ALNAP Global Study on Beneficiary Consultation and Participation

 

This study examines humanitarian practice in Sri Lanka, focusng on three conflict-affected locations: Batticaloa district in the east, Vavuniya/Mannar districts in the North, and the Jaffna peninsula.

The Case of Sri Lanka - Executive Summary

Part 1

INTRODUCTION
The participation of populations assisted by international humanitarian action in measures supporting them is widely accepted as crucial to effective social targeting, resource utilisation, accountability, sustainability and impact. For some, participation is also a fundamental right of citizenship, essential to survival, self-protection and self-actualisation, in humanitarian emergencies.

Despite institutional commitment to consultation and participation at policy level, there remains wide variation in practice. The increasing concern over lack of consultation with and participation by disaster-affected populations in the design, management, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of relief is the background against which ALNAP commissioned the Global Study. The study seeks to reveal mechanisms by which the voice of affected populations can be enhanced, while remaining alert to difficulties posed by emergencies.

The Sri Lanka case study is the pilot in a series of six country assessments providing empirical evidence for the global project. It draws on primary (aid recipient) and secondary (agency) stakeholder perceptions, testing the hypothesis that active consultation and participation of crisis-affected populations in measures to assist them is (according to the key stakeholders) both feasible and beneficial. The Sri Lanka study investigates current policy and field practice in three conflict-affected locations in the north and east of the island.

Part 2

THE OPERATIONAL CONTEXT
The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka between the Tamils and Sinhalese has varied in intensity and location and been marked by a number of major episodes of severe violence. The conflict has been experienced very differently by different sections of the population in the north and east, although displacement is a major feature of civilian life in all three of the study areas. Humanitarian actors, local, national and international, have provided relief to camp dwellers for many years, but a growing number are now focusing also on rehabilitation and development activities in resettlement and relocation villages.

Most humanitarian actors have a theory about why the participation of aid recipients in measures supporting them is beneficial and valid, which determines the objectives, strategies and outcomes of their actions. The majority follows what here is termed an ‘instrumental’ approach, in which the prime objective of involving aid recipients is to improve overall programme performance. A far smaller number of agencies adhere to more ‘transformative’ models, seeking to empower aid recipients to assume greater control over their lives and contribute to fundamental societal change.

Often those committed to beneficiary participation at policy level find their efforts thwarted in practice, where constraints include: security and political pressures; contrasting social and cultural values; civilians’ psychological, emotional and economic difficulties; and negative perceptions of humanitarian aid.

To emphasise the constraints to participation in war-affected areas and differences in social and cultural ideas is not to dissuade agencies from consulting or developing participatory programmes. The intention is to encourage reflection on the potential and actual limitations and risks of such approaches. Where factors mitigating against the more transformative models are so great that aspiring to such radical goals may be unrealistic, agencies should take every opportunity to consult and inform beneficiaries and others within affected populations.

Part 3

PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE
The degrees and forms of participation vary considerably according not just to opportunities and constraints but also to the objectives and underlying theoretical perspectives of humanitarian agencies, as observed in the different stages and activities of the project cycle.

In Sri Lanka most have adopted an instrumental approach that favours consulting beneficiaries (especially during baseline assessments) on their views, problems and needs, informing them and helping them to develop the commitment and competencies necessary for active engagement in project implementation. However, because project design and approval does not involve beneficiaries directly, aid recipients have little meaningful role in planning, setting a precedent that is not conducive to sustaining high levels of participation in the later stages of the project cycle.

Greatest effort is made to foster participation in implementation, which commonly entails the contribution of ideas, knowledge, labour and other skills to construction, maintenance and administration of project resources. Project monitoring during implementation is fairly informal, although in many cases regular and in some cases quite participatory. Beneficiary enthusiasm tends to diminish towards the end of the cycle and few agencies engage in participatory impact evaluation, even while most recognise its importance.

Examples of more transformative approaches, in which aid recipients are empowered to represent themselves before the authorities, engage in autonomous collective action and assume control of project resources, are comparatively rare. However, some projects embody transformative elements and several organisations are moving gradually in this direction as confidence in the ceasefire grows, more developmental approaches are being used and civilians return to their communities.

Although greater flexibility and openness to beneficiary involvement in the early stages of the cycle and in project appraisal appear to make a difference, political and other constraints in Sri Lanka make it impossible in many cases. A significant proportion of respondents also indicated that such innovation is not always sought by aid recipients.

Despite the limitations, there is evidence that recipients benefit from being better informed and consulted and from meaningful roles in project implementation. Overall, projects targeting women, children, or young people have been more ‘successful’ in fostering beneficiary participation than generic projects affecting whole population groups or projects with men. This may be because humanitarian measures normally take place in communities while men are at work, or due to the inordinately high rates of alcohol use among men in the north and east. Of all groups, children and young people in psychosocial programmes report the most radical effects.

Part 4

MECHANISMS TO PROMOTE PARTICIPATION
Traditionally, levels of beneficiary consultation and participation in humanitarian action in Sri Lanka have been low or non-existent. Such ideas and practices are not very developed in hierarchical and prescriptive cultures and humanitarian actors committed to the approach have to develop explicit means to promote participation.

Humanitarian agencies are heavily reliant on locally recruited agents to mobilise village and camp inhabitants in the north and east. The orientation and training of these change-agents is of critical importance to project outcomes. Their recruitment to mobilise beneficiaries is regarded by many agencies as a first step in the creation of a formal institutional structure, commonly a community-based organisation (CBO), within which collective social action can be promoted and directed. However, these structures often remain dependent on implementing agencies, whose management of CBO funds limits beneficiary empowerment and self-efficacy.

The development of more flexible donor-agency relations has seen promising trends in institutional relations, supported by efforts to create less authoritarian management structures and improved aid co-ordination. Certain donors support efforts to promote beneficiary participation. Nevertheless, there remain serious problems in terms of political intervention in humanitarian action, high staff turnover, inflexible and short funding cycles, competition over beneficiary populations and conflicting aims and strategies.

Humanitarian actors are party to decisions and policies that have a crucial impact on the lives of beneficiaries. Yet many make no effort to consult or keep affected populations informed.

Part 5

RECOMMENDATIONS
Our findings suggest that consultation and timely provision of accurate information are important and valued instruments through which agencies can demonstrate their respect for beneficiaries and provide them with a greater sense of control over their lives. As such, they are a must in all circumstances. More active and meaningful participation is also feasible where environmental conditions are conducive, aid implementers are committed to the concept and have appropriate skills and capacity, donors are supportive and aid recipients receptive.

Share and bookmark