Stronger humanitarian engagement requires local knowledge

213 Shares

FacebookFacebook messengerTwitterWhatsAppLinkedInTelegramEmail

Tuesday December 3, 2024
By Mohamed Aden Hassan & Nauja Kleist

Illustration © Rasmus Fly Filbert

Localisation is a key word in international humanitarianism and recognises the importance of local partners. Diaspora humanitarianism is pertinent for such efforts due to its connectivity and knowledge of local contexts. Collaboration can enhance efficiency and impact but involves dilemmas and compromises.

Local engagement is a key element in the Grand Bargain localisation agenda that aims at transforming the humanitarian system for more just and efficient interventions. Collaboration with local actors is therefore central – including actors working outside the humanitarian system.

With sustained contributions to emergency relief, Somali diaspora humanitarianism is a case in point, alleviating suffering and saving lives in situations of significant needs, widespread poverty, insecurity and recurrent natural disasters. It is also fast, with diaspora humanitarian actors typically being the first to mobilise resources in collaboration with their local partners.

Collaboration between the diaspora aid system and the official international system is rare, however, and the working relationship is characterised by mutual distrust. Whereas the formal system is guided by global standards for reasons of efficiency and overall impartiality, Somali diaspora humanitarianism reflects mutual support systems and is primarily embedded in kinship networks inside and outside the Horn of Africa.

This has led some formal humanitarian actors to question diaspora actors’ impartiality when they assist areas of origin. Furthermore, the focus on the risk of financial transfers to Somalia contributing to terrorism or money laundering limits the efforts of diaspora humanitarian work. Diaspora humanitarian actors, in turn, criticise the international system for not taking local realities into consideration and for being slow and bureaucratic, as well as for having disproportionate administration costs and control. Despite the differences, however, mutual learning between the two systems has the potential to make both systems more robust and enhance the understanding of local needs.

Based on policy dialogues and interviews with humanitarian actors and experts in Hargeisa and Nairobi, this policy brief explores ideal modes of collaboration that connect the strengths of each system without merging them. It suggests ways forwards while acknowledging dilemmas and challenges.

Adoption of context-specific approaches

The provision of Somali diaspora humanitarianism relies on trust-related networks where local elders, businesspeople and religious authorities typically play key roles. It operates as an integrated part of local society’s resource base during emergencies, ranging from mobilisation and channelling of relief to, at times, diaspora professionals’ – such as health professionals – physical relocation to crisis-affected areas to assist.

Such an approach contrasts with the standardised operation of international humanitarianism, where the UN cluster system coordinates interventions, typically with scalable and one-size-fits-all models. This comes with the risk of creating unintended harm or low impact caused by a lack of understanding of local practices, however.

For example, distributing Western-designed nutritional supplements may cause health issues or cultural rejection in communities with different dietary needs and customs. It is therefore crucial for international agencies to engage in dialogues with affected communities and understand local provisions of support and aid already in place. Intimate knowledge of the cultural and socio-political landscape can foster trust and cooperation with recipients and thereby help navigate complex local dynamics.

That said, customary practices also come with challenges. In the Somali context, patriarchal and gerontocratic norms mean that women, youth and minorities are excluded from certain decision-making processes. Likewise, local emergency support systems may reproduce inequalities and marginalisation, not least in resource-scarce contexts. An example of this is how minorities tend to receive less emergency assistance than groups with strong diasporas and resource-endowed networks. Attention to social positions and inequalities is therefore pertinent, accentuating the importance of in-depth local knowledge.

It is crucial for international agencies to engage in dialogues with affected communities and understand local provisions of support and aid already in place.

Doing no-harm requires local knowledge

The principle of "do no harm" is fundamental to all humanitarian work, including diaspora humanitarianism, to ensure that aid efforts do not inadvertently exacerbate or create problems. This requires a careful balance of delivering immediate assistance while considering long-term impacts and the complex socio-political dynamics of the affected areas.

One key aspect is needs assessments that involve the local community, including recipients, to help identify risks and mitigate unintended consequences. Such a participatory approach fosters trust and helps developing contextually appropriate interventions and monitoring early on, including the regular review and adjustment of programmes based on feedback from the ground.

Furthermore, in conflict-affected areas across the Somali regions, maintaining neutrality is crucial to avoid entanglement in power struggles. Humanitarian actors must navigate these environments with a clear understanding of conflict dynamics to prevent their aid from manipulation by warring or competing factions. Continuous training and sensitisation of aid workers in the local context and conflict sensitivity are therefore essential.

Somali youth follow proceedings at a conference between diaspora returnees and locals, Mogadishu, 2017. Illustration © Africa Collection / Alamy Stock Photo

Hybrid accountability frameworks

Finally, the development of hybrid accountability frameworks is pertinent. In the Somali context, traditional accountability hinges on trust-
based relationships and tailors aid to specific needs. Documentation of mobilisation and delivery of assistance mainly takes place through the sharing of audio-visual material on social-media platforms, with local communities and, to some degree, diaspora actors as the primary accountability stakeholders.

Conversely, accountability in international humanitarianism follows structured procedures and monitoring to meet donor demands and global standards. However, strictly adhering to these standards without considering local contexts can lead to inefficiencies and resistance.

If connected, humanitarian efforts can benefit from both systems' strengths. Traditional mechanisms enhance cultural relevance and community acceptance, while international standards provide frameworks for financial transparency and scalability. Collaboration will entail compromises from both sides. As an example, diaspora actors may step up on documentation and reporting, while international humanitarian organisations may reconsider the need for extensive written procedures, especially in the early phases of emergency mobilisation, where diaspora actors tend to move at a faster pace than the international system.

Dialogue between diaspora groups and international agencies is a step towards developing hybrid and collaborative accountability models with an emphasis on mutual capacity development. This could involve community-led councils comprising local, diaspora and international aid representatives for joint decision-making regarding fund allocation, project implementation and monitoring. To be sustainable, dedication to long-term working relationships is called for, meaning that quick staff turnover in humanitarian INGOs may impede the building of trust and local knowledge.

A dilemma here is that hybrid accountability and collaboration require time and commitment. The operational speed of diaspora humanitarian assistance to those needing acute support may slow down. Resources in the under-financed international humanitarian system will be re-directed to local engagement. Both parties would thus have to accept changes and hence a derived risk of criticism from their stakeholders.

This may not be of interest to all humanitarian actors, but if localisation is to be more than an abstract ideal, then the international humanitarian system must increase its local engagement as a key element in providing practical, respectful and sustainable aid. In a situation where humanitarian needs are growing while funds are dwindling, dialogue and mutual learning is more important than ever.

Home
Email

Hiiraan Online