LOCALISATION

The NGO and development community in Cambodia is a large and dynamic group. Organisations finish their mandate and move on, or develop their programme in response to the new environment. There is a constant flow of new organisations both indigenous and international. In order to support this dynamic activity organisations must from time to time consider their own development if they are to be able to support their programmes as effectively as possible, which sometimes leads an organisation to think about localisation.

The concept of localisation occurs only within certain types of organisations. Fully indigenous Cambodian organisations, whose heart and culture have been Cambodian from the start, will have no use for localisation even though they may have foreigners working for them. This fact gives a perspective on the issue that should be kept in mind constantly - localisation only arises around expatriate managers and/or international organisations and this has great relevance for the issues that arise and how they are dealt with. Despite the fact that expatriates are the source of the issue localisation is a process that has two parties - the expatriates and the Cambodians who work with them. An important perspective that sometimes gets scant attention in terms of decision-making and process.

VBNK has been fortunate to work with several organisations considering or planning for localisation, and also spends time in considering the issue for its own future development. The two following conclusions, which are the major lessons learned about this subject within VBNK, are the result of reflections on those activities:

To localise properly takes a long time. It has to be a long term goal, not a short term objective and it is as much a process involving attitudes and beliefs as it is a set of procedures

and

There is no 'right' way to localise that will work for every organisation. Each must find its own path to its own desired end according to its own unique circumstances.

At present in Cambodia there is no legislation governing all types of NGOs. NGOs must register either with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or with the Ministry of Interior. Some organisations are clearly international in that they are branches of organisations that are legal entities in another country and they retain this status even in the frequently increasing number of cases where they have Cambodian Directors or Country Representatives. Such organisations must register with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The broad criteria used to define an organisation, in terms of registration with the Ministry of Interior, is the nationality of the Director. An organisation founded in Cambodia with no overseas links that has a Cambodian Director may register with the Ministry of Interior as a Cambodian organisation. A similar organisation with an expatriate Director is classified as international and must register at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

What is localisation?

What exactly does the word localisation mean? Is it possible to define what anyone means when they talk about localisation for any organisation at any point in time? The word is used in different ways by different organisations. Sometimes it means replacing the expatriate manager of a project with a Cambodian manager. Other times it refers to a much more profound change such as the organisational status changing from international to local. Whichever is relevant to any individual organisation the perspective should always be that localisation is a long-term process involving attitudes and beliefs rather than a one-off event or a set of procedures.

In the most general terms the concept that lies behind localisation is 'the transfer of organisational responsibility and management from expatriates to Cambodians'. Inherent within this concept is the question of whether the intention is to localise, i.e. keep the organisation essentially the same but replace the expatriates with Cambodians, or to indigenise, i.e. replace expatriate systems with Cambodian systems.

Who wants to localise and why?

What is the motivation to localise? Is it truly an appropriate developmental step for the organisation or project or is it, for example, a donor-driven cost saving exercise? The idea or motivation for localisation comes from many sources and for many reasons. A supplementary question must be 'Is the organisation ready to localise?' In this context a brief consideration of the issue of dependence is useful. Increasingly consciousness is being raised, not only in Cambodia but world-wide, about the levels of dependence that much development practice creates, in which dependence is seen as both negative in its own right and as having significant negative connotations. Challenges are being made to the philosophies, strategies and practices that are now being shown to create dysfunctional dependence rather than being truly developmental in the sense of empowering people and making a significant difference to major issues such as poverty and human rights.

No one changes how or what they feel because someone else tells them that they should now be ready to make the change. Individuals change when the time and circumstances are right for them and they can see clear benefits from letting go of the old and taking on the new. For many Cambodians working in INGOs the security and benefits of their current employment represent an attractive contrast to their past experiences of turbulence and uncertainty. It is not therefore surprising that people prefer to hold more firmly to the status quo than enthusiastically embrace change, which could well represent more turbulence and uncertainty. The reality is that it is very often difficult and sometimes impossible for Cambodians to see what benefits they will gain from the localisation. This can create resistance to any engagement with the process. Without Cambodian staff engagement localisation is likely to be in serious difficulty from the start.

Flowing from the considerations discussed above is the fundamental issue of ownership of the organisation's mission - the commitment to the purpose of the organisation, its target group and their needs. The relevance of this core issue cannot be over emphasised. Without at least some of the Cambodian staff having ownership, commitment and confidence, the life-blood of future, success does not exist and there is nothing strong enough to support future growth.

One argument on this issue is that if the international organisation no longer feels able to implement its own mission then it should stop its operations by means of a careful exit strategy. If Cambodian staff feel strongly about the mission they will find ways to do something about it and the international organisation may be able to support them in their endeavours. But if Cambodian staff do not have the passion or motivation to take ownership of the international organisation's mission there is little likelihood of the new organisation thriving.

What will the localised organisation look like? To answer this question it is essential to question those driving the process. What is the real motivation to localise and why? Is it that the Cambodian staff are saying clearly that they are willing and able to take on the work of the organisation? Or is it that some part of the international organisation is pushing the process? Perhaps it is an exit strategy because the INGO wants to move on and work in other countries without maintaining any active links with any Cambodian organisation.

	Participation in society dominated by a system of autocratic patronage and hierarchy
	Transparency and honesty in an economy in which corruption is deeply ingrained
	Trust between individuals and groups within society where events have virtually destroyed trust and many judgements and allegiances are still made on the basis of which faction a person belongs to
	Leadership incorporating concepts of teambuilding in order to maximise the benefits for all concerned where the cultural norm is for the organisation to exist for the benefit of the leader

This is not to say that there are no Cambodians who hold these values because many do, but they constantly find themselves at odds with and under pressure from the prevailing culture.

A large part of the Cambodian response to the idea of localisation can be summarised as fear. Fear of loss and fear of failure. Such fears will remain the predominant emotion and affect behaviour within and responses to the process of localising until they are aired, understood and addressed in positive ways that enable people to overcome them and feel confident about the future.

Different options may be possible depending on whether or not the localisation process is of a whole organisation or of one of its projects. Generally while an INGO would become a CNGO or seek to develop and launch individual projects into CNGOs as part of a localisation strategy, a range of other possibilities exist that may be worth considering depending on the nature of the work. For example, an agricultural project might make more sense becoming a farmer's association than an NGO, or a project for women to generate income by making handicrafts might be more sustainable as a small business enterprise. Some projects that have been working with Government might better serve the needs of the target group by integrating into and strengthening the relevant Government unit than staying outside it.

The key questions in this issue should be 'What will best serve the needs of the target group?' and 'What will be most sustainable in the long term?' Establishing a CNGO may not always be the best response. There are already some examples of successful localisation processes where the new organisation is something other than an NGO. See the Lessons Learned section that follows.

For many, one of the main criteria for assessing readiness for localisation is an assessment of the current skill level of the staff and Cambodian managers of the organisation. This assessment usually relates to capacity to deliver the programme and manage the organisation as it exists at that point in time. A more appropriate assessment would be about potential skills and confidence to develop the programme and manage organisational growth and change in the future.

A number of organisations working in Cambodia have already localised all or part of their operations. Some have transformed the whole organisation into a CNGO, others have developed projects into CNGOs, yet others have kept their international status but localised all the management positions. A significant proportion of the CNGOs created as a result of localisation have run into difficulties of one sort or another. Some of these difficulties have been small and easily resolved but some have been much bigger causing major disruption or conflict within the organisation and impacting significantly on programme implementation.

Analysis of the problems has identified some common themes and issues that have contributed to either total breakdown or serious turbulence following localisation. Without exception, in all the organisations that have had difficulties during or after the localisation process the time allowed for and dedicated to the localisation process was a significant factor. In some cases the problems did not fully surface until two or three years after the formal transition process was completed but analysis shows that the roots go back to the time given to the original process of localisation. The division between governance and management is never a clean-cut line. What should always be clear, however, are the powers that are vested in the Board and those that are vested in management especially with regard to financial matters because unclear governance structures have been proved to be a major cause of problems in localisation processes. Other issues such as unclear mission and mandate and Director overload can also be a significant cause of problems.

To conclude on a more positive note, there are some success stories that can be shared. For example, Southeast Asian Outreach (SAO), which is now integrated into International Co-operation for Cambodia (ICC), has successfully localised two projects, with a further two currently in progress.

The final point to make is that everything discussed above relates to the long-term sustainability of the organisation, which in itself raises a new set of questions:

What is meant by the word sustainability and who defines it for any organisation?

Is the main objective a commitment to meeting the needs of the target group or to keep people in work? Or both?

If those questions have been answered with clarity, the final question must be:

Can this CNGO be sustained - does it have the will, personnel, structure, skills and resources to survive and thrive?

This article is a summary of a longer paper of the same name that is available from VBNK in English and Khmer.