Localisation in the Context of UK Government Engagement With the Humanitarian Reform Agenda
Localisation in the Context of UK Government Engagement With the Humanitarian Reform Agenda
复制标题
DOI：
10.3389/fpos.2021.687063
复制
发表时间：
2021-09-17
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Ager, Alastair
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Goodwin, Ellen;Ager, Alastair
本地化是人道主义改革议程的一个关键要素。然而，关于其形式和重点的争论仍在继续，这些争论与对地方的理解、国家的作用以及对解释“去国际化”人道主义反应的人道主义原则的影响有关。本文考虑了英国参与本地化议程，特别是通过审查国际发展部（DFID）的政策和计划。在2016年世界人道主义峰会上，英国是本地化对话的主要贡献者，随后对“大交易”承诺和更多涉及现金转移支付的项目的实施表示了大力支持。然而，总的来说，这一议程的进展有限。该论文指出了三个主要的约束领域。首先，经常注意到后勤方面的问题，特别是在采购和财务监测等任务方面。这限制了许多在这些领域缺乏组织能力的地方行动者的参与。其次，概念歧义也起了重要作用。本地化的理论性很差，除了采购物资和紧急技术援助之外，地方行动者可能比国际行动者更有效地发挥作用、职能和能力，这些问题往往没有得到解决。例如，对独立和公正等原则的狭隘理解，似乎严重限制了与当地宗教行为者接触的信心。第三，政治考虑似乎越来越限制了对本地化含义进行更激进解释的空间。历任英国国际发展大臣都捍卫了将国民总收入（GNI）的固定比例用于发展援助的承诺，因为公众强烈支持英国的援助支出，以反映国家利益和价值观。在这种背景下，几乎没有明确的政治动机将英国海外发展援助（ODA）的决策权以人道主义反应基本本地化所需的方式割让给国家和地方行动者。即使在有明显潜在的英国利益的地方，例如，在易受人道主义紧急情况影响的情况下，加强当地行动者的能力以避免更昂贵的应急响应，公众对能力加强的看法（与拯救生命的人道主义行动相比）在公共支出竞争激烈的环境中减轻了对此类行动的抵制。2020年成立的合并后的外交联邦和发展部（Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office）标志着重构本地化的可能性。虽然在一些后勤和概念障碍方面可能会取得一些进展，但国家利益和公众对国家利益的看法似乎可能会继续限制更激进地实施本地化，特别是目前暂停将国民总收入的0.7%用于官方发展援助的承诺。
Localisation is a key element of the humanitarian reform agenda. However, there are continuing debates regarding its form and emphasis, linked to understandings of the local, the role of the state and the implications for interpretation of humanitarian principles of "de-internationalised" humanitarian response. This paper considers UK engagement with the localisation agenda, particularly through examination of the policies and programmes of the Department for International Development (DFID). The UK was a major contributor to dialogue on localisation at the World Humanitarian Summit of 2016 and has subsequently shown strong support for Grand Bargain commitments and implementation of a larger proportion of programmes involving cash transfers. Overall, however, advance on this agenda has been limited. The paper notes three major areas of constraint. First, logistical concerns have frequently been noted, particularly with respect to tasks such as procurement and financial monitoring. This has limited the engagement of many local actors lacking organisational capacity in these areas. Second, conceptual ambiguity has also played a significant role. Localisation is poorly theorised, and the roles, functions and capacities-beyond procurement of supplies and emergency technical assistance-that local actors may be able to fulfil far more effectively than international ones are not frequently addressed. Narrowly framed understandings of principles such as independence and impartiality, for instance, appear to severely limit confidence in engaging with local religious actors. Third, political considerations appear to have increasingly limited the space for more radical interpretations of the implications of localisation. Successive UK Secretaries of State for International Development have defended the commitment to a fixed proportion of Gross National Income (GNI) for development assistance based on strong public support for UK aid expenditure to reflect national interests and values. In this context, there are few clear political incentives to cede power over decision-making regarding UK Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to national and local actors in a manner required for fundamental localisation of humanitarian response. Even where there is a clear potential UK interest-for example, bolstering capacity of local actors in contexts vulnerable to humanitarian emergency to avert more costly emergency response-the public perception of capacity strengthening (compared to life-saving humanitarian actions) mitigates against such moves in a climate of contested public spending. The establishment of a merged Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office in 2020 signals the likelihood of a reframing of localisation. While some advancement in terms of some logistical and conceptual barriers may be anticipated, issues of both national interest and public perceptions of national interest seem likely to continue to constrain a more radical implementation of localisation, particularly with current suspension of the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on ODA.