanitarian: Localisation only pays lip service to fixing aid’s colonial legacy 

# data[].attributes.subject
The New Humanitarian: Localisation only pays lip service to fixing aid’s colonial legacy 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/opinion/2022/2/8/Localisation-lip-service-fixing-aid-colonial-legacy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stop referring to people like me as ‘local’

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
“Localisation” sounds simple and feels good, but the way it is practised skirts around the deeper issues of racism and exclusion.

# data[].attributes.headline
Partos'' Series of briefs on decolonisation of development sector

# data[].attributes.subject
Partos'' Series of briefs on decolonisation of development sector

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.partos.nl/publicatie/tracing-the-colonial-roots-of-development-cooperation-a-brief-history/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Part 1: Tracing the colonial roots of development cooperation: a brief history

This first Future Brief on the decolonisation of the development sector takes a historical approach. We will uncover how the colonial project was intimately connected to the origins of development cooperation by tracing the interlinkages between colonialism and development. In doing so, this brief lays the historical foundations necessary to understand the present and move towards a decolonised future.

Part 2: Colonial remnants in contemporary development cooperation

In the second part, we tackle the present by building on the historical perspective of the first brief. As a result, it shows how the colonial elements have worked their way through our past into the present, affecting the development sector in complex ways. In this brief, we employ the 'iceberg model' to explore what lies underneath, sustaining the ties between colonialism and development cooperation.

Part 3: The future is now: actionable pathways towards a decolonised development sector

To conclude the trilogy on the decolonisation of development cooperation, this third brief adopts a future-oriented perspective to explore actionable pathways towards a decolonised sector.

Building on the 'iceberg model' employed in the second brief, it shows that we need a two-pronged approach to tackle colonial remnants in 1) dominant mindsets, attitudes and values that make up the 'deep structures' of development cooperation; and 2) visible behaviours, practices and policies, situated at the tip of the iceberg. As such, we first zoom in on the 'deep structures' to give organisations and practitioners a starting point for a reflexive journey to decolonise mindsets, attitudes and values. The second section focuses on four dimensions of development cooperation:

1. Communication

2. Resource mobilisation and grant-making

3. Planning, monitoring, evaluation and learning (PMEL)

4. Diversity, equity and inclusion, to provide inspiring examples of decolonial initiatives and distil good practices.

We hope to inspire action by discussing specific initiatives rather than providing a definitive 'how to' guide. Ultimately, every development practitioner and organisation will have their unique trajectory towards decolonisation.

Every Future Brief is available in 5 languages

A French, Spanish, Arabic, English and Dutch version of the Future Brief are available.

نسخة عربية من هذا المنتج متاحة

Une version française de ce produit est disponible

Una versión en español de este producto está disponible

Een Nederlandse versie van dit product is beschikbaar

Image source: The French Colonies, Cover of a school notebook by Georges Dascher, circa 1900

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Future Brief: Decolonisation of the development sector - Partos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This first Future Brief on the decolonisation of the development sector takes a historical approach. We will uncover how the colonial project was intimately connected to the origins of development cooperation by tracing the interlinkages between colonialism and development. In doing so, this brief lays the historical foundations necessary to understand the present and move towards a decolonised future.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article by ITAD: development consultancy based in UK on localizing MEL practises

# data[].attributes.subject
Article by ITAD: development consultancy based in UK on localizing MEL practises

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.itad.com/article/facilitating-change-localising-monitoring-evaluation-and-learning/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We recently hosted two learning events on localisation, bringing together monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) practitioners. Reflections from these highlight some of the important issues and actions needed to facilitate localised MEL.

These included the importance of shifting:

power, roles and responsibilities within a project,

the perceived value of local knowledge and expertise,

and resource availability and distribution

Localised monitoring, evaluation and learning is undertaken by the populations in which development programmes are delivered.

It should encompass the whole programme cycle from conception and design to implementation and dissemination.

It should aim to build institutional and individual capacity and promote a culture of decision-making that is based on locally-generated evidence and responds to local needs. As such adequate support must be made available to both commissioners and practitioners to support this.

What change is needed to facilitate localisation?

The annual gLOCAL Evaluation Week is dedicated to monitoring and evaluation knowledge sharing events around the globe, convened by the Global Evaluation Initiative.

In collaboration with the Centre for Learning and Evaluating Results for Anglophone Africa (CLEAR-AA), we hosted two knowledge exchanges to share knowledge and ideas on what is needed to facilitate localisation of MEL.

While not a new concept, discussions from our events reinforced the importance of shifting power in MEL practices to enable recentring. This includes considering:

Local knowledge and expertise

This first point underpins much of the discussions we had during the knowledge exchanges. Participants highlighted that local knowledge and expertise should be better valued to ensure methods and approaches are grounded in their operating contexts. There also needs to be a recognition of evidence that already exists; currently the common exclusion of non-English sources is a key barrier to recognising this evidence base.

Roles and responsibilities

Local stakeholders should be engaged throughout the programme cycle; those with contextual knowledge and expertise should be involved in deciding what is being evaluated and how, and who is benefitting from the findings.

This will require Northern-based organisations ensuring that engagements with practitioners in the country are not extractive and don't only account for Western definitions of quality.

The owners and beneficiaries of knowledge production

Currently, within projects it is largely the responsibility organisations and individuals in the Global North to produce knowledge products and events (i.e blogs, one-page overviews, webinars) following an evaluation. There is a bias towards the inclusions of team members based in the global South in this knowledge production and preserves the dominance of Western knowledge. Localising MEL demands that individuals from the local intervention system are active participants in producing and owning knowledge.

Resourcing

There have been many debates on the need to shift funding toward organisations and practitioners based in the Global South. However, there is also a need to also ensure resources are available for two-way capacity building. This includes safeguarding time and budget for all partners to gain MEL skills and ensure local ways of thinking are captured and used.

What are we doing to recentre MEL?

While we don't have all the answers, we have taken a number of steps to recentre MEL. We are:

Expanding and strengthening relationships with our global network of consultants.

Intentionally ensuring our consultants in the global south have equal opportunity for leadership positions and are involved in finalising MEL products.

Sharing learning and two-way capacity development with partners in the global south through our values led 'Global Itad' initiative. This was launched in 2021 and invests in values-driven partnerships to serve not only Itad and our direct partners, but networks of local MEL talent more broadly. CLEAR-AA is one of Itad's first partners in this initiative.

What can stakeholders do to facilitate change?

Our knowledge exchanges emphasised that everyone has a role to play in facilitating this shift in power. During the discussions, participants highlighted several actionable steps that different stakeholders should consider toward this.

Funders and commissioners

Give space for thought partnerships within evaluation projects so that adequate time and resources can be allocated to learning.

Include Southern-based organisations and practitioners in evaluation steering committees.

Open up space for critical dialogue on procurement processes, recognising that current systems make it harder for some Southern-based organisations to lead MEL projects.

Remember that accountability is not a line that stops with satisfaction of the funder. Programme goals, targets for performance, and decisions on course-correction should be made based on the meaningful inclusion of beneficiaries and local partners' perspectives.

Northern-based MEL practitioners and consultancies

Build trusted partnerships with local evaluators and MEL organisations, recognising that relationship-building takes time and should not be done reactively or just in time for a proposal.

Consider roles and responsibilities in the evaluation project well in advance to ensure that local partners are meaningfully involved at each stage. Create a space for equal discussions on who is in charge of design, leadership, coordination, execution, and quality assurance.

Be conscious of Western ideas of 'quality' that don't serve beneficiaries and local systems. Consider downward accountability to the intended beneficiaries of the evaluated interventions alongside conventional upward accountability to funders or decision-makers.

Think ahead to who benefits from the knowledge created and make findings accessible to local audiences - approaches and methods mustn't be extractive.

Southern-based MEL practitioners/consultancies

Ensure your knowledge of local systems is used to amplify the voices of beneficiaries and to improve local ownership of programmes and initiatives.

Require active involvement in all components of MEL systems.

Promote two-way capacity-building programmes within projects.

Note: Many of the considerations raised during the events point towards participatory methods and co-production. While we agree with this direction, we also acknowledge the need to be cautious around "viewing co-production as a panacea", detailed by Morkel and Sibanda in a recent article which we recommend.

Of course, our knowledge exchanges highlighted the most pressing issues for participants but are not meant to be definitive solutions to a broad and complex debate. They have, however, provided rich insights for further exploration.

Alongside CLEAR-AA, we hope to build on these discussions to develop a future manifesto articulating what is needed to create an environment for localising MEL.
We will be keeping this conversation going through out networks and at other events. If you'd like to get involved in these discussions,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Facilitating change: localising monitoring, evaluation and learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We recently hosted two learning events on localisation, bringing together monitoring, evaluation and learning (MEL) practitioners. Reflections from these highlight some of the important issues and actions needed to facilitate localised MEL.

# data[].attributes.headline
Three types of localisation from Arbie Baguios

# data[].attributes.subject
Three types of localisation from Arbie Baguios

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.alnap.org/localisation-re-imagined-the-three-types-of-localisation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The difference between localisation that localises the sector and one that genuinely supports local solutions is determined by localisation's three dimensions: resources, agency and ways of being - as I argued in the previous article.

Now, how would these dimensions apply to the examples of local solutions given in the first article - such as the initiatives of my friends in the Philippines or the scientists helping to treat Covid-19 in India? Suppose that a forward-thinking INGO wanted to support their work through localisation (i.e., working with them instead of direct implementation). How would that look like?

If done through a localising the sector model, the INGO in the Philippines would likely require Gela (whose project raises funds, including via community entrepreneurship, for the needs of a typhoon-ravaged and climate-vulnerable island) and Rafa (who was part of a group that started a community pantry for those affected by Covid-19) to register as formal charitable organisations (along with having the necessary governance structure), and to have formal policies and standard operating procedures. Jenica and Michael, who are both working for formal organisations, would have to align their work with the INGO's strategies and priorities - for instance, if their work is more 'development', then perhaps they could add a few 'humanitarian' activities or frame their development work as such in their proposals. The Indian scientists who invented ventilators may be asked to share their knowledge via a meeting with technical experts, or the firm where they work may be asked to donate or become a supplier to the INGO - but nothing else beyond that.

In other words, in the international humanitarian system as it currently is, resource transfer to local actors would be limited, the local actors' agency would still be encroached upon (because they would not be able to fully make their own decisions), and their ways of being would not be fully respected (because they would have to conform to international expectations of what humanitarian actors should be).

In these examples, there is still some sort of localisation, but not to the extent that fulfils the radical localisation that local actors imagined prior to the World Humanitarian Summit. This shows how localising the sector and supporting local solutions are not a binary but a spectrum - along which it would be possible for localisation to be categorised under different kinds or types. If humanitarian workers and researchers were to advance the practice and knowledge of localisation, then it would be beneficial to understand the different ways that localisation can be realised.

In this article, I aim to show that the three dimensions - resources, agency and ways of being - characterise the power dynamic (i.e. where the locus of power lies) in localisation. This power dynamic, in turn, is what determines the 'type' of localisation: instrumental, decentralising or progressive. Seeing localisation through these different types, it becomes possible to assess whether there is a shift in (the locus of) power to local actors.

In order to proceed, we need to talk about that elusive but important element: power.

The concept of power

'Power', according to Fast and Bennett 'is...the fuel that energises [the sector's] institutions, partnerships and decisions'. This is true for localisation, too. King, Pinnington, Martins and I suggest that, in the aid sector, 'power infuses everything - including localisation efforts'. In the previous article, I proposed that resources, agency and ways of being characterise localisation. In this article, I want to be more specific: these three dimensions determine the power dynamic within localisation, which gives localisation its character.

But what is power? In answering this, it helps to bring in a classic text on the subject. Lukes, in his influential book Power: A Radical View, defines power based on the three ways it is exercised: decision-making power (the way decisions are made), non-decision-making power (the parameters in which such decisions are made), and ideological power (the ideas that inform such ways and parameters of decision-making).

In the context of localisation, its dimensions - resources, agency and ways of being - represent how power is exercised. For example, resources correspond closely to decision-making power, because they determine what kind of actions can be taken (i.e. depending on funding priorities or budgets; depending on staffing levels; and so on). Agency is the ability not only to make decisions (thus corresponding with decision-making power), but also to shape the formal decision-making parameters (which relates to non-decision-making power) - for instance, when donors are the ones deciding on eligibility criteria or due diligence requirements. Ways of being, which looks at whether or not localisation respects local actors' being and understanding of the world, is reflected in the ideas underlying (formal and informal) decision-making (corresponding with ideological power) - for instance, the ideas around what humanitarian 'effectiveness' means or what is the most appropriate organisational form that local actors must embody to access funding.

These are not clear-cut distinctions - how these dimensions correspond to Lukes' conceptualisation of power may overlap. For example, resources can also shape ideological power - after all, those with better resources have a stronger influence on ideas (like how humanitarian education in universities is dominated by the well-resourced Global North, which means people in the Global North have a disproportionate influence on ideas that are taught in humanitarian courses). Nevertheless, this stylistic representation can help us better to characterise the power dynamic in localisation efforts.

Power: a zero-sum game?

Lukes' idea helps us to recognise that in localisation efforts - through resources, agency and ways of being - someone is prevailing in the exercise of decision-making, non-decision-making and ideological power. This, then, makes visible who is exercising power, and how they are exercising it. If we know who is exercising power, and how they are exercising it, this makes it possible to 'shift the power'.

By 'shifting the power', I mean moving the locus of power: from donors and INGOs to local actors. The meaning of 'locus' in psychology can be insightful in this regard. It is often used in the phrase ' locus of control '. When an individual's locus of control is external, they often feel powerless about the things that happen to them ('others control my destiny'), which leads to negative psychological behaviours. But if their locus of control is internal ('I control my destiny'), then it can lead to more positive ways of dealing with life's difficulties.

That localisation's locus of power can be shifted runs contrary to the popular idea that, as Fast and Bennet argue, 'local humanitarian action is not a zero-sum game.' They write, 'Supporting local humanitarian action implies contextualised and complementary functions, not simply a reduced role for international humanitarian organisations or increased roles for local actors, where the contributions of one preclude those of others'.

Given what I've outlined above, however, it's clear that one cannot have one's localisation cake and eat it, too. Decisions are usually either taken by international actors or local actors. Money is either transferred to the local actors or not. Cultural approaches may be followed or ignored. Perhaps 'zero-sum game' is not the most fitting term to describe this dynamic (these are not quantifiable figures, and actual situations are more complex than the simple illustrations above). But in the context of localisation, it is possible to see where the locus of power lies - and usually, it's with the international actors.

The three emerging types of localisation

It thus becomes possible to characterise localisation by how it does (or does not) shift the locus of power to local actors. Based on this characteristic, three types of localisation emerge along a spectrum: instrumental, decentralising and progressive.

Instrumental

Instrumental localisation is when there is mostly only a transfer of resources - where agency remains encroached upon and local ways of being are not respected. As noted in the previous article, localisation is still largely measured only in terms of funding transferred to local actors (e.g., the Inter-Agency Standing Committee localisation marker). If a donor provides a significant amount of funding directly to local actors, but still gets to decide what kind of local actors are eligible to receive such funding and how the money can be used, this fulfils localisation indicators. In this scenario, local actors serve as instruments by which international actors can exercise their will and pursue their own interests, and the locus of power remains with the international actor.

Decentralising

Van Brabant and Patel describe a 'decentralisation interpretation of localisation' as being achieved 'if strategic, operational and financial decisions are made close to the at risk or affected areas, and if 25% of financial resources go "as directly as possible" to "local" actors'. Building on this description, decentralising localisation can be understood as a transfer of resources and a reduction, to a certain extent, on the encroachment of local actors' agency. If local actors receive direct funding as well as greater freedom to make decisions not just on funding but on all aspects of their work, then that has a decentralising effect. One example is 'nationalising' an INGO country office so that it's run by staff from that context - there are greater resources and agency, although the local INGO office likely would still have to 'play by the rules' of the global INGO federation and the wider international humanitarian sector. The locus of power is somewhat shifted towards local actors, so it is a positive step. However, in some cases the locus can still be mostly nearer the side of international actors.

Progressive

Progressive localisation transfers a significant amount of resources, does not encroach on the agency of the local actors to a high degree, and respects local actors' ways of being. In this type of localisation, local actors not only have the funding and the autonomy, but they are also able to respond to crises and solve humanitarian problems on their own terms, via their own knowledge and understanding of the world, in a way that shapes their own destinies. Within the international humanitarian architecture and its institutional context, this is very rare. Control and paternalism appear to be the norm. For instance, the similar although not equivalent concept of unconditional cash transfers - which gives recipients the dignity and autonomy of purchasing what they need instead of being predetermined by someone else - took several decades before it entered mainstream humanitarian practice and achieved significant milestones. An example that is close to progressive localisation features in the previous article: in responding to Tropical Cyclone Harold and Covid-19, the Pacific Island NGOs had access to resources, exercised their agency to make decisions and their ways of being were respected, especially in how their indigenous knowledge informed the response. Progressive localisation shifts the locus of power to local actors in a radical way.

Both ends of the localisation spectrum

As I mentioned earlier, localisation can be seen as a spectrum that ranges between localising the sector and supporting local solutions. In between both ends of this spectrum lie the three types of localisation. Instrumental localisation and decentralising localisation are closer to localising the sector, where the Global North retains the locus of power (although less so in the latter than the former). International actors still have most of the power to make decisions and set decision-making parameters, and they have the hegemony over ideas that shape such processes. The locus of power is shifted only to a limited extent, and only to formal humanitarian organisations for 'humanitarian' activities.

By contrast, progressive localisation is firmly in the direction of genuinely supporting local solutions. The locus of power is shifted to local actors that aim to address humanitarian problems - on their own terms, no matter how they 'look', in ways that are relevant and appropriate to their context, and in a manner that is able to transcend the arbitrary humanitarian-development divide.

Conclusion and further questions

There are a variety of ways to 'do' localisation (in fact, in another article, King, Martins, Pinnington and I looked at more than 21 localisation initiatives, in part to see how their publicly stated goals align with the three dimensions of resources, agency and ways of being). Not all localisation endeavours are equal - some are instrumental or decentralising (thus, localising the sector), while some are progressive (when they genuinely support local solutions). This is determined by where the locus of power lies.

Recognising the three types of localisation opens up avenues for further research. How could we better identify these types of localisation empirically (for instance, how can localisation indicators be remodelled in light of such types)? And how exactly does humanitarian performance correspond with each type of localisation?

In any case, by making visible the power dynamic, this proposed typology of localisation can help finally to fulfil the radical promise of localisation by decisively shifting the power to local actors.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Localisation Re-imagined: The three types of localisation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The difference between localisation that localises the sector and one that genuinely supports local solutions is determined by localisation's three dimensions: resources, agency and ways of being - as I argued in the previous article.

# data[].attributes.headline
Article by IARAN: humanitarian network that provides strategic support to humanitarian professionals

# data[].attributes.subject
Article by IARAN: humanitarian network that provides strategic support to humanitarian professionals

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.iaran.org/blog/localisation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many have said it before: localisation needs to stop being a talking point and start being a reality. But we have been saying this since the advent of capacity building. So do we really mean it? If so, how can we bring about localised change effectively, and swiftly?

Like Turkeys approaching Thanksgiving

As my team and I have argued in a number of articles since the release of our report on the Future of the Aid sector through to 2030, INGOs, as they evolve, will increasingly need to mimic turkeys in the approach to thanksgiving. Alright, we haven't all said it in the same way. But the general consensus is that INGOs will need to embrace their end. They will need to stop existing for the sake of it. As they specialise, and focus on their specific value add, they will need to downsize, and realise that bigger is not always better. This will not be easy - when we talk about downsizing in large INGOs we often mean the dissolution of entire departments - these are human costs we're talking about - jobs, lives, careers, or as we often like to call them: livelihoods.

It will be Painful

Genuinely shifting power, rather than just capacity or resources, to national NGOs, local organisations, grassroots movements, or even 'beneficiaries', will be a long and painful transition. This transformation should not be regarded as a readjustment of political language, a short-term project focussed on rebalancing perceptions. The length of time it will take, should also not be used as a shield to hide behind. Just because it will be a lengthy process doesn't mean we should not start on it at all, or that we should waste years talking about how localisation might result in a lowered quality of programming. Or that counterterrorism legislation makes localisation impossible. Localisation will be a negotiated process during which the differences (in values, priorities and roles) of the north and the south will need to be ironed out.

Studies[1] have shown that more diverse workplaces produce more creative ideas, but also tend to disagree more. Surely this is the aim for the aid sector - the industry should represent the diversity of those we serve, but also effectively come up with creative solutions to challenges such as access, fundraising, and political stalemates. This diversity will result in more disagreement, yes. But we have come to the end of the road landmarked by monolithic INGOs. The time for a more diverse, at times clashing, global humanitarian workforce, has arrived.

At Shifting the Power, Walking the Walk an event hosted in London last month by the START Network, Anne Street from CAFOD said: we're in an uncomfortable place at the moment, but maybe that's where we should be. I would add, this is where we should continue to be, as we become more diverse. It is specifically this diversity which will encourage us to question our motives and values further, to ensure that the work we do stands up to criticism and can hold its own in the long-run.

Power Shifting is Non-negotiable

At a recent event we organised for our future of aid report, we were asked, is localisation a fait accompli? The answer is unequivocally, yes. There is no exit option on this one - it is the future and it should have been the past.

At Shifting the Power, Ben Emmens said that localisation needed to be a 'conscious letting go of power, by those who hold the tightest grip. He describes this shift in power, to be a process that requires courage. Courage to adjust our mindset and structures, and invest in movements that we do not control.

These conclusions reflect precisely what we suggest in our Future of Aid report, which launched in July 2017: money, decision-making, skills, staff but most importantly power needs to shift from northern INGOs to local NGOs. From large institutional donors to foundations that are linked to crisis affected populations and can work directly with them in order to decide how much, and how money should be spent.

To conclude the aforementioned event, Ben Emmens made a clever statement that played on the title of the event: walking the walk. He said: "some have wandered, some have marched, and others have stopped for breath. There is also the African proverb: 'the path is made by walking.'" Those who are walking the walk and embracing localisation are the ones forging a courageous path forward. They are leap-frogging the rest of us. These leading organisations need to be commended, copied, and their efforts scaled. We can work on this together, or we can work on this alone - the destination will be the same one.

Flipping the Coin

At another event we discussed along similar, more provocative lines: If the West was suddenly hit with a crisis, would Western governments accept that a foreign country from the global South, say China, enter our territory to delivery aid without direct government supervision? Not a chance. But it's what aid organisations do in countries around the world every day.

It's only what we would ask for in return.
*This article is based on discussion that took place at an event organised by Shifting the Power, on localisation
Some examples of organisations incentivizing localisation:

CAFOD: when grants come through this organisation and over 7% is allocated to overheads, CAFOD shares half with their local partner.

The START Network is reopening membership to southern NGOs for the first time since 2015.

[1] E.g.: Guardian, Forbes, Harvard Business Review. An example of the latter

Michel Maietta, Director of the IARAN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shifting the Power: A Few Hard Truths on Localisation - IARAN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many have said it before: localisation needs to stop being a talking point and start being a reality. But we have been saying this since the advent of capacity building. So do we really mean it? If so, how can we bring about localised change effectively, and swiftly?

# data[].attributes.headline
Devex Article on why localisation isnt working

# data[].attributes.subject
Devex Article on why localisation isnt working

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.devex.com/news/opinion-localization-isn-t-working-here-s-why-104178

# data[].attributes.headline
Video of Degan Ali on localisation of aid 

# data[].attributes.subject
Video of Degan Ali on localisation of aid 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrLKpPDn6rQ&t=239s

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Degan Ali, Executive Director of Adeso – The Norad Conference 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Here we present our podcast “The Power Shift: Decolonising Development”, with the YouTube video and links to the audio and transcript.