Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:01):
Helloand welcome to Localink Hub's podcast, a
show with local impact for global change.
For our new listeners, LocalLink Hub isthe localization and partnership
initiative for Terre des Hommes.
This global online platform provides freee-learning and capacity development
(00:24):
resources for local and national actors.
Our project is foundedby the Somaha Foundation.
I'm Enikő Vass, and I'm the Communicationand content manager for Localink Hub.
And thank you for listening to today'sepisode with the title,
Beyond the Master Servant Dynamic (00:42):
Degan
Ali on localization and decolonization.
Let's get started.
Our host today is my colleague, MartinGallard, he is the localization and
partnership manager at Terre des hommes,and he will be talking with the Degan Ali,
(01:02):
an internationally famoushumanitarian leader.
Degan Ali is the executive director ofAdesso, an African-based organization
and co-founder of NEAR Network.
Our guest implemented Somalia's firstlarge-scale cash transfer program in 2003
(01:23):
and advocates for shifting more funding tolocal organizations in the global south.
Her work has influenced major policychanges, including the 2016 World
Humanitarian Summit's commitment todirect 25% of funds to local actors.
She was recognized as one of the mostinfluential African women in 2023 and the
(01:49):
non-profit leader of the year in 2024.
In today's episode, we will be talkingabout how a genuinely equitable
partnership looks like in the aid sector?
What are the biggest barriers preventingglobal south organizations from having
equal decision makingpower in aid initiatives?
(02:10):
And what are the practical steps UNagencies, international NGOs or
institutional donors can taketo dismantle power imbalances in
their partnerships with local NGOs?
You can also learn why it would seem oddto expect everyone to speak Swahili if a
Kenyan organization were toassist in flood hit Spain.
(02:39):
Hello, Degen Ali.
Welcome to Local Link Hubs podcast.
It is an absolute pleasure to have youtoday to discuss such an
important topic for the sector?
Thank you for having me, Martin.
The first question that we have for you isour interest in what drew you to the
localization and the decolonizationmovement in the Eid sector.
(02:59):
What was the interest for you?
Honestly, I thinkhaving been raised in the US, I was born
in Somalia, and I went to the US as ayoung child, and I experienced a lot
of, I would say probably, racism.
I could recognize it.
I have the tools and the understanding andthe analytics and all of that to
(03:23):
analyze it and understand it and see it.
Whereas a lot of my global southcolleagues probably don't know how to
verbalize and understandthese kinds of incidents.
I think that was one.
And then second, I think having workedwith the UN and being treated with, first
of all, the challenges I had in evengetting a UN job That was my first
(03:45):
experience withjust how difficult and nepotistic
and a bit racist the system was.
In the salary scales, I was told that I'ma national because even though I have a US
passport, US education, I was told you'regoing to be treated like a national.
You never get an expatinternational salary.
Then once I finally did get a position, Iwas given a lot of respect, access
(04:11):
to spaces and access to peoplebecause I was a UN staffer.
All of that was very...
It goes to your head andyou feel a bit arrogant.
I would actually complain, and Iwould be like, Why am I a 20...
I would say to my bossas a 28-year-old, Why am I meeting
a minister or somebody verysenior in a government?
(04:33):
I just didn't understand that, honestly.
I pushed back on that.
Then put that side by side against theexperiences I had now leading or working
in a local NGO and seeing how my motherwas treated as the founder of Adesso by
the international system in her owncountry, and then how I was later
(04:53):
treated, where we were just disrespected.
We were questioned.
Our integrity was constantly questioned.
Our data was questioned, all of that.
So it was just a shock to my system tohave left the UN and then now come to a
place where not only was I earning almostnothing compared to what I was earning at
the UN, but I was alsotreated as if I was nothing.
(05:15):
And like a second or third class citizen,and leading a local NGO.
So I think that experience in that vast,very different worlds and departure from
two different realities, I think,was a shock to system, honestly.
And I think that's what probablyradicalized me the most.
I understand.
(05:35):
So it really shaped the person you aretoday, and I'm sure it also shaped the
values that you have on when it comesto localization and decolonization.
And I was really wondering whatyou thought were the most...
Why is it such an urgent and central issuetoday for the aid sector, for the sector
in general, topics of localization anddecolonization?
(06:00):
Well, I mean, I think there's two separateanswers because I think localization is a
term I don't like, but ittalks about really more the issue of
moving money to local actors and maybehaving them in more leadership roles and
leadership positions in the space, in thesector, in humanitarian and development
space, where I think decolonizationis a very political conversation.
(06:23):
It's a very politicalunderstanding of the root causes of why
even we need global north institutionscoming to our countries in the
South, and why do we even need aid?
Why are we in the position where ourgovernments can't meet the basic needs of
their citizens and meet the social compactthat they have with their citizens?
(06:43):
So I think Why can't we solve differenthumanitarian crisis around the world?
Issues like the structure of the UN andall the other Bretton Woods institutions
and veto power andfinancial and economic and trade systems
and all of those kindsof things, debt issues.
All of that understanding really needs to,for me, is really pivotal in a
(07:07):
decolonization conversation, and it can'tjust be an issue about moving money.
I think they have separate understanding,separate analysis, and separate actions
to solve or rectify or improveor dismantle the system.
I think the localization conversation oractivities around more locally-led action
(07:32):
is, I think, a lighter touch, and it'sabout just fixing the system at the edge,
whereas the decolonization conversation isquestioning the entire system, and I
think saying, why do even we need aid?
How do we get our countriesthat even need you all?
How do we create a system for mutualsolidarity where people in Africa, in
(07:53):
Ghana or South Africa, can becomedonors to people in the US or UK?
I think the conversation and the responseand the actions and the
understanding are very different.
Yeah, absolutely.
So we're going through at Terres desHommes, we're going through a lot of
questions related to that, and we aretrying to, I believe, change the way
we work to go towards that direction.
(08:16):
We struggle a little bit with something,and that's where I'm interested to have
your opinion on that, iswhat would represent a genuinely equitable
partnership between an international NGOlike Terres des Hommes and a local or
national NGOs from theglobal south to you?
What would need to change for this to bereally equitable and
realistic in the coming years?
(08:41):
I think various things need to happen.
Number one, I think there is a wholeinternal, deep, honest reflection
on the future of Terre des hommes.
Where does it want tobe in 10, 15, 20 years?
Should it even exist?
Will it even be needed?
(09:01):
Hoping that these countries in the globalsouth are not as dependent on aid,
and some of these political issuesthat I've talked about get resolved.
We're seeing things changing dramatically,very fast and not only the speed of
change, but I think the magnitude of thechange with what's happening with BRICS
(09:22):
and with the Sahel regions, what thosethree countries in the Sahel regions have
been able to accomplish ina very short amount of time.
I think to us, It's a great sign of hope.
I think there has tobe a deep conversation.
Should Terre des hommes exist?Should it merge?
Should it go out of business?
Should it change its entire businessmodel to be something very different?
(09:43):
So that's, I think, the first part ofa reflection exercise
about Terre des Hommes.
Then I think the second part is, okay, sowe are a humanitarian organization
responding to crisis and to support,I guess, children in these countries.
How do we do that differently?
How do we do that better?
(10:04):
And that is, I think, morethat whole equitable partnership
conversation is, first and foremost, doyou even need an office on the ground?
Do you need to be present on the ground?
Or should you be having a wholepartnership model where you just raise the
money, provide some technical support inyour countries, let's say in Europe,
(10:28):
and the partners the ones who aredesigning the programs, who are
implementing the programs,and you come and provide technical
support, or you embed your staff, one ortwo staff, as needed based on their
capacity constraints in the partner.
Instead of investing all your money inestablishing an office and, I
(10:53):
don't know, 50 staff in a country or 100staff, there are some INGOs that
have 4, 500 staff in a given country.
Instead of investing that money in yourexpatriate staff or national staff who are
earning this double or triple what a localpartner is earning, should we not be
investing that money then in building along term investment in your partner so
(11:15):
that they grow, they become moreresilient, they get access to unrestricted
funding, they are developing their backoffice systems, their
capacity and all of that.
And there are stronger partners for you,including holding you accountable and
refusing your money if theysay, These are our conditions.
You want a situation where yourpartner can hold you accountable.
(11:37):
You don't want a situation ofmaster and servant relationship.
Right now, that's the relationship thatI NGOs and UN agencies
have with their partners.
If we're serious about changing this andreally equitable partnerships, then it
should be, how do I get this organizationsin a given country, my partners, our
partners, getting from pointA to point Z as quickly as possible so
(12:04):
that they can hold us accountable andreally sit across from us in the table as
equals and say,Terre des hommes, you're doing this
incorrectly, or these are red lines.
If you don't change your behavior in thisway, I'm sorry, we're not
going to work with you.
That's the challenge thatshould be coming from partners.
Right now, that doesn't happen becausemost of the partners are underfunded,
(12:26):
underresourced, scared,and feel very powerless that they can
negotiate better termswith their partners.
And we have to understand aspartners, you really are donors.
And the biggest donorsto local NGOs are INGOs and UN agencies.
They don't deal with CEDA Sweden.
They don't deal with the Gates Foundation,they don't deal with all of these
(12:47):
different donors that youguys are dealing with.
The gatekeepers are you all.
And so you really are donors.
So if you want to change that donorrelationship and act more as real
partners, it means there has to be alltypes of things that have to change.
And then the third thing is like, okay,now you have more money
(13:09):
going to the partners.
You're building their capacity, you'reembedding capacity, your staff into their
institutions if they need itand all of that.
Then the third thing is like, now yousay, Okay, I'm not going to send a
proposal to the French government, Swissgovernment, to whoever without it
(13:29):
being designed with or by the partners.
The partner will have to see the finalproposal that's submitted so they have
visibility on your project proposal, onyour budget, how much you
get, how much they get.
It's all very transparently done.
You're sharing your overheadsequally and all of that.
That's really hard because right now theinstinct is something happens, you get an
(13:53):
opportunity for Swiss funding, you writeyour project proposal in Switzerland,
and then you go and take it to yourpartner in Kenya or Ethiopia, or Somalia,
and say, Hey,can you implement this project?
Rather than the other way around.
And so that has to stop.
And so those, I think, are the three majorways that basic ways
(14:16):
that INGOs can change.
Yeah, absolutely.Thank you very much.
You touched upon it a littlebit, but indeed, we are...
A lot of the sector is a bit stuck in arigid way of carrying out funding and
short term project based interventionthat limits a lot of this.
So I was wondering, what are the biggestbarriers preventing global
(14:36):
self-organizations fromhaving equal decision-making when it comes
to the aid sector in general, whetherit's humanitarian or development?
What needs to change?
I think the biggest constraint that theseorganizations have is resources, is money,
because you're underfunded,you are constantly on this deficit cycle.
(15:03):
You are in this constant survival mode.
And you, as a leader of this organization,honestly, don't even think about
your future sustainability.
How do I help this organization becomereally resilient and sustainable.
As a leader of a local organization, youend up being the logistician, the
program manager, the executive director.
(15:24):
Sometimes you're in the finance role.
You're really having three, four, fivehats at a time, and
you don't even have the capacity to take astep back and think strategically in
long term for your own institution.That's number one.
Number two, the lack of funding also makesyou feel like you don't have the power to
push back against INGOs or UN agencies.
(15:46):
You don't have the poweror the ability to be picky, to
be selective, to be principled.
If you know this is wrong,there's so many times we have accepted
funding that we knew was wrong, that weknew it wasn't helpful to the communities,
or we knew the terms and the conditionswere really very top-down, very
(16:10):
almost humiliating for us.
But we accepted it becausewe didn't have the funding.
We didn't feel like we had choices.
I want an organizationto not feel that way.
I want them to be in a position wherethey're financially
strong enough that they can say, No,I don't want that funding anymore.
(16:31):
And third is thatbecause you don't have...
Most funding that comes from INGOs andUN agencies is project-specific funding.
It's short term, sixmonths, maximum either.
You don't have the time, you don't havethe resources to invest
in your own capacity.
You hire a finance person,you barely fund them, you give them a very
(16:53):
small salary in comparisonto an INGO or you an actor.
You hire somebody that they wouldn'teven interview, let alone hire.
They would never shortlist them.
You take a chance, you hire somebody whohas very little capacity, quote, unquote,
according to international standards,and then you develop them, you invest in
(17:14):
them, you hire them, and then they workwith you a year, year and a half, your
funding ends,and then you have to let them go,
or they end upleaving you for better terms and
conditions with an INGO or UN agency.
Then you have to start thewhole process over again.
This whole narrative about locals nothaving capacity
is, in my opinion, so wrong in so manyways when we are actively, consistently
(17:41):
developing the capacityof UN agencies and INGOs.
Almost all the staff, local staff,of these entities, usually start off
as staff of a local organization.
We're the ones who take risks in hiringpeople that you guys would never hire.
We take them at a very junior at a basiclevel, and we develop them, we invest
(18:01):
in them, and they end up leaving us.
That's a third issue.
Then the last issue is because of theproject nature of the work,
we end up getting funding for servicedelivery of projects and programs.
We rarely get funding for advocacypositions, for communications positions,
for fundraising positions,marketing positions.
(18:23):
So that's why they don't have usuallyresources to have a really nice website,
to have really nice communicationsmaterial, to to have all of this because
you need all of that to raise money.
You need all of that toincrease your credibility.
You need all of that to showup in international forums.
You need all of that to do advocacy inyour country or to do it internationally.
(18:45):
And they usually don't haveadvocacy staff or policy staff.
And so it's hard then to show up ininternational forums or even local
forums and divide it yourself.
I cannot tell you up to today, I'm bothwith the head of advocacy
and the executive director of Adeso.
We don't have a full-timededicated advocacy staff.
(19:07):
So going back to that whole thing where asa leader of a local organization, you
wear many, many hats almost all the time.
And so how do How do you effectivelyparticipate in decision making forums in
spaces that are really importantif you don't have the staff and
you end up being overstretched?
You can't really effectivelyengage as a local organization.
(19:31):
Sometimes you as a local leader might bedoing some amazing work on the ground,
but your English is not the best.
And so you have to now participate inthese spaces where English
is the language of operation.
And you're in Syria or you're in Somalia,and every conversation is happening
in English in these countries.
And so you're like, you can't effectivelyengage, but you would love to hire an
(19:52):
advocacy person that speaks English thatcan engage, but you don't
have the money for that.
So how can you effectively participate ifyou don't even speak the language that
all the business is being conducted in?
I mean, just basic things like thatthat we don't even think about.
We take it for granted thinking, oh, ofcourse, English should be the language of
operation in Syria or Turkey or Somalia.
That makes absolutely no sense.
(20:15):
It's like going to a flood response inSpain right now,
and all the people who are responding inthat flood response are from Kenya,
and they have meetings only in Somalia.
But that's expected of us.That's normalized.
But it's like Things that you never expectto be done in your countries are normal
for us to accept in our countries.
(20:37):
Absolutely.
It's really hard to imagine in othercircumstances, but it makes sense.
So all these barriers are definitely knownby most of the actors, I would say, in the
sector, and we're showing itmore and more as an issue.
I think, slowly, I hope that mostinternational NGOs, local and national
NGOs as well, are working on this issueand trying to increase the pressure on
(21:00):
donors to go towards more flexiblefunding, to force also a little bit
international NGOs or UN agencies tolocalize or carry out more
locally-led development activities.
We're trying to go through that work atTerre des Hommes, but
In your opinion, if you were in charge ofan international NGOs or perhaps even a UN
agency, what would be thepractical steps that you would take to
(21:24):
try and dismantle this powerimbalance in the sector?
I think I wouldunderstand every single country we operate
in, what the dynamics are, what the issuesare, and figure out, do we need
to be in this country as a staff?
Do we need to have an office?
(21:45):
What could we do differently?
Every context is different.
Sometimes in some context, it is good tohave some international presence
to help your partners who might be facingsome negative repercussions, like in
Minimar, I think, places like that.But those are the outliers.
That's not the norm.
So I think based on that informationgathering exercise and a real just
(22:07):
understanding of the context, I would putin place a plan to figure out how to
downsize in that country and really makeit a partnership-led country program.
And to the point where I wouldfundraise with the partners.
I would go to Swiss Embassy or the EU foroffice when I fundraise with my partners
(22:29):
so that They get capacity building.
They get access to the donor directly.
They understandthe mechanics of these things.
I remember one of the critical things thathappened for Odesso is
we were receiving Oxfam NoVib funding formany, many years,
a long-time partner over 10 years.
(22:49):
Then sometime in2007, whatever, I can't remember,
or was it earlier,Oxfam NoVib team had us go to The Hague,
and they introduced us to theMinistry of Foreign Affairs.
And we ended up getting funding from theMinistry of Foreign Affairs
(23:12):
and direct funding without Oxfam.
And then we ended up that in Somalia,the Oxfam Novit program and the Odesso
program were one of the only few projectsthat the Dutch government was reporting
in the humanitarian portfolio in Somalia.
(23:33):
And then it ended up they shrank theirprogram even further, and they kept ours,
and they stopped funding Oxfam in Somalia.
But they were still fundingthem, of course, in The Hague.
They were giving them thosebig grants at The Hague.
But the Somalia portfolio,we ended up continuing funding for another
year or two while Oxfam wasn'teven funded in the Somalia program.
(23:55):
So to me, that's just real integrityof the part of Oxfam Novib.
I'm not sure if that was aninstitution-wide behavior
or if that was individuals at Oxfam Novibwho had those values and
ethos and who did that.
(24:16):
I think it was both.
I think Oxfam Novib in those days was verymuch partnership-aligned.
They didn't have a lot of offices.
They were really moreworking through partners or with partners.
They a very strong partnership approach.
But you could have been doing thepartnership approach for 40 years.
There were partners in Somalia that wereworking with Oxfam for 20 plus years.
(24:40):
There's some who are still working withOxfam Novib for 20 plus years, 30 years,
and who have never been introducedto the donor of Oxfam Novib.
Whereas those individuals that we wereworking with had those values and
were like, No, you guys have capacity.
Let us help you get direct funding so thatyou don't need us anymore
as intermediaries.
And so those are the kinds ofdramatic shifts that are required.
(25:05):
But of course, that comesto the cost to an INGO.
It means your funding decreases.
So this is what goes back to my originalpoint that I made earlier, where I said,
the INGOs need to have a real deepreflection on their future business model.
Because I always say this, the CEOs andthe boards really look to INGOs expanding.
(25:29):
They don't look at them as successif they contract, if they get smaller.
So what is your ambitionas an organization?
Is it to grow and double and tripleyour income over the next 10 years?
Or are you going to really think abouthow you are more partnership-led?
And if it means the consequence of thatis becoming smaller, then so be it.
(25:53):
So that's the risk that manyINGOs are not willing to give up.
Nobody really wants theirfunding to decrease.
Everybody wants their funding to increase.
Yeah.
It's an issue that unfortunately remainsin the sector, and that's quite
contradictory with certain objectives thatinternational NGOs
set for themselves when it comes tolocally-led development or localization.
(26:14):
It is still very much an issue that'sinternally discussed in many of the
Western-led internationalNGOs that we see.
One underlying question that relates tothat also is, we work
in in the sector a lot with Westerninternational donors that
have an influence or a certain power overthe aid activities that we carry out.
(26:39):
In the scope of a more localized or in thescope of a global South organization,
if they rely on funding from largeinternational donors,
how can they protect their autonomy?
How can they protect their voice to remainindependent, to remain community-led, and
to serve the communities they're from?
Because there's a challenge that That ishere a certain dichotomy between
(27:03):
large international Western donors andthe independence and the autonomy,
the voice of global South actors.
Well, that's a very interestingquestion because I suspect...
I mean, no, I know that that'sthe same problem that INGOs have.
How independent is an American NGO when80, 90 % of its funding comes from USAID?
(27:28):
Exactly.
How independent is it when a UK NGO has70, 80 % of its funding coming from FCDO?
So I would actuallythrow the question back at you all.
I would say that there is morechances of lack of independence
(27:50):
and sovereignty in your thinking asa global north or an INGO.
But when we as a desk, so we'regetting USAID funding or EU funding.
I don't think I ever felt that our voicewas restricted in
calling these donors out.
There were times where we were,quote unquote, blacklisted because we were
(28:13):
too controversial about talkingabout racism in the sector.
Way before George Floyd and BLM.
Now we're in a different space.
But the way the things were in 2017,'18, even '19, a year before all of that.
So But I, honestly, I didn't care.
And I didn't feel likemy speech was restricted.
(28:35):
And I don't think that our advocacy wasreally that much restricted
at the country level.
And I don't feel like my identityas a Somali NGO was also in question.
I think, whereas I believe thatit's much harder being a British NGO or US
(28:57):
NGO and being from the same country asyour donor,
I think that is more restrictivethan being a Somali NGO that gets
money from USAID or other donors.
I think one way to resolve thisfor both the global North NGOs and the
global South organizations is that webecome more financially independent.
(29:21):
We figure out how to...
As a desk, we're trying to actively figureout how we raise money ourselves
or generate money ourselves, revenueourselves through various businesses
so that we eventually have our ownendowment and our own source of
income and we're not dependent.
And we can say, Hey, because of Gaza, wedon't want to take your money as US
(29:45):
government, or because of this, we don'twant to take your money as UK government,
or because of that, we don't wantto take your money as a foundation.
I think having that independenceis extremely important.
It shocks me that seeing global northNGOs, I hate calling them INGOs.
(30:06):
I really don't like that term because itassumes that only global north are
international and we are always old.
But global north NGOs are Or after some ofthem being as old as
70 years, 60 years, 50 years,that they still don't have, they only have
a reserve, but they don't have asignificant endowment, knowing that you
(30:29):
guys gotten unrestricted fundingfrom your government donors through these
partnership agreementsfor the past 20, 30 years.
The US NGOs get a very, very niceNICRA rate, indirect cost rate.
So I'm just surprised that they haven'tengaged in mechanisms to
not just have a reserve, but have asignificant endowment
(30:51):
for their institutions.
It surprises me, honestly.
But I also know that some of themare They're also trying to think about
having an enterprises,private sector arm of those institutions.
I think Plan has something,Mercy Corps has something, Care Canada has
(31:13):
something, But it's not consistentand it's not very significant.
So that's what I would be advocating for,is how do we become financially sovereign.
Yeah, that makes sense.Very interesting.
Perhaps In a few words, to wrap up thisexchange, what changes do you hope to see
(31:35):
in the next 5-10 years on locally leddevelopment and the role of global south
actors in this aidarchitecture that we're in?
I would love to see more global southgovernments
having a more firmer, principled positionon the international
(31:56):
aid actors in their countries, similar towhat Indonesia did in the 2019 tsunami,
where they basically said, If you want towork in Indonesia, these
are our conditions.
You have to work through the government,or you have to work only
through Indonesian NGOs.
I would like to see more and moreglobal south governments taking these
(32:16):
very strong principled positions.
I like the idea of Philippinesunder Dutarte
saying that they're not going to declareanymore level, was it level three or level
five emergencies, saying that we, as agovernment, have the capacity to respond.
We're not going to do that anymore.
Where you just come in.
And once we declare an emergency of thatnature, the UN system takes over and the
(32:40):
international system comes with theirclusters and everything and
marginalizes the governments.
I would love to see more African countriesdoing that and more Mino
countries doing that.
I think Asia and Latin America are alittle more advanced than us, and they're
taking a much more strongerposition as governments.
So I would love to see see that.
(33:00):
I would love to see stronger governmentactions on the system and
drawing some red lines.
And then I think the second thing thatwould be really amazing to see is if we
have Things like the pledge forchange are no longer needed.
Like INGOs have integratedthe pledge commitments
(33:22):
as part of their entire system.
You don't need an outside Secretariat tosay to you, Hey, TDH or IRC or Mercy
Corps, you're doing this notso well and this not so well.
I think I would love to see that it's anessential part of their DNA to behave
differently in everything that they do.
(33:43):
It's in all their policies and procedures.
It's in how the board works, how themetrics that the CEO of the organization
is judged against includes some of thosepledge metrics about partnerships and what
are the partners saying about the qualityof the relationships rather than how much
money are you bringinginto the organization.
(34:04):
I would love to see it go from atthe top level all the way down.
I would love to see more localorganizations being very strong, more
united at the country level,saying, because of their unity,
saying, no, we won't work with youunder these terms and conditions.
Unless you do X, Y, and Z,we're not going to work with you.
And it makes it more and more difficultfor the INGOs and the UN agencies to find
(34:29):
really good good, strong, crediblepartners, because all the strong, credible
partners don't want to work with thembecause they're not changing their
behavior, forcing the systemto have to react.
I would love to see that we also take alot of power into our own hands
instead of just complaining.
So the pledge for change by 2030 shouldnot exist because we have been successful
(34:54):
in these ways that I've just described.
And that's why it's a 2030 commitment.
I don't believe in creatinginstitutions that exist forever.
So from the beginning, we said by 2030, wehope that the pledge for change can
sunset, can close,and that the INGOs have integrated all
(35:14):
these commitments into their way ofbeing into their DNA as an institution.
So that's what I would love tosee in the next five years or so.
Let's hope for that.
Thank you very much, Digana Lee, forcoming to the podcast today and
your insight on all these matters.It was a pleasure.
Thank you for having me, Martin.
(35:40):
I'm Enikő Vass, and you've beenlistening to a Local Link Hub podcast.
Today, our host was Martin Gallard,Localization and Partnership Manager
at Terre des Hommes.
We had help from Judith Németh-Almásy..
Thanks to all of you for listening, andthank you, Degan Ali, for taking the time
(36:01):
and sharing your really interestingviews on localization.
I hope you enjoyed this episode.
And if you want to learn more about Terredes hommes initiative,
please visit our website at locallink.childhub.
org.
If you have any comments on the episode orjust want to share your thoughts,
(36:24):
contact us via social media on Facebook orLinkedIn, or email us on
locallink@childhub.org.
Thanks for joining.
See you on our next episode.