Several authors have attempted to define local ownership, but there is still no accepted definition. The UN itself emphasizes on the significance of the principle but does not offer a coherent definition. Chesterman describes ownership as “how the population comes to regard certain policies as their own” . Other scholars describe ownership as a tool to increase effectiveness and legitimacy in peacebuilding. Moreover, the term is used to address representational issues at the national and local levels.
Based on the discussions in the former literatures about local ownership, this section aims to analyze the concept of local ownership. To understand the concept of local ownership, it is significant to focus on the following respective aspects such as the owners of local ownership, its degrees, and ownership in process and as outcome.
The “Owners” of Local Ownership
In the discourse of local ownership, the term “local” can describe but is not limited to the government of the host state, civil society groups, community and religious leaders, social sectors such as women, children, and disabled persons. In the majority of studies around 2000, “locals” in peacebuilding operations represented only the elites, namely, political leaders and civil society organizations. However, criticisms were raised that local elites utilize local ownership as a political propaganda tool. Furthermore, civil society groups were blamed for prioritizing international values over their traditional ones, in order to receive more funds. Thus, more studies and practices began recognizing the role of the local population and community for sustainable peace.
The inclusion of a broad range of local actors in the decision-making process is crucial because it legitimizes decisions and makes locals more likely to support the implementation of the policy. In addition, it reduces resistance and thereby minimizes the cost of implementation. Such policies encourage and maintain social cohesion. However, in the case of a post-conflict situation, policies that decide the future of the country have to be determined as quickly as possible. Thus, although the participation of diverse interest groups is ideal, three critical issues can be raised: time, money, and capacities of locals. In practice, these factors often limit efforts to include all stakeholders in the debate.
Degree of Local Ownership
In this section, “local ownership” is divided into four categories based on how previous research and publications have used “ownership”: buy-in, consultation, participation, and full-control.
1 Buy-in
Buy-in is the minimalist version of local ownership, in which locals assent to the international peacebuilding activities, but do not participate in them. Furthermore, the locals and international actors in peacebuilding operations have a common understanding regarding what is “right” for the countries, and there is no conflict between the external and internal actors.
Scholars indicate that ownership in peacebuilding is domestic buy-in because the UN recognizes ownership within a liberal peacekeeping framework that includes rule of law, democratization, and respect of human rights. Thus, the UN, namely external peacebuilders, tend to accept the local values and practices only when it does not contradict the liberal norms. Indeed, Suhrke states “[O]wnership clearly means ‘their’ ownership of ‘our’ ideas” .
The consensus of locals can be promoted by effective communication and outreach through public information campaigns and dissemination explaining the mission’s function, mandate, and goals.
2 Consultation
Some scholars explain ownership as involving the locals in the consultation mechanism. For example, the 2005 report on UN integrated peace operations advocates for the creation of mechanisms that include local actors in planning, and the Capstone Doctrine stresses that peace operations should be conducted in a consultative manner. As Kofi Annan addresses in his 2004 report, peacebuilding activities must “assist national stakeholders to develop their own reform vision, their own agenda, their own approaches”.
Consulting with locals on peacebuilding operations not only leads to the incorporation of indigenous norms, practices, and culture but also enables the inclusion of local knowledge and opinions about how to establish a secure and sustainable peace. This reduces the imposition of external actors and increases the degree of self-determination.
3 Participation
Other scholars define ownership as participation of the locals. Roberto Belloni advocates for local ownership, declaring that local actors should be “placed at the center of international engagement” . In addition, he argues in favor of including the elites in the reconstruction process to prepare them for self-governance. Such participation will make the operation more legitimate and sustainable since local capacities can be developed based on the existing local capacities, structure, and culture.
4 Full-control
Another degree of ownership is described as full-control of the locals. Compared to the previous scholars, maximalist views maintain that peacebuilding processes “must be designed, managed, and implemented by local actors rather than external actors”. For Reich, “participation alone is insufficient and only full local leadership of peacebuilding can guarantee sustainability” and Donais emphasize that locals should take full responsibility for all peacebuilding procedures.
Local Ownership in Process or as Outcome?
Although previous literatures agree that, at certain stage, peacebuilding has to be locally owned, no consensus has been reached on when and how much local ownership should be promoted. Furthermore, a vast number of studies discuss ownership without distinguishing between ownership in process and as outcome. However, as Mackenzie-Smith explains, local ownership of the process “must not be confused with local ownership of the outcome”. According to Mackenzie-Smith, ownership in process is how ownership is distributed during the operations, and ownership as outcome refers to “the end stage of a development assistance and reform”. Although some studies differentiate between ownership in process and as outcome, these definitions and their usage remain ill-defined and understudied.
Furthermore, there has been a great deal of confusion in the literature regarding whether ownership should be ensured in the process or as the outcome. Nartan emphasizes the importance of ownership in both; process and outcome. He defines ownership as the “process and final outcome of the gradual transfer to legitimate representatives of the local society, of assessment, planning and decision-making, the practical management and implementation, and the evaluation and control of all phases of state-building programs up to the point when no further external assistance is needed”.
Other studies refer only to the significance of the ownership in process and do not address the ownership as outcome. For instance, Nathan describes ownership as “a process-oriented approach that respects and empowers the local actors”.
On the other hand, Marenin (2005) and Chesterman (2005) are certain that ownership should be at the end stage (outcome) and not significant in process. According to Marenin, post-conflict societies lack the capacity to support reconstruction and operate basic services.
Significance of Local Ownership
The emphasis on local ownership in peacebuilding can be found in numerous UN reports, studies, and the mandate of current peacekeeping operations. Based on these sources, the value of local ownership in externally driven state-building can be understood mainly in terms of two aspects, namely enhancing legitimacy by following the principles of self-determination and sustainability.
First, to sustain peace and stability, external actors have to be seen as “legitimate” in the eyes of the locals during the state-building process. Legitimacy is usually understood as a characteristic of a hierarchical relationship between actors, which are likely to be unequal in their power. According to Frank, legitimacy is the “factors that affect our willingness to comply voluntarily with commands”. In other words, people will follow the rules or rule-makers, not for their own benefit or due to coercion but because it seems “right.” Thus, if the external actors or operations are not regarded as “legitimate”, it is highly likely that the indigenous people will resist and reject the peacebuilding efforts. Previous studies and lessons learned from past peace operations have shown a strong connection between legitimacy and the principle of self-determination in that legitimacy is realized by promoting the principle of self-determination and decreasing the degree of external imposition. Self-determination, which can be understood as the legal grounds for local ownership, recognizes the right of people to choose and shape their own political and economic future, which includes but is not limited to selecting their political and economic system and governing it themselves. To conclude, without the involvement, - that is, ownership - of locals, the principle of self-determination is neglected, and policies are externally imposed, leading locals to see them as illegitimate. Furthermore, this principle of self-determination is recognized in the United Nations Charter as one of the purposes of its organization. Violating such an essential principle would not only bring the UN’s value into question but would result in the loss of its credibility (legitimacy) in the eyes of the locals.
Second, local ownership in the peacebuilding operation is crucial because domestically fostered solutions are much more likely to be sustainable than arrangements that are externally dictated. At the end, no matter how long the operations will take place, it is the local people who must live with the success or failure of peacebuilding operations. Decisions made without the input of these direct beneficiaries disregard local values, practices, and capacity. Such conditions may create an unsustainable “virtual peace” where external norms and institutions are shallowly rooted.