Whose knowledge matters? Rethinking disaster response through a local lens

In a world where humanitarian crises and natural disasters are increasingly frequent, the approaches to managing and mitigating these events have become a critical topic of global concern. However, the perspectives of local communities, who are most affected, are often overlooked in these discussions, said Puji Pujiono, founder and senior adviser of the Pujiono Centre — an Indonesian nonprofit organization established to support evidence-based policymaking in disaster management and climate change adaptation. “Many [humanitarian] interventions are done on [impulse], on habit, on power relations that quite often trampled upon the dignity, the interests and the very potential of local community to take care of their own affairs,” he said. The Pujiono Centre was established following an earthquake in Jakarta, where local disaster workers and humanitarian responders saw the need for an organization that could voice local perspectives and bridge the gaps among major players in disaster response, Pujiono explained. “[Indonesia] is the perfect place to learn about disasters and humanitarian response. I think we have all kinds of disaster and hazard. … I’ve seen no less than 14 major disasters,” he said. With decades of experience spanning civil society, United Nations agencies, and ASEAN, Pujiono brings a unique blend of insights from various levels of disaster management and humanitarian response. Sitting down with Devex, Pujiono delved deeper into his views on localization, the challenges of disaster management, and the importance of recognizing and supporting local capacities. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. What does localization mean to you? It’s quite intriguing that now the term localization is so twisted, contorted, misused, abused everywhere, that everything is labeled as localization. I would like to fall back on the origin or concept of it. Essentially, at least how it is being framed now, was the commitment that was made by the U.N., international organizations, and the donors at the margin of the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 in Istanbul. And on the more lofty side of that commitment, the so-called Grand Bargain was the true belief that local people are the better parties to handle many crises. But the more time goes by, the more I realize that top-down intention does not necessarily materialize. There are a variety of reasons: One is the gap between the good intention and the implementation. Two, is the difficulties to turn good intention to practical action on the ground. And of course, there are actors in the humanitarian world who are reluctant to relinquish the power that they have been enjoying for many decades. To me, localization is not only the top down but also the emergence of local leadership … the local initiative, the local context, coming to fore as part of the equation. That’s what localization means to me. What are the main challenges and contradictions you’ve observed in the implementation of localization efforts? In one media interview, I said that the Grand Bargain sounded like my parents [were having a quarrel] upstairs. I heard they mentioned my name, but I was not part of the conversation. But that quarrel was about me. I was part of the conversation in Geneva, Berlin, and other places. And I recall that one of the commitments was [that] it’d be a good idea to establish a national platform where local actors, INGOs, the U.N., the World Bank, the donors, and the government would sit together. And everybody politely signed up to it. But I haven’t heard any comments or commitment from the INGOs on the ground, the U.N., the donors, none. And suddenly the burden of bringing that platform has fallen upon us. Not only that we have limited resources and limited knowledge; now we have an added burden to make our word reality alone. That doesn’t sound like a good deal. We need to have a longer discussion on that. I also notice that the INGOs and the U.N. started attaching an alternative meaning to localization. Hiring local people, they call it localization, implementing programs that of course [have] to be applied locally, they call it localization. And then using the measurement for localization for the purpose of their own program, they call it localization, too. But this is not authentic. This is localization from the perspective of the global north. What is being done in Indonesia to advance the agenda? We are not sitting still and sitting pretty, we are organizing ourselves. At the country level, we have a network and platform to talk about localization. In the case of Indonesia, we have several organizations that put together a network. It’s called Indonesian Development Humanitarian Alliance and puts localization as one of its primary concerns, but in a way that we are building our own mechanisms. We are talking about pooling funds using local money, using our own mechanisms instead of waiting for the north money. And if the donor would like to join, they’re most welcome. But until they come, we organize ourselves. And we introduced Localization Lab, putting the concept of localization into practice and giving the space for our colleagues in the global south to experiment, fail, and gain some inches of progress. The purpose is really to bring the narrative into actions that are contextualized locally. How can we shorten the time that is needed to assess local NGOs before passing on the money? How can we make sure that our local colleagues have at least the basic knowledge and competence on humanitarian response, knowing that emergency could happen in Indonesia anytime, anywhere, it’s just a matter of how big. And usually, when disaster [has already happened], we don’t have time to build that capacity. At the same time, we try to establish ourselves as a network, engaging with the U.N. and supply evidence-based realities. Finally, we’re really keen to have a direct conversation with the donors without the middleman. Maybe that’s one way for the donors to listen to us directly. For us to tell them directly what we need and how we want it to be done. And as a [way to hold] everybody accountable to their commitment, the U.N., the INGOs, the donors, but also our local actors. We need to agree on a certain currency in which you can hold one another accountable. Do you have any call to action to share with the global development community? I think we need to sit and honestly reflect on what is the basic thing on localization that we need to do. At the local level, emergencies and disasters are inseparable from development. At the local level, we cannot tell the difference. Even when you declare the emergency is over, life is still hard. And at the local level, there is hardly any organization or actor who calls themselves humanitarian. We have youth groups, women’s groups, and TB awareness groups, who happen to be called into action when an emergency happens. So that specialization, that specification at the global level needs to reconcile with the reality on the ground — we are just ordinary people getting on with our lives, and sometimes we have to grapple with emergency and its consequences. So deal with us on those terms. Not on your terms. Dig into Roots of Change, a series examining the push toward locally led development. This piece is produced in partnership as part of our Roots of Change series. Click here to learn more.