**1. Introduction**

The colonial and neo-colonial aspects of development projects have been described by critics for many decades. In the post-World War II period, large development agencies pushed a model that was based on advancement in stages from "underdeveloped" to "developed" as exemplified by Northern industrial economies [1]. The legacy of colonialism in creating inequality and extractivist economic relationships was not acknowledged in this formulation, and poverty was portrayed as apolitical [1]. Many of the same neocolonial relationships continued or intensified in the name of development [2] 1. Today, wealth and resources continue to flow out of Indigenous and global South communities and countries in the global South. From 2000 to 2017, net transfers of financial resources from "developing" to "developed" countries grew and exceeded overseas development assistance (ODA) flows [3]. As one critic observed, this is "aid in reverse" [4].

The idea of development grew to be powerful as an economic prescription as well as creating "perceptions, myths and fantasies" [5] (p. 1). According to Escobar [6] (p. 9), as a discourse, development "created an extremely efficient apparatus for producing knowledge about, and the exercise of power over, the Third World," reproduced and promoted by development professionals and institutions. Despite many alternative definitions and transformations of the concept, including sustainable development, the dominant discourse of development continues to focus on economic growth [6]. This primacy of economic growth has often been used to promote trade liberalization, privatization and productivist approaches in agriculture (see for example [7]).

**Citation:** Oliver, B.; Deawuo, L.A.; Rao, S. A Food Sovereignty Approach to Localization in International Solidarity. *Societies* **2022**, *12*, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12050145

Academic Editor: Ranjan Datta

Received: 22 March 2022 Accepted: 6 October 2022 Published: 14 October 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

In recent years, many NGO observers and workers have explicitly called for the "decolonization" of aid and development (see for examples [8–11]). Decolonization in aid and development integrates critiques of colonialism and white supremacy, and strongly advocates for addressing systemic and structural racism [11]. It raises questions about the "white gaze"—how the priorities and lens of white people tend to dominate, including how stereotypical images are used to advance charity fundraising [11]. Across all these discussions is the importance of local control. At a first level, this involves "localization", which is a move away from external decision-making and towards local ownership, leadership and expertise [12]. As noted by Cooperation Canada, "Overall, localization, in its full meaning, entails fundamental transformation of international cooperation mechanisms" ([12], see also [13]). Collaborative and flexible processes for funding and agenda-setting are part of the solution [12].

Localization may be especially important in the cases of NGOs with headquarters in the global North and country offices abroad. However, there are often inequalities even when the partners are local organizations. There are inherent power dynamics related to the role of NGOs from the global North as funders. For example, the Canada Revenue Agency obliges Canadian registered charities to maintain ongoing "direction and control" when working through an "intermediary" non-profit organization in another country 2. Development terminology can also overshadow and suppress local and Indigenous concepts. A survey of NGOs in the global South showed that most (65%) confirmed their collaboration with international NGOs is based on principles of equality, but that the practices and programs do not sufficiently consider local realities, and projects relied heavily on "western defined systems and models", resulting in several negative impacts [14]. Unfortunately, organizations receiving funding may not feel sufficient trust to question reporting requirements with their funder partners. Reporting requirements that are heavy and inflexible, with overemphasis on donor monitoring frameworks, can result in local partners dedicating more time to administration and less to working in communities and doing policy work. The concept of "NGOization" indicates that such bureaucratization can redirect attention and space away from social movement organizing [15].

A further level of critique thus concerns the role of NGOs themselves. NGOs include a wide range of organizations and methods of work, from pressing political demands linked to social movements to carrying out more reformist work as part of rural development projects for example [15]. In many cases, NGOs play a bridging role between aid agencies and communities or grassroots organizations but are primarily accountable to overseas funders' criteria and interests [16] (p. 132). In part, the increase in the number of NGOs also resulted from the withdrawal of the state from providing services [15] (p. 7). Associated with this trend has been a discourse surrounding NGOs in which they are viewed in terms of partnerships and civil society, while not all have clear constituencies to which they are accountable.

Discussion of decolonization of aid and development raises deep questions. The discourse on the decolonization of aid has been critiqued by some as not led by actors in the global South [17]. Use of the concept of decolonization as a metaphor, rather than its literal meaning for Indigenous sovereignty today (primarily regarding land), has also been pointed out as being problematic [18]. For NGOs, these discussions can be fraught with the contradictions arising from acting within colonial power structures. Without a connection to social movements, the debates risk low legitimacy. Several advocates argue that decolonizing development includes taking a more political, solidarity approach, such as activism directed towards harmful foreign policies and extractivist industries [8]. It may also require abandoning the problematic concept of development altogether in favor of alternatives such as degrowth, centralizing Indigenous knowledge systems and a focus on the re-distribution of power and decision-making between global North and South divisions. Food sovereignty and agroecology are also such alternatives, we argue in this paper. Food sovereignty is the rights of peoples to "define their own food and agriculture systems" [19]. Agroecology, as a central aspect of food sovereignty, originated in agrarian

movements and has a strong focus on the knowledge and experiences of Indigenous and smallholder farmers [20].

This paper discusses an example of an evolution in approaches for the NGO Seed-Change, previously USC Canada (weseedchange.org), that demonstrated various engagements with development and its alternatives. SeedChange began as a humanitarian organization in 1945, later focused on community development projects and then adopted a food sovereignty framework in recent decades. Decisions about agricultural programming were strongly influenced by South-South and North-South exchanges with partner organizations beginning in the late 1980s in particular. Today, rather than aid and development, SeedChange uses food sovereignty and agroecology with an increasingly feminist focus, to guide its work and relationships. In addition to providing an alternative framework to development, food sovereignty and agroecology provide important lessons for sharing power as they are strongly rooted in participatory methods and social justice principles. Further, feminist approaches in agroecology call for participatory, gender-based analysis for actions to address intersectional forms of inequality in agriculture and food systems [21].

This paper aims to contribute to discussions on localization and how NGOs can help address power imbalances in decision-making in international programs on agriculture. Recently, SeedChange engaged in internal learning about localization, decolonization and feminist approaches to international partnerships. While these discussions and learning are ongoing, outcomes include a commitment to improve shared decision-making and incorporate feminist frameworks. While not immune to the problems discussed above, due to SeedChange's role as an NGO and a funder organization located in the global North, use of food sovereignty and agroecology frameworks has helped to center farmer-led approaches and collaborative decision-making. SeedChange is also prioritizing learning from women's rights organizations and incorporating feminist methods.

#### **2. Methods**

The authors of this article are employed by SeedChange and hope that this paper will support critical reflections and contribute to improved partnership approaches at the organization, and perhaps contribute to broader discussions and practices. The case study in this paper is based on a review of internal and external documents produced by Seed-Change, and a consultation process for this article within SeedChange in February 2022. The internal documents included SeedChange's Strategic Plan 2020–2025 (2019), Theory of Change (2020), Policy Statement (2019), and the International Partnership Principles and Background Paper (2021). External resources reviewed include SeedChange's website, publications and public service announcements. Finally, small consultative workshops on this article with some staff working on international programs and in the senior management team were organized by the lead author in early 2022 with the participation of six persons at SeedChange 3. These workshops each included a presentation of the key points of this article on SeedChange's approach to food sovereignty and agroecology and international partnerships, with a participatory discussion to provide feedback and general observations.

The International Partnership Principles was a key document in this process. In early 2021, SeedChange's international programs team carried out a set of internal participatory workshops to document and improve the organization's approaches to work with international partners. This was accompanied by a review of the internal documents and a literature review of both academic and non-academic writings on the "decolonization of aid" and feminist approaches to international solidarity. Informed by the literature consulted, reflections from the workshops, and previous informal discussions within the organization and with partners, staff leading this approach wrote a draft background paper. Validation workshops were then carried out on the background paper and a draft set of "partnership principles" were developed by SeedChange's international programs team. This process also drew upon discussions and readings on decolonization and localization shared by the Canadian Food Security Policy Group (FSPG), a network of NGOs working on food security internationally 4.

A framework that was useful early in the process is provided by Fowler (2000), who argues that we can think of relationships between NGOs as "differentiated by the 'breadth' of organisational engagement negotiated", ranging in order of decreasing mutual engagement from: partner (which involves co-management aspects), to institutional supporter, program supporter, project funder, and ally [22]. All of these are valid and appropriate in different contexts. On the other hand, the sharing of power within those relationships can be thought of in terms of "depth", beginning with information exchange at the most "shallow" end, to consultation, shared influence, and finally joint control [22]. Power dynamics related to funding and the "gatekeeper" role of larger or northern NGOs (who have greater access to northern agency funding), include greater control and agenda setting by these [23]. Fowler recommends that while taking into account cultural differences, it can be helpful to openly discuss the type of relationship that exists in a partnership, noting that "Agreeing on relative influence within a relationship is one way of addressing, if not redressing, power differences" [22] (p. 6). These two concepts–the breadth and depth of shared power–was a key starting point for the internal workshops on partnership aspirations.

Feminist approaches also provided important guidance on methodology. SeedChange has long integrated gender equality and women's empowerment aspects in programs, but only in recent years has taken a stronger approach to integrate an explicitly feminist framework (e.g., feminist agroecology), as explained further below. Feminist approaches to international solidarity include adopting more horizontal and participatory approaches, self-reflexivity and deep listening [24]. These aspects were integrated into the reflection workshops and throughout the drafting of the partnership principles and remain central to efforts to focus on mutual learning and collaborative creation of knowledge in current and future work according to SeedChange international programs' staff.

A key limitation of the development of the draft partnership principles document was that it is unfinished. While the document is meant to orient SeedChange, it also indicates a need for transparency on power dynamics and discussion of these issues with international partners. While the ideas were briefly presented in an online workshop in October 2021 with partners from East Africa, due to COVID-19 travel restrictions at the time, the virtual nature of the meeting limited discussion of sensitive subjects. This limitation affects this article as well, as it does not reflect consultation with partners. It is hoped by the authors and staff consulted that in the coming months and years, opportunities for genuine in-person discussions on these issues can be realized.

#### **3. Results and Discussion**

The discussion below provides an analysis, based on the literature review, of key problems created by the agro-industrial development model in terms of colonialism, neocolonialism and the top-down imposition of technologies. It then provides an overview of counter-solutions offered by food sovereignty and agroecology approaches. This review is useful to indicate why food sovereignty and agroecology encourage local decision-making and thus also localization. It is followed by a description of the trajectory at SeedChange and adoption of the food sovereignty and agroecology approaches based on influence by its partners and other organizations in the global South, as well as how these frameworks also strengthened localization actions and learning within the organization. Final observations on internal reflections are discussed, offering potential next steps for the organization and for broader debates on localization.
