Paper short abstract:

This study shares the experiences of the author’s action research on disaster resilience in Cambodia and questions the validity of promises for localisation without funding in aid-dependent contexts.

Paper long abstract:

Localisation, along with a focus on locally led initiatives, has become a fancy buzzword in the development field. However, without flexible and foreseeable long-term funds to support any local initiatives, it remains a hallow promise.

This study shares findings and learning from a recent three-year multi-partner academic and practical collaboration surrounding a climate change adaptation project in rural communities in Cambodia. This multi-party participatory action research focuses on understanding and building community flood resilience and disaster risk reduction capacity. To measure community flood resilience, we used the Flood Resilience Measurement for Communities (FRMC) approach developed by the Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. FRMC measures disaster resilience capacities across five key dimensions of resilience: human, social, financial, physical, and natural capital.

While researchers measure resilience across different times, the particularity of the FRMC is to leave room for local initiatives to bring about changes between the measurement times. Thus, we hoped to provide evidence-based and context-specific policy suggestions to enhance community resilience. However, our expectations turned out to be rather excessive; without donors’ flexibility, patience, and additional funds, any local follow-ups and new ideas would not be implemented. Simultaneously, local capacities to “lead initiatives” were also questioned. This study concludes that localisation without additional funds (domestic or international) for actual local initiatives, in addition to building local capacities, is no more than a hollow promise. Additionally, it raises questions on how to redefine the relationship between international and national bureaus of development NGOs.