WORKSHOP FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE FIELD MISSIONS
"GLOBAL STUDY ON THE PARTICIPATION BY AFFECTED POPULATIONS IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION"
July 12th – 13th 2002, La Fontaine des Marins
AGENDA
1. PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA AND PARTICIPANTS
The agenda was approved with its original contents
The team members were presented:
2. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES
The transition between INTRAC & URD has now taken place. An agreement was finalised on expenditure and cost. The present budget is along the lines already discussed with URD (see URD proposal + 20,000£ left for emergencies). The documents are available.
the Global Study is presently 80% funded. The current donors will be asked if they wish to expand their contribution. Now that the transition is taking place smoothly, it is possible to reassure people. The Steering Group needs to see about complementary funds.
the ALNAP Secretariat is the first point of contact, in particular André Grigsbourg, the Steering Group chair. The 6 members of the Steering Group are: Jean-Marc (CIDA), WHO, CARITAS, Ian Shaw (Cardiff University), Johan Poitier (SOAS), Kate (ALNAP), and 2 "beneficiary representatives" (including Girma).
3. COMMUNICATION STRATEGY
3.1 External communication
The first missions showed that few people know about ALNAP (even staff from Active Member agencies). Furthermore, many people are doing research on participation. There is a need for a communication policy to invite people interested to participate, and that helps us get into contact with people already doing research or interested in the subject.
Email addresses of the research teams could be included.
The idea of having an Internet forum, for questions and answers was raised, but this requires the site to be very well serviced.
3.2 Internal communication
Graph 1: Internal communication lines for the Global Study
4. STATUS OF MISSIONS AND FIRST LESSONS LEARNED
4.1 Sri Lanka mission: (INTRAC)
A provisional report was distributed.
4.2 Democratic Republic of Congo Mission: (Simon Harragin)
The mission report was distributed.
Simon found that participation was a disputed concept, and that this topic was not clear. It seems often used as a way of thinking rather than doing. The meaning of "participation" is different according to the person:
Simon found we can identify two main strands of thinking about participation:
This involves understanding how the local culture interfaces with the international community, what adaptations it makes to fit in the confines of the agency. The "community" is a heterogeneous entity. It is something that divides people as well as uniting them. Community defining is a political exercise. People use their rights to congregate in groups as a way of expressing themselves politically and getting aid from the international community
à is the civil society in Eastern Congo based on strong political tradition (endogenous) or in response to international assistance (exogenous).
This involves looking at the structure of the international aid effort. What in the structure encourages/discourages participation. Many people in the international community don’t listen. For example, how do expats interface with local staff members? Is there a trust relationship with local staff members? How can we avoid confrontational relationship, so as to get a good cross-fertilisation between inside knowledge and outside knowledge.
|
Potential obstacles to the study / recommendations / questions :
|
4.3 Colombia mission: (Véronique de Geoffroy)
A preliminary report on the exploratory mission was distributed.
The main issues in the country are internally displaced persons (IDP’s) (about 1.5 million) and the sporadic massacres throughout the country. People flee because they are afraid. There are many individual displacements, of people who are threatened, and some collective displacements (from 50 people +). There are movements in all directions, and people leave everything behind. There are some central points, where more actors are concentrated, but they also work in dispersed areas.
Secondary impacts of displacements:
|
Potential obstacles to the study / recommendations / questions : Protection is a huge issue. This raises the questions of
|
The "Red de Solidaridad Social" (government humanitarian actor) is very interested in the project. They manage round tables with international and local NGOs, municipalities, IDP organisations, etc. and have invited us to attend.
The perception of participation also varied according to the person asked. For more medical NGOs, for example, participation is training; it is more the patient who consults the doctor than vice versa. Such cultural features in the different families of aid actors can affect their approach to participation.
In some examples, there was the impression that it is the humanitarian actors that participate to the community’s initiatives.
The involvement of Colombian communities contrasts with the lack of interest in participation noted in Sri Lanka à the reasons (culture, tradition?) for this could be explored
Factors that may affect participation/consultation:
|
Questions/issues raised by participants:
|
4.4 Angola mission: (François Grünewald)
Angola was kept as case study, despite the fact that the political crisis has been resolved (officially), because:
Team leader: Paul Robson (to be confirmed)
Preliminary visit in September.
4.5 Afghanistan mission: (François Grünewald)
Afghanistan is an interesting case because:
4.6 Rapid-onset natural disaster mission : (François Grünewald)
The potential areas were identified according to the likelihood of having a rapid onset disaster:
This mission is unpredictable so we need to group a team rapidly.
Team members will be on stand-by (e.g. Charlotte)
5. BRAINSTORMING
For conciseness in the present report, the ideas generated through Pierson’s presentation of his experiences in Malawi, Sudan and India, and through the discussion that followed were organised by theme. They were then taken into consideration in the elaboration of a methodology which is presented in the attached document.
5.1 The issue of PERCEPTION of the various concepts:
à What do we mean when we say "people need to participate?"
à what is the beneficiaries’ perception of participation?
à Problem of local terminology: maybe participation doesn’t mean anything to people, but other things do.
à what is the organisations’ perception of participation and how do they see themselves in this dynamic?
à we need to document the different points of view on the programmes: beneficiaries, agency staff, local authorities, other affected populations, etc.
à how does each actor judge success?
à this might involve a "balancing act", taking into consideration the added-value, cost, etc. of participation, for the various actors.
It was noted that consultation was not mentioned though it is essential in the study. Consultation and participation are not the same thing, and it is possible to have one without the other.
This can be a motivation factor for communities: if participation genuinely happens, the engagement is shared, and there is more motivation. If there is only consultation, one could observe a "what we have to turn up again?" kind of attitude. It was suggested that people will participate if they have an interest in doing so (see El Salvador beneficiary perception study), even if there was no consultation.
5.2 Outcome of study / production
à is the judgement made by the team of what aspects of participation are thought to be useful and examples of "best practice"? Kate highlighted the fact that there are no preconceptions of what best practice is, but that there should be a focus on what is good for the beneficiaries. The team makes the judgement, by bringing different factors.
It is more seen as an analytical framework than a "cookbook".
The team should identify all kinds of practices, and their domain of validity. It should highlight what questions should be raised in that kind of context. A key element of the study will be to arrive at a structured approach, that represents the complexity of the situations and of the issue of participation and consultation.
Comments:
à The graph can be used in the study to help in the elaboration of recommendations on how to balance the two perspectives (agency and beneficiary/affected population).
5.3 The importance of the Context
There can be differences between contexts, even at the micro-level (e.g. urban vs. rural areas in the same zone). For example, where communities are already organised, it can favour participation and consultation.
The use of PRA is possible in humanitarian interventions, but can more difficult when the context is too unstable (ex from Forested Guinea, where a lot of PRA were used). There needs to be a selection of PRA methods that are useful/applicable in a given context.
It will be interesting to compare these two situations (e.g. Mitch in Central America vs. volcano in Goma and earthquake in Afghanistan). The actors present and the responses are likely to be different, etc.
5.4 Advice for methodology
There is a need to be open as possible, to listen, to observe, to be ready to have our assumptions challenged. Observation is very important, as many questions can come up.
While it was recommended to be rather informal in interview methods (e.g. open-ended questions, letting people speak about their experience), Pierson highlighted the need to have clear issues in mind and to be familiar with them, as there is a risk of getting carried away on one topic and collect little information on others.
Girma noted how in academic research, it is usual to start from a hypothesis and that there is a tendency to prove the hypothesis. He recommends starting from questions for operational research.
Simon warned how the questions asked are repeatedly asked, such that the people know how to manipulate their answers (e.g. Sudan). Rather than using sophisticated methodologies, he recommends being more informal, by identifying key things that you put in the conversation, rather than doing a "staged interview". By sharing information, or talking about the past, which more neutral, for example, people get carried away.
It was questioned whether the study should cover a maximum of contexts and types of programmes (diversity), or focus on a more limited number to ensure more comparability between each one. It was rather agreed that there should be a maximum of diversity, since the comparability was implicit in the questions asked.
Aid agencies staff (in capital and field; international and national staff); local authorities personnel; army staff if relevant; beneficiaries, etc.
Coordination meetings are a good way of seeing all those involved in the process and how they work together (or try to)
Distribution points are a good way of seeing many beneficiaries from all around; since they wait, there is no inconvenience for them.
Links between groups: it was recommended to list down the responsible groups and how they relate to each other. The groups you may be introduced to may not the one that is most useful to you.
Agency reports / documents that are used for process monitoring are useful as they trace the development of the relief process. Each agency monitors for its own process, but when one checks many, one has the wider picture. In the case of post-emergency situation, the documents enable a retrospective study.
Translator: must be found quickly à is often an agency staff. This is useful to meet beneficiaries, but there is a difficulty in raising sensitive issues on the programme with the staff present. Pierson did meet very frank staff, but it is difficult to count on it, because people tend to be defensive.
Transport time: if possible, it is better to have 2 teams to have a better coverage and thereby get a more comprehensive picture.
Need to be opportunistic in case there is an emergency in the case study country à go, as one can see the initial local response, and how agencies work with local initiatives when they arrive.
The study is an example of a participatory process à it is important to document the process (e.g. constraints), as an example.
6. METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH PROTOCOL
The complex Research Protocol initially developped by INTRAC proved itself not being user friendly in the field, according to INTRAC itself. O the basis of earlier discussions between the former Sri Lanka Team Leader and the Global Study current Project Director; the revision of this research protocol was discussed. An simplified methodology was thus elaborated.
7. PROGRAM SCHEDULE FOR THE NEXT MONTHS
7.1 Colombia
7.2 Democratic Republic of Congo
Beginning of mission: beginning of August.
Charles: needs to be in Canada for the 24th August (Alternatives General Assembly), but will try to come back for the first week of September.
Marion: arrival around the 15-18th Aug.
François: visit for 2nd week of Sept, at the end of the mission
Bonaventure present for entire mission
+ local researchers
7.3 Deadlines
7.4 Other information
CONCLUSION
The study involves considerable complexity in the subject and in the logistics. But we need to make sure we keep in line with the quality of the content and with the schedule.
Through this workshop, the Team and the Steering Group have achieved the two main objectives set out by the Project Director:
Next Worshop : Mid September 2002
Global Study Team