ALNAP Global Study on Beneficiary Consultation and Participation

This study investigates current policy and field practice in three areas, selected to capture the diverse ethnic and cultural identities of the Colombian peoples and the different facets of the Colombia crisis: Magdalena Medio (protracted/complex); Atrato Medio, Choco (the Bojaya massacre and Altos de Cazuca; Soacha (forgotten/hidden).

The Case of Colombia - Executive Summary

Part 1

INTRODUCTION
The participation and consultation of affected populations in humanitarian action now seems widely accepted as crucial to effective social targeting, resource utilisation, accountability, sustainability and impact. Beyond operational considerations, for some, participation is a fundamental right of citizenship, essential to survival, self-protection and self-actualisation in humanitarian emergencies. It is also a means through which humanitarian actors can demonstrate their respect for disaster-affected populations. As such the participation of affected populations has become a central tenet of policy for a number of humanitarian agencies.

Despite policy level commitments, there remains wide variation in practice. It is against this background that ALNAP commissioned the Global Study on Consultation with and Participation by Affected Populations in the Planning, Managing, Monitoring and Evaluation of Humanitarian Action, seeking to understand how participatory approaches can be established in crisis contexts.

Colombia is one of six country case studies chosen on the basis of geographic and socio-cultural diversity within emergency contexts. It captures a protracted complex crisis (at various stages); a Latin American ethnography and culture; a broad variety of humanitarian actors; a highly organised (if abused) grass roots society; a `citizen' component, where participation is seen as a right.

Key Characteristics

Study Sites:
Magdalena Medio
Atrato Medio, Chocó
Altos de Cazucá

Criteria:

Stage of Crisis
Protracted/complex crisis
Acute (Bojayá massacre)
Forgotten/hidden crisis

Nature of Crisis
Previous collective and individual displacements, from rural to semi-urban areas

Long-term displacements
Collective displacements: rural to rural/rural to semi-urban

Recent displacements
'Drip-feed' displacements

Shanty towns

Urban begging

Context
Oil-producing/commercial zone

Strong trade-union

Rural population, farmers fishermen
Subsistence agriculture and fishing

CBOs

Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities
Megalopolis

Poverty belts

Uprooted people

Bogota suburbs

Aid Actors
International and national
In the regional capital (Quibdó)
HQ/main offices in Bogotá but little implementation in Soacha
 

Humanitarian action in Colombia takes place within a highly developed legal framework, where the rights of the displaced are enshrined in the country's Constitution and laws.

A focus on three separate study sites enabled a review of participation in humanitarian action at three different stages of the crisis: acute, illustrated by the Chocó massacre; protracted (forty years of conflict) illustrated by the case of Magdalena Medio; and forgotten, within the context of the Bogotá megalopolis. Key characteristics of the study sites are shown above.

The aim of our research was to determine whether in Colombia: i) the participation of the affected population in humanitarian action is both feasible and beneficial in terms of project outcomes and long-term social impact; ii) whether Colombia's turbulent social history and the high degree of political awareness have made participation possible (even in the midst of a crisis) and in consequence it exists in humanitarian action (and the extent to which the population's culture and history are key factors); and, iii) whether development actors, working by necessity in humanitarian action, had a higher capacity to act in a participatory manner than their emergency counterparts. 

Part 2

THE OPERATIONAL CONTEXT
Colombia's history, its strategic position and its wealth make it a fertile ground for participation. The population is the product of European (colonisation) and African (slavery) migrations, and Indians (native people), a diversity (history, languages and beliefs) that endures to this day due to geographic conditions that protect it.

The growth of illegal drug production in the twentieth century and deepening inequalities, is the context in which the current conflict began.

Parties to the violence include guerrilla movements, paramilitaries, self-defence groups and the Colombian armed forces. The main consequence of the conflict has been the `taking hostage' of the civilian population _ illegal detentions, threats and continuous displacements. To protect the displaced, the government has developed one of the most elaborate legal frameworks in the world. 

Part 3

FINDINGS
The study highlights a diversity of perception concerning participation. Local actors favour the `citizen' conception whereby participation is the political right to affect the future of one's municipality; international actors lean more towards more practical definitions, dealing with aid quality and mandate; whereas receiving populations see participation as a direct involvement in humanitarian action, through the hosting of displaced families or working for NGOs.

The discourse in respect of what drives participation is equally varied. Both ethical and political considerations can oblige actors to involve affected populations in decisions concerning their future (mandate, values); others are more pragmatic, seeking participation as a means to increase efficiency (costs, time), to overcome security concerns or to facilitate access to affected communities. Most of all, however, participation is sought because populations demand it and may even refuse to get involved in actions when they have not been consulted.

The different forms of participation were studied in relation to each stage of the project cycle:

• the needs assessment phase highlighted the importance of taking into account local actors, populations and traditional assemblies and, above all, the need to build trust;
• the beneficiary selection phase (targeting) revealed the limits of pre-determined targeting, the benefits and difficulties of joint selection, and external constraints (donor policies, aid specificities);
• the project design phase demonstrated the adaptability of development tools for participatory design and the usefulness of traditional structures. However, participation was often limited by the use of `standards' and `kit' approaches and other equalling limiting approaches relating to time constraints or the desire to replicate positive experiences from other contexts;
• the implementation phase raised the dichotomy of `delegation' versus `workforce', and the difficulties of managing those extremes. It revealed the issue of `over-participation' and failures to adapt to local agricultural and cultural calendars. Support tools (tutoring or mentoring) were, however, found to be at their most effective during this stage;
• participatory monitoring proved to be a form of aid quality control for the beneficiaries, and an operational form of delegation, but also a function that humanitarian actors prefer to reserve for themselves.

The study was unable to review ex-post evaluation phases in any depth due to lack of material, but, did bring to the fore two cross-cutting elements, both fundamental to the development of participatory approaches:

• inter-institutional coordination clearly improved allocation of humanitarian aid, reduced `over-participation' and increased the appropriateness of programmes at all stages of the project cycle, particularly when accompanied by a real commitment to coordinate; and,
• institutional support (eg, helping affected populations to organise themselves, provision of technical or economic support) proved central to the creation and strengthening of CBOs, and to the increased resilience of communities confronted by crisis. This area provided the best example of participation observed during the study. The investment, however, is one that is required before, as well as during and after the crisis.

Participation is clearly multi-faceted. 

Part 4

CONCLUSIONS
The participation of affected populations in humanitarian action appears, in the case of Colombia at least, to be feasible, desirable and beneficial. However, the degree to which it is undertaken, its nature and its success, remain highly dependent on its three primary components and influencing factors: context (eg, security, access, political will); affected populations (eg, history and culture, degree of past organisation); and, humanitarian actors (eg, principles, field of expertise, internal mode of operating). Section 4.2 of the monograph details the influencing factors, identified during the study, as key information to be taken into account when developing participatory strategies in acute and protracted emergencies.

The most important component, however, remains the population. The weaker the community affected by the crisis, the more likely it is to become the object rather than the subject of aid, and while it can be supported by humanitarian actors' practices, participation remains a voluntary act of the affected population.

Above all, the study highlights the importance of taking into account the `other' actors, understanding participation as an exchange, a two-way and not a top-down relationship. This cooperation frequently takes form of a partnership and provides one of the most useful ways to address insecurity. 

Part 5

RECOMMENDATIONS
Study recommendations emphasise four areas that address both conceptual and practical considerations:

• the need to consider participation as an approach rather than as a set of tools, an approach that needs to be reinforced by institutional values and mandates;
• the need to prioritise, understand, partner, coordinate with, support and strengthen local actors in each crisis or crisis area
• the need to understand the participation universe as unique to each crisis or crisis area;
• the need to understand that, although it may influence and constrain the nature of participation, security does not prevent it nor remove actors' responsibility to promote and engage in it; and,
• the need for flexible approaches to funding, programming, tools and approaches, to respond to changing context and needs.

Despite the evidence that the participation of affected populations is central to effective and relevant humanitarian action, it is equally important not to loose sight of the right not to participate.

Share and bookmark