The decision to add the Colombia case study was taken following discussion between Groupe URD and the Global Study Steering Group. Although Latin America had originally been earmarked as a desirable regional focus for one of the sudden onset case studies, it was agreed that to ensure the Study's regional diversity, Colombia should be added as a fifth complex emergency providing a conflict situation in Latin America.

Colombia is composed of three geographical zones: the coast, the plateaus and plains, and the Andes. Three basins form the main of the Colombian hydrographical network: the Pacific side, the valleys of the three cordilleras (the Atrato, the Magdalena rivers), and the Eastern plains (the Caqueta, Amazon, and Orinoco rivers). Access to certain zones is sometimes very limited because of the complexity of the topography.

The development of colonies and the mass arrival of African slaves are the foundations of the actual composition of the Colombian population: Afro-Colombian, "criollos" (Colombians of some European descent), Indians. Presently, ethnic minorities are protected by laws that give them, at least in theory, access to land and guarantee the respect of their ethnic identity.

The direct impact of the political crisis that the country has been undergoing for nearly 50 years is a civilian population hostage to the conflict, caught in the cross-fire between the different warring factions: guerrilla movements, paramilitary and Colombian Armed Forces. The various parties are fighting throughout the national territory, according to a scattered configuration, with no clear pattern; pockets of conflict are dispersed and unpredictable. The factions attempt to take control of territorial zones for several reasons (weight in negotiations, control of illicit productions, control of geo-strategic zones, of access roads and strategic corridors) and, to this end, they seek to control the populations of the concerned territories in various ways.

These characteristics of the conflict cause a series of direct impacts on the populations :

• intimidations, threats, sequestration, homicides, massacres of civilian populations ; and,
• individual or collective displacements (estimates range from 1 500 000 to 2 700 000 displaced persons) ;

This also entails :

• destabilisation of host areas (villages or large towns);
• difficulties on return when the place of origin has been abandoned for several months; and,
• "blocus" areas.

The Colombian government is the main humanitarian actor in the country, and it takes on part of the concomitant responsibilities. The texts that govern emergency assistance, the rights of displaced persons, and the role of the various ministries, are among the most elaborate in the world.

The main government actor for humanitarian aid is the Red de Solidaridad Social (RSS – Social Solidarity Network). It is responsible for humanitarian assistance, which is defined specifically as emergency relief during the first 3 months of a displacement. A system of close collaboration exists with the ICRC, which intervenes when the RSS does not have access to certain areas.

Civil society is extremely well organised and many Colombian NGOs and Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) are active in responding to the crisis. The "international aid community" (United Nations agencies and INGOs) come to complement these actors, which represents an atypical situation with regard to the majority of crisis contexts.

The action of these various actors focuses in particular on:

• protection issues (ICRC), and international presence for the monitoring of human rights or IHL (International Humanitarian Law), protection of populations, etc.;
• emergency humanitarian aid, following forced displacements (food aid, sanitary items, settlement kits, etc.);
• mid-term assistance when return is not possible (micro-projects, agricultural rehabilitation); and,
• return assistance when the situation allows it.

A preparatory mission was carried out from the 14th to 28th June 2002, to prepare for the research (select sites, set-up a local team) and to present the study to key institutions. The study itself was carried out from mid-July to 10^th September 2002 in three specific zones where data was collected through semi-structured interviews using a questionnaire developed with the team in the field and direct observations on various types of programmes. A preliminary analysis of the data was undertaken and a one-day feedback workshop organised in Bogota, on 10^th September, during which around 20 participants discussed the initial results.

The first draft of the Colombia monograph will be sent to the field actors for validation, before being shared with the Global Study Steering Group for feedback.

The sampling of the study areas was done using a combination of three criteria: characteristics of the zones, nature of the crisis, and intensity and modalities of humanitarian interventions.

A large range of populations (IDP, host populations, CBOs) and aid actors (national, international) were interviewed, covering all facets of assistance and programmes currently run in Colombia.

The study team was multi-cultural, gender-balanced and multi-disciplinary. It was composed of aid practitioners experienced in programme evaluation and social science specialists.

Humanitarian actors and affected populations, the government and NGOs all speak about participation. The definition of participation often has political connotations because of its strong legal foundations in Colombia. The Colombian constitution of 1991, as well as the Law 70 (concerning Afro-Colombian communities) and the Law 387 (for persons displaced by violence), establish the necessity to take the "citizen" into consideration and make him "participate" in actions which concern him. All agree on the importance of having "participatory" approaches, but the discourse on participation can take several forms and be put into practice through a broad range of approaches from round tables to workshops, from illegal occupation of offices to co-execution. The term "participation" is perceived differently by each actor.

In the Latin American context, and Colombia in particular, the history of social dynamics has made participation a key issue, both at the political and operational level. Nothing, or next to nothing, can be achieved without "participation" and where participation does not take place, it indicates severe external constraints such as leaders under threat or a limitation of the right to gather by armed forces.

In humanitarian action, the meaning of participation varies according to individual perspectives. For host populations, participation is the capacity to welcome displaced persons, listen to them and help them, while for beneficiaries, it entails being accompanied and listened to, and being able to organise themselves to find solutions. For Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) and local NGOs, the important issue is the consultation process concerning the "who, what and how" of aid delivery, as well as their involvement in the implementation of programmes. Aid actors see participation as a concrete mode of listening – to better interpret people’s needs or hear their recommendations in respect of the provision of technical support, education, or even co-implementation of activities and power sharing.

Reasons for wanting to participate or for making people participate in humanitarian action also vary according to individual perspectives. Participation can be seen as an "instrumental" process that serves a programme’s purpose or as a key to citizenship, the respect of a right, or an "ideologico-political" process.

The following table summarises the different objectives of participation, broken down according to "affected populations" and "aid actors".

In the particular context of Colombia, participation in humanitarian aid is put into practice through meetings and dialogue in its broadest sense, rather than through specific techniques. The approach is intuitive and rather informal, but extremely dynamic. Among the range of tools mentioned during interviews it would appear that few tools from the development sector are used, besides informal processes.

The following table presents the modes of participation of affected populations and beneficiaries in humanitarian action that were observed in relation to the different stages of the project cycle.

Three key factors determine the possibility and level of participation in humanitarian action:

• the context of the crisis, notably the level of violence, the strategies of armed parties, the intensity of threats to individuals and institutions;
• the population, with its own culture, level of organisation, its experience of collective action, the structures it has put in place;
• aid actors, their strategies, their knowledge of the environment and the level of donor pressure they are subject to.

One of the determining factors is the population, because the weaker it is (not very organised, without a "life project" – vision for the future – having lost everything), the more it becomes an "object" and not a "subject" of aid. If the affected population’s structure, level of organisation and training is sufficiently strong, it can "inverse" the direction of participation and "invite" the aid actors to participate. In a few cases, the population has even refused programmes or projects that are proposed by actors, when these projects are considered not adapted.

The table below details the different factors influencing participation:

Participation seems to always be a negotiating game between two parties : those who offer and those who request assistance. The greater the equilibrium in the balance of power, the more participation is facilitated. But where does one place individual freedom in participatory programmes which are almost always collective? The level of participation in an emergency situation will depend on the population’s level of organisation, as it is often from there that the first assistance will arrive, through community support and solidarity.

What roles should be given to grassroots institutions ? Are programmes for the institutional development of CBOs in stable periods investments that will bear their fruit during crises, even if the latter weaken them? What should be done about the threats and dangers which the leaders may face?

Must an INGO work directly with leaders and organised structures or, on the contrary, must it have a direct approach with the community ? Are CBOs truly representative of the population?

The « economy » of participation obviously poses a number of questions: must one support CBOs financially? Should the leaders be paid? Should they work as volunteers? A number of issues must also be delved into: what is the best group size for participatory approaches? Is size important? Can a CBO have effective participation with 12,000 members?

How far does the will to foster participatory approaches come from the necessity of a project or the imposition of a "collectivist dream" by the actor itself?