There has been increased scholarly and policy attention to “localized” responses to displacement, in the hope that further empowering local actors may unlock new means of protecting refugees’ rights and addressing their needs. However, these efforts have often oversimplified power relations within localization processes, bringing some players into focus while occluding others, and devoting insufficient attention to how localization processes and the power dynamics surrounding them have evolved over time. In response, this article draws on theories of subalternity and subaltern agency from the field of postcolonial studies to develop a more nuanced conceptualization of power in localization processes in the refugee regime. We contend that subalternity is best understood as a fluid, relational position that changes over time, such that particular refugees and displaced groups may oscillate between dominant and marginalized, subaltern subject positions, within intersecting systems of power. We probe refugees’ subaltern agency in terms of resistance and persistence, and deepen this account through analysis of localized responses to Burundian refugees in Tanzania, focusing on the localization of efforts to secure durable solutions for refugees. We argue that localization scholarship, particularly in the context of the refugee regime, needs to move beyond homogenized, dehistoricized, and romanticized notions of grassroots, refugee-led responses and focus on complex and fluid power configurations among diverse local actors.

On December 14 and 15, 2021, the first High-Level Officials Meeting (HLOM) of the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR) took stock of the progress made since the first Global Refugee Forum (GRF) held two years prior. While the in-person HLOM was held in Geneva, Switzerland, the event also made provisions for a hybrid virtual space for participants (partners and stakeholders of the GCR) to share content relating to the progress made thus far.

Per the HLOM 2021 theme of “reflecting progress and charting the future,” LERRN submitted the following video to the Virtual Platform, which focuses on LERRN’s work to achieve localization and refugee participation in the field of forced migration research.

Event details and recordings available here.

On Thursday, 01 October, the Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN) and the (IDRC) hosted a webinar discussing the recommendations brought forth by the Honourable Bob Rae’s on Canada’s role in mobilizing a global response to the enormous global challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the specific challenges faced by the international refugee system. The webinar attracted almost 200 participants, bringing together scholars and practitioners from Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and North America. The distinguished panelists , Mustafa Alio, Dr. Maha Shuayb, Linda Oucho and affirmed the value of Canadian leadership in the refugee context, which can take many forms including: funding, greater leadership on issues of forced displacement including in Central America, resettlement, complementary pathways, multilateral engagement in peacebuilding, and the promotion of refugee participation.

Bob Rae emphasized, “We need to really begin to recognize that the world is changing, that refugee camps have become permanent settlements, that the voices of refugees need to be amplified and listened to.” Mustafa Alio urged other states to follow the lead of Canada in institutionalizing refugee participation in international delegations and called on actors to normalize refugee participation. Given the protracted nature of displacement, the inclusion of refugee voices is critical in the search for solutions, and there is a need for more opportunities for dialogue involving refugees, host governments, NGOs, international organizations and donors. During the COVID-19 pandemic, refugee-led organizations have demonstrated their value and capacity to respond to important needs in refugee and host communities. The panel affirmed recommendation #7 of Bob Rae’s report, which calls on Canada to financially support refugee-led organizations.

Although humanitarian efforts are valuable, Bob Rae stressed that they’re not enough. “We have to convince people that it’s actually in our interest to create a better refugee system.” Bob Rae identified the need to address the sources of conflict by engaging in conflict resolution, peacebuilding efforts and economic development. Solutions for displacement need to be contextualized for national and local contexts. Over the past 10 or 20 years, there has been a focus on containment and other restrictive policies. However, at some local levels like cities or regions, there is evidence of political will to welcome refugees.

Dr. Maha Shuayb cautioned that localization has recently become a buzzword in humanitarian practice and that it needs to be fully defined and understood to avoid unintended consequences, like reinforcing a Global North containment agenda or providing funding to weak national governments at the expense of local NGOs and refugees which has happened in Lebanon. It is important to establish accountability and examine existing approaches to working with host governments to ensure that localization truly benefits refugees. Furthermore, the panelists argued that we need to build a new political argument in support of refugees, not only using humanitarian and legal language, but also identifying areas where it is in the self-interest of states to work toward solutions for displacement. A political argument will be important for convincing people of the importance and the value of refugee protection.

As Linda Oucho noted, the COVID-19 pandemic offers an opportunity for reflection to identify what is working, where there are gaps and how to pursue change for the future. Gregory Maniatis suggested there’s a need to fundamentally rebuild the resettlement system by opening channels and complementary pathways such as labour mobility and family reunification. There are also important lessons that can be learned by looking at history, including successful examples of multilateral cooperation leading to solutions for large numbers of refugees. Bob Rae argued that Canada should be prepared to seize the opportunities of the current moment to contribute to positive change surrounding issues of displacement, not only now but for generations into the future.

LERRN is thrilled to continue the discussions on innovative solutions with and for refugees during the pandemic, and beyond. This webinar was the first in a series of webinars co-hosted by LERRN and IDRC. These monthly seminars will address several dimensions of forced displacement, with an emphasis on the perspectives of partners closest to the issues being discussed. Stay tuned through our website and as we announce details of the next webinar.

This report was prepared by Yasmine Ghania, LERRN Communications Officer.

Akalya Atputharajah, PhD Candidate, School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa

Javans Wanga, Master of Arts in Forced Migration Student, Moi University, Kenya

Executive Summary

Localization is not a new agenda, but it re-emerged as a major area of focus for global refugee policy during the World Humanitarian Summit (2016) with the Grand Bargain and more recently in the 2018 Global Compact for Refugees. There are many benefits of localization, including reduced costs, deeper connections to vulnerable populations, and reduced duplication of services (Geoffrey and Grunewald 2017). However, there are also numerous barriers to localization, including due diligence and risk management systems, indirect funding structures, and the perception of international NGOs that local NGOs have insufficient capacities (Emmens and Clayton 2020). In Kenya, the refugee situation is becoming increasingly long-term after more than 20 years of hosting refugees and funding is dwindling, making the country an important case study. To this end, we conducted four weeks of fieldwork in Kenya. This research characterizes the extent of the localization of humanitarian action in Kenya as limited localization. Examples of localization included training, inter-agency and sectoral steering committees, and local hiring by international NGOs. Barriers included gatekept funds by UNHCR and a lack of trust in local NGOs. Informed by Aldrich’s (1976) resource dependence model, we highlight major barriers specifically related to the organizations’ dependence on resources. First, INGOs must mitigate risks in a UNHCR-dominated field and are limited in their ability to localize if they are in implementing partnerships themselves, since they must mitigate their own risks by not deviating from what is outlined in those partnerships. Second, exchanges between the UNHCR and other NGOs have established a strong domain consensus, in which the UNHCR is at the centre, INGOs are close to the centre and LNGOs are at the periphery. Third, LNGOs lack access to resources to engage in equal partnerships. To address these barriers, this paper concludes with three policy recommendations: a stronger UNHCR stance on direct funding to LNGOs, a reconceptualization of localization as an imminent priority instead of an eventual transition, and a formalization of INGO exit strategies to encourage concrete steps toward localization.

View the full LERRN Working Paper Series here:

Watch this video to learn more about Akalya and Javans’ research in Kenya.

DOI

Citation

Atputharajah, A., Wanga, J. (2020). The Impact of Resource Dependence on the Localization of Humanitarian Action: The Case of Kenya. Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN).

Merve Erdilmen, McGill University

Witness Ayesiga Sosthenes, University of Dar es Salaam

Executive Summary

The idea of strengthening local humanitarian actors’ capacities, and access to funding and information, as well as making local non-governmental organizations essential partners in strategic decision-making processes, has been around globally since the early 1990s. Localization efforts have gained momentum since the World Humanitarian Summit (2016), alongside other international platforms and commitments, including the Charter for Change (2015), the Grand Bargain (2016), and the Global Compact on Refugees (2018). Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the essential role local actors play in responding to the crisis.

Amid greater efforts to realize localization ideals in different parts of the world, many have raised concerns about the issues at stake in these initiatives, and the factors that affect their success or failure. Hence, it remains important to better understand localization efforts in various contexts, the opportunities they provide, and challenges they pose.

This paper provides a general overview of opportunities and challenges for localization initiatives in Tanzania. Our research has aimed to understand the impediments faced by local nongovernmental actors and the sources of impediments to localization of humanitarian assistance and refugee protection initiatives in Tanzania. During our five weeks of field work in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, we employed a mix of in-depth stakeholder interviews, participant observation and process tracing. Our findings show that even though the localization process has made important progress globally, it remains to be studied how international political economy concerns and power inequalities embedded in humanitarian action inform localization initiatives on the ground. Our paper provides the first analysis of this link in localization between global and local. Furthermore, we also provide several recommendations for policymakers and future research.

View the full LERRN Working Paper Series here:

DOI

Citation

Erdilmen, M., Sosthenes, W. A. (2020).Opportunities and Challenges for Localization of Humanitarian Action in Tanzania. Local Engagement Refugee Research Network (LERRN).

The event built from commitments made to the localization of humanitarian action, stemming from the 2016 , the commitments, the and the 2018 . While there remains a commitment to work more substantively through local actors – national NGOs, refugee-led initiatives, and national academics – significant barriers remain.

The event sought to unpack some key questions: What is localization? What is its value and importance? And how can localization be enhanced through practical steps to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of refugee responses in the global South, which hosts 80% of the world’s refugees?

To answer these questions, the event featured insights from a critical group of actors who have experience in the challenges and opportunities that derive from localization, speaking from the perspective of donors, an international NGO, a national NGO, academics based in major refugee-hosting states and refugee-led organizations:

• Mozghan Moarefizadeh, Executive Director, RAIC Indonesia
• Pascal Zigashane, Director, URISE for Africa Initiative, Kakuma, Kenya
• Janemary Ruhundwa, Executive Director, Dignity Kwanza, Tanzania
• Maha Shuayb, Director, Centre for Lebanese Studies, Lebanese American University
• Alejandra MacĂ­as Delgadillo, Executive Director, Asylum Access MĂ©xico
• Arjan de Haan, Director, Inclusive Economies, International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Canada
• Anna Crowley, Division Director, Open Society Foundations, UK
• Jessie Thomson, Vice President, Partnerships for Global Change, CARE Canada

The discussion identified key issues that need to be addressed for progress on localization to be realized. Participants noted the range of interests held by larger, international organizations and actors, and the extraordinary imbalance in power relations between such actors and local actors. A number of speakers spoke to the practical barriers that need to be addressed to enhance localization, from the registration of local organizations to the capacity of such organizations to meet the reporting requirements of external donors.

More critically, speakers identified the immense value that local actors bring to refugee responses. Local actors have more nuanced understandings of local contexts, have networks and connections that can be mobilized to advocate for change, are seen as more legitimate by nationalist and populist governments, and remain in the country long after the spot-light has faded and international attention has waned. Given that refugee situations now last an average of 20 years, this sustained presence is increasingly important.

Speakers agreed for the need to decolonize research, policy and program relations, to address power imbalances between actors, and to build solidarity networks so that trust can be built and the contribution of local actors legitimized by external partners. Critical to this is the question of trust, and the need for external partners to engage with local partners as equals, and to allow local partners to set the agenda for engagement.

Speakers also identified the need for donors to provide more holistic funding to local organizations and to demonstrate a willingness to take informed risks when supporting national institutions. All agreed that such support has the greatest potential to be transformational in its impact.

Ultimately, the event highlighted the central role of power. Change will be limited so long as relationships remain rooted in old power asymmetries. Instead, participants called for a more inclusive and participatory approach to power that raises the capacities of all actors and enables them to work together to affect change.

Jessie Thomson summarized this change in her comments by quoting from this piece from the :

“Old power works like a currency. It is held by few. Once gained, it is jealously guarded, and the powerful have a substantial store of it to spend. It is closed, inaccessible, and leader-driven. It downloads, and it captures. New power operates differently, like a current. It is made by many. It is open, participatory, and peer-driven. It uploads, and it distributes. Like water or electricity, it’s most forceful when it surges. The goal with new power is not to hoard it but to channel it.”

Background

“” has become a central theme in development and humanitarian policy and practice, especially since the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016. The need to engage host communities, refugee communities, and national actors across the humanitarian and development fields is equally central to the Global Compact on Refugees (GCR), which was affirmed by the UN General Assembly in December 2018. The GCR is premised on the understanding that responses to refugees are best pursued in partnership with host communities and in response to local conditions, opportunities and interests.

These priorities all stress the importance of multi-sectoral approaches to displacement, with responses integrating development, humanitarian and peacebuilding programs. They also highlight the need to situate refugee responses within analysis of local markets and economies, develop programs that benefit refugees and host populations, and relate to host state policies on employment and education. They also speak to the critical importance of building and sustaining political will in support of lasting and rights-based solutions, and the need for responses to account for social and cultural realities.

As argued by Asylum Access in their report on National Governance Frameworks for Refugees, refugees and the local civil society organizations that support their inclusion are among the key actors that can inform and advise host country policy. Refugee voices combined with knowledgeable, connected and locally-led NGOs are uniquely positioned to provide host governments with technical assistance on legislation, argue persuasively for policy reform based on evidence and practices, and bring refugee voices to the table. Currently, such groups are totally underutilized. Greater funding and participation for locally-led advocacy organizations and refugee representation will help achieve more effective governance frameworks for refugees.

Likewise, localized knowledge and sustained research capacity in regions of refugee origin is a vitally important foundation for such localized responses to displacement, yet it is critically under-supported and often lacking in capacity in key refugee-hosting regions. While 80% of the world’s refugees remain in their regions of origin in the global South, well over 85% of the dominant, published academic research on refugees and forced migration originates from scholars and research centers in the global North. The concentration of research capacity in the global North perpetuates this trend, while support for research centres in refugee-hosting regions in the global South has largely been crisis-driven and unsustainable.

More localized research and engagement on refugee issues can contribute to more effective policy and practice, especially given the complex dynamics of displacement in fragile contexts and the need to integrate refugee responses into local, national and regional development and peacebuilding strategies. The renewed emphasis on promoting self-reliance for refugee and integrated responses that include the needs of host communities mean that effective responses to refugees require localized and granular understandings of local dynamics, economies, markets and development agendas.

In fact, local institutions are critical contributors to the “whole of society” approach, as articulated in the Global Compact on Refugees. Experts by virtue of their long experience navigating local contexts, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that local institutions instigate positive long-term outcomes for refugees and host communities. However, most local institutions struggle without core funding, causing gaps in response and adding weight to host governments. In contrast, the vast majority of published research on refugees comes from academic institutions in the north, despite the interest and deep knowledge of local researchers, who also struggle to secure funding and staffing.

Together, national NGOs, refugee-led initiatives, and national researchers form the basis of vibrant, localized “ecosystems” with the ability to generate new knowledge, identify new solutions that are viable and accepted by all stakeholders, mobilize support for innovative responses, and support the implementation and evaluation of new responses. Such ecosystems require sustainable support, the autonomy and authority to identify opportunities for innovation in local contexts, and stable support that enables them to pilot new initiatives, tolerate risks, and take successful innovation to scale.