Field Guide Conflict sensitivity and Food Programming Do No Harm Pocket Guide
Do No Harm for Quality Programming: World Vision International Food Programming and Management Group
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 1 ‘Do No Harm’ Acknowledgements
The Do No Harm guide is a collaborative effort built upon the contributions of many great minds within World Vision and beyond. It is important to mention Killen Otieno and James Odong, who nurtured the initial idea of a field guide. The duo drafted the Terms of Reference for the production of this guide and provided technical oversight during the production process. Special acknowledgement goes to three other World Vision staff: Walter Middleton (Partnership Leader, Food Security & Livelihoods), Dr. Bill Lowrey (former Director of Peacebuilding) and Thabani Maphosa (Global Director, Food Programming and Management Group, FPMG). They provided leadership, guidance and cross-program linkages and support. Their commitment and focus in promoting conflict sensitivity in food programming greatly contributed to the success of this manual. In addition, we thank key experts from FPMG who tirelessly devoted their knowledge, skills and time to make this guide a success. Marumbo Ngwira brought in her DM&E expertise. Elie Gasagara provided oversight and shared his wealth of knowledge in accountability and protection besides providing leadership of the process from FPMG. Kathryn Taetzsch provided overall management, editorial support and funds acquisition that made this work possible. We also acknowledge the key contribution of the two consultants who work with the team to produce this publication. Michelle Garred drafted the initial draft of the DNH field guide while Sara Davidson built on the initial work to produce a revised draft that evolved into this publication.
Contributors Elie Gasagara Marumbo Ngwira James Odong Kathryn Taetzsch
2 WWorldorld VisionVision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Contents Acknowledgements 2 Acronyms 4 Purpose of the guide 5 What is Do No Harm? 6 Why is Do No Harm important to World Vision? 7 How to use the Do No Harm Pocket Guide 9 7 Steps to Do No Harm
Quick Guide 9 Step 1 Which groups are in conflict? Step 2 Who or what is dividing the groups? Step 3 Who or what connects the groups? Step 4 What does the programme aim to do? Step 5 Programmes/projects - impact on group-dividers and connectors Step 6 Develop programming alternatives/ options that reduce negative effect and increase positive ones. Check impact. Step 7 Repeat Steps 1- 6 to reflect any changes made
Annexes Tool 1 Using Do No Harm in rapid assessments 25 Tool 2 Building inclusion and trust in diverse teams 26 Tool 3 Sample questions for a Rapid Social Impact 27 Evaluation Tool 4 How to improve targeting and beneficiary selection 31 Tool 5 How to avoid theft 31 Tool 6 Some questions about local markets 32 Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle 33 Tool 8 Implicit Ethical Messages
Further information 35
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 3 ‘Do No Harm’ Acronyms
Connectors The people and factors that link different groups and help keep them together.
Dividers The people and factors that divide different groups and help keep them apart.
Do No Harm Do No Harm is used throughout this document. In other documents Do No Harm is sometimes called Local Capacities for Peace or LCP
FPMG World Vision’s Food Programming and Management Group
IDP Internally Displaced Person
LEAP Learning through Evaluation with Accountability and Planning: World Vision’s system for design, monitoring and evaluation
Resources The goods and services provided by a humanitarian aid organization.
Unspoken messages The messages that a humanitarian aid organization sends through its actions, sometimes unintentionally. In other documents about Do No Harm these are called ‘Implicit Ethical Messages’ or ‘IEMs.’
4 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Purpose of the Guide:
Demands for food aid resources is growing globally as more time and energy is devoted to conflict and natural disaster response projects and programmes. As a result, there increased interest among donors, development practitioners, people affected by violent conflict and other stakeholders in evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of food interventions.
There is a renewed focus to to learn about what does or does not work and why. Other areas of interest include understanding the contexts in which food response projects are implemented and how these projects can can contribute positively to coherent, co-ordinated and effective interventions at all levels is desired.
The primary goal of this guide is to provide direction to field staff undertaking emergency response to mitigate unintended consequences of relief and development interventions on conflicts. At a more specific level, the guide is designed to meet two braod objectives. First, it aims to assist food programming teams and practitioners working in the field to better understand the role and utility of context analysis using the Do No Harm (DNH) step-by-step approach. Secondly, the guide seeks demonstrate the need to integrate conflict sensitivity into response programming and provides practical advice on how do do so.
Who will benefit from the guide and how?
Different target groups will benefit in different ways from this guide. The primary beneficiaries are World Vision staff working in food programming in the field, those responsible
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 5 ‘Do No Harm’ for management or supporting national office food response.
Other development partners will also benefit from enhanced understanding of Do No Harm context analysis and its implications for programming.
Evaluation consultants hired for a relevant food programming evaluation will gain a clearer view of what is expected in assessing performance in conflict sensitivity interventions.
Specifically, this guide supports field staff and evaluation teams by:
• Providing greater clarity on key conflict sensitivity con- cepts, DNH context analysis processes in the field and options for dealing with challenges.
• Suggesting techniques for the use of conflict analyses to better assess whether activities in a particular con- flict are relevant and prevent ‘doing harm’.
• Furnishing principles for contextual ethical evaluation in conflict environments.
• Demonstrating the importance of assessing assump- tions about how peace can be achieved (theories of change).
• Providing advice on drafting Terms of Reference and picking effective teams.
6 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Introduction:
Natural disasters and conflicts are among the biggest threats facing us today and biggest threats we face today and in decades ahead. Violent conflicts between states and civil strife in most developing countries have aggravated poverty, infectious diseases6 and environmental degradation due to displacement of people and increasing pressure on resources.
Introduction:
Violent conflicts haveNatural disastershave and contributed conflicts are among the tobigge stdifferences threats facing us today in and power-biggest threats we face today and in decades ahead. Violent conflicts between states and civil strife in most and wealth-sharing–.developing To help countries address have aggravated inequities, poverty, infectious our diseases programming and environmental degradation due to displacement of people and increasing pressure on resources. must adopt approaches with clear analysis and understanding Violent conflicts have have contributed to differences in power- and wealth-sharing–. To help of economic and addresssocial inequities, threats our programming as well must as adoptinternal approaches or with communal clear analysis and understanding of economic and social threats as well as internal or communal conflicts that conflicts that affectaffect our our response.response. Do No HarmDo methodologyNo Harm has been methodology helping agencies to gain has good understanding how to more effectively respond to emergencies and meet the needs of been helping agenciescommunities to gain while undermining good understandingdrivers how of conflict. to Based on World more effectively Vision’s respond global response to food programming, rapid to emergencies andDo No meet Harm analysis has the needs of communitiesbecome increasingly critical Global trends in armed conflict 1946-2008: while underminingto thedrivers agency’s Source: centre for global policy report Food Programming of conflict. Based andon Management World Group. It is for this reason that FPMG has collaborated with the global center’s Peacebuilding Unit to develop this guide to help field practitioners understand the Vision’s global responsecontext in which to theyfood work programming,and meet the needs of communities rapid without Do exacerbatingNo Harm existing tensions. analysis has become increasingly critical to the agency’s Food The Conflict, Governance and State Fragility Report notes that while interstate conflict is on Programming anddecline, Management societal and intrastate Group. conflict has beenIt onis a steadyfor rise.this Since reason 1946, there havethat been over 3201 distinct violent conflicts in the world’s 162 countries. In the past twenty-five years, FPMG has collaboratedone half of allwith countries the have globalexperienced center’ssome major armed Peacebuilding conflict (81 of 162 countries; Unit with over 500 deaths)2. to develop this guide to help field practitioners understand the The general magnitude of armed violent conflict in the global system has sharply increased since the early 1990s, leading to dramatic expansion in the number of post-war “recovery” states context in which sufferingthey fromwork physical and destruction meet and environmentalthe needs deterioration, of communities social trauma, severely limited productive capacity and service provision, and general lack of trust, oversight, and without exacerbatingaccountability. existing tensions.
The Conflict, Governance and State Fragility Report notes that 1 Conflict, governance, and fragility report: http://www.systemicpeace.org/Global Report 2009 while interstate conflict2 http://www.systemicpeace.org/Global is on decline, Report 2009. societal and intrastate conflict has been on a steady rise. Since 1946, there have been over 3201 distinct violent conflicts in the world’s 162 countries.
1 Conflict, governance, and fragility report: http://www.systemicpeace.org/ Global Report 2009 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 7 ‘Do No Harm’
In the past twenty-five years, one half of all countries have experienced some major armed conflict (81 of 162 countries; with over 500 deaths)2 .
The general magnitude of armed violent conflict in the global system has sharply increased since the early 1990s, leading to dramatic expansion in the number of post-war “recovery” states suffering from physical destruction and environmental deterioration, social trauma, severely limited productive capacity and service provision, and general lack of trust, oversight, and accountability.
Many of peace processes are self-reinforcing. Programs cannot wait to until conflict stops to start interventions. If such projects are started after carefully analysis of the conflicts they can have a self-reinforcing effect. People are motivated by the improved standard of living as a result of interventions and rather than seeking retribution for past wrongs. This creates the optimum environment for peace to thrive. On the other hand, when a relief response starts without good context analysis, violence will almost certainly increase, adversely affecting long-term sustainability of peace and programmes.
World Vision is committed to avoid creating tensions and negative unintended effects in all its programmes, especially those implemented in conflict-sensitive areas. In this spirit, World Vision joined the Interagency Do NIO Harm Project in 1998 by testing the DNH framework in an integrated relief and rehabilitation programme in Southern Sudan. After the test phase, World Vision became a leader in DNH expertise, using the approach mainly at the local level. World Vision built on this experience to develop other tools — based in part on DNH — to help with broader analysis at zonal and regional levels (See Framework in tools 2).
2 http://www.systemicpeace.org/Global Report 2009.
8 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Food aid is one of the most important services offered by World Vision, because more than 800 million people around the world face food insecurity. Food insecurity means that people lack consistent “physical, social and economic access to sufficient safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life.”
The WV Food Programming and Management Group (FPMG) provides technical support on food and cash transfer management to the agency’s National Offices as they promote food security for communities in need.
Ensuring food security is essential, but still introducing external resources can impact local production and markets. It can also affect relationships between local groups and parties, worsening conflict and impeding interventions. World Vision recognizes the possibility of unintended negative impacts and seeks to avoid them. WV management and staff are responsible for ensuring ‘conflict- sensitive’ design and implementation of food aid programmes, using DNH as the primary tool. Therefore for FPMG, the Do No Harm approach plays a key role in increasing the quality and effectiveness of food programming, and strengthening World Vision’s accountability to project beneficiaries and the communities with which we work.
This guide has been developed to assist field practitioners in applying the DNH approach in all steps of food programming for the best of targeted communities. It contains practical tools that will help at various steps in food programming. While the main focus of this guide is on food programming, the content may also be equally relevant and applied to other sectors and programmes.
It is important to highlight that this is the first version of DNH field guide. The authors welcome users to offer observations and comments that can help improve future editions. Please share suggestions with FPMG.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 9 ‘Do No Harm’ What is Do No Harm Local Capacities for Peace?
These two terms are frequently used interchangeably. They describe a methodology that has been developed to help humanitarian assistance organisations analyse the context of a conflict and the way aid interacts with the conflict. The framework provides a method of analysis that assists humanitarian agencies toward achieving the goal of doing no harm, while providing aid and helping NGOs to recognise and support the people’s local capacities for peace.
It may seem strange to tell aid agencies to Do No Harm. Humanitarian agencies and their staff aim to play no part in local conflicts or power struggles. They are there neither to fan the flames of wars nor to heighten existing communal tension.
But all humanitarian programmes involve the transfer of essential resources, including food, to places where they are needed, and control of essential resources is often a local source of wealth, power, conflict and communal tension.
Do No Harm applies in both contexts, that may be obvious – violent conflict – or to oppression and communal tension that sometimes lie beneath the surface, for example, discrimination. Do No Harm was not designed as a comprehensive peace- building tool. However, Do No Harm LCP is a preferred first step towards peace-building. Do No Harm is an approach intended to help humanitarian agencies working in situations of conflict and communal tension to analyze the relationship between aid and conflict, in order to identify how aid can avoid worsening conflict and can support peace.
Local power struggles may be obvious to local field staff
10 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide with long experience in a region. They may be less evident to donors, international staff, head offices or staff new to the region. This is particularly the case where communal tension does not manifest itself in open warfare. At the global level, humanitarian assistance are often subject to political influence and to power struggles and the in turn, may be invisible to humanitarian agency field staff.
Whatever its intention, a food programme is not neutral in its effects. It can alter the local balance of power. Some people may seek to control food supplies and use them to make money, maintain power, support their own preferred party in a conflict or weaken their opponents. On the one hand, therefore, food programs can do well: on the other hand, they can deepen divisions. This booklet focuses on what World Vision and its partners can do at local level to make sure programmes do good, not bad.
Why is Do No Harm important to World Vision?
Through a previous project that was analyzed using the DNH Framework, World Vision staff found out that some projects had unintentionally excluded a minority community from aid. The project had unknowingly raised the risk of conflict and elevated communal tensions. By using the DNH/LCP analysis tools, the local staff and community members were able to redesign the projects to act as a bridge between the two formerly antagonistic parties and communities.
World Vision is currently one of the largest INGOs delivering more food aid in partnership with WFP,USAID and other institutional and private donors. Many of World Vision’s food programmes are being implemented in disaster-affected areas. World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 11 ‘Do No Harm’
Conflict is one of the causes of food insecurity but food insecurity can, in turn, lead to conflict and an increase in food prices or cause food scarcity
Tensions and violent conflict can undermine the long-term benefits of World Vision programmes. As a result, World Vision has intentionally focused on cross-cutting themes where conflict drivers, as well as connectors may derive from. They include gender, disability, environment, protection and accountability.
World Vision knows that ensuring food security is essential. But World Vision is also aware that when it delivers food supplies or programmes, this may affect relationships between communities positively and negatively through resource transfers. All aid programmes involve transfer of resources (food, shelter, WASH, health care, etc.) into resource-scarce environments. Where there is disaster or people are in conflict, these resources represent power and wealth and they become elements of conflict. Some people may attempt to use aid resources to support their side of conflict and weaken the other side. There are five categories of resource transfer that feed into every context and their impact is often determined by the way aid is provided i.e. theft or dversion of commodities , distribution effect, market effect, substitution effect and legitimization process. (See following example of the effect of resource transfer on market and theft of commodities).
• Theft of aid resources for military purposes is not common but does occur in some contexts. However, diversion often occurs through corruption. When staff pays bribes, it reinforces systemic corruption and weakens accountability of government structures needed to help manage conflict. Also, if local dynamics influence the beneficiary selection
12 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
process in ways that divert aid resources to support corrupt authorities, then aid resources can reinforce exclusion and abuse of power.
• In one of the ADPs, the project supported the community by improving feeder roads to a main road leading to a central market.. Once access improved, the value of land began to increase and wealthy people and government authorities started to manoeuvre the ownership of land. The poor were put risk of displacement. Land grabbing and boundary disputes increased because of these interference.
Do No Harm assists World Vision in asking questions about the resources and the messages that programs send at every phase of the programming (LEAP) cycle, from assessment to evaluation and reflection. At its heart there are six questions that World Vision staff needs to keep asking:
• Are we sending the right goods and services. In food programmes, are we adhering to the Sphere standards of food providing the right amount of calories and ensuring food is of the right quality for the beneficiaries
• Are we sending them to the right people? - How do we targeting beneficiaries, do we involve the right people to ensure that we give the food to the intended vulnerable groups. What is the selection criteria. Is information provided to make sure all know are aware on why they were selected to receive food aid? Are the goods and services helping people build better relationships? Are we sending the right messages? Non verbal that is
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 13 ‘Do No Harm’
modelling good practices and reducing tensions? Are we sending them to the right people? Are the messages reinforcing better relationships?
World Vision has been using Do No Harm for over ten years. It reminds all World Vision staff that food programmes, like any other aid programmes, can increase communal tension or become weapons in aconflict setting. Aid can have negative as well as positive effects. By bearing this in mind and including Do No Harm at every stage of project/programs work and in every phase of the LEAP cycle, teams do all they can to make sure their programmes Do No Harm. When mention conflict, most groups the societies and individual think of open violence ignoring that silent underlying conflict in communities that appear to be peaceful. When xenophobia broke out in South Africa, many people were surprised at the level of violence that followed resulted in loss of live. Communal conflicts due to ethnical, clan, or villages rivalries and revolts against local leaders are often missed out when carrying out assessments. Hence, programs, especially food programming implemented in such context exacerbate the tension. Using the Do No Harm approach to analyze context brings out hidden grievances and ensures programs are designed inform programs such challenge
14 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Conflict and Food Security1
Even where food security has not been deliberately undermined, it is an early casualty in most conflicts. If people take refuge elsewhere, this may put pressure on food supplies in the areas they move to, resulting in food shortages and communal tension there. For example, communities who were displaced in northern Uganda in 1996 settled among host communities who were able to share food they had in their reserve and gardens. When registration and distribution of food started, agencies targeted those who were displaced, leaving out host families. The tension that had existed before conflict re surfaced and some of the host communities the forced displaced communities to vacate their land and move a more unsecure public land in the area.
Even in where there is no open conflict, unequal distribution of resources, including food, has led to social tension among communities. Xenophobia in South Africa is a typical example of social tension exacerbated by inquitable distribution of resources such as employment and other social amenities leading.
How to use the Do No Harm Pocket Guide
This Do No Harm Field Guide provides step - by - step approaches to aid field staff in understanding the operational context and take appropriate course of action.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 15 ‘Do No Harm’
The guide identifies questions to help World Vision staff think about how their assistance might affect a situation of communal tension or conflict. The document includes short case studies and suggests tools developed by World Vision staff in Africa and Asia, as well as by other organisations and inter-agency initiatives in which World Vision has been involved, including the Do No Harm Project and the Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB).
The Guide will help World Vision staff identify some of the effects, positive or negative, and take decisions in every phase of the LEAP cycle will assessment, design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, reflection and transition. Many of the examples in this booklet refer to food programme, but the lessons are just as important for other programmes implemented by World Vision and its partners.
Each situation is different. It presents different opportunities and risks. Therefore, it is vital that you use this guide to inform your own judgement, skill, local knowledge and experience in deciding what to do, bearing in mind Do No Harm principles, safety of World Vision staff, partners and beneficiaries.
16 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide 7 Steps to Do No Harm - Quick Guide2
Step 1 Which groups are in conflict or excluded causings tension?
Step 2 Who or what is dividing the groups?
Step 3 Who or what connects the groups?
Step 4 What does the programme aim to do?
Step 5 Programmes/ projects impact on group dividers and connectors
Step 6 Develop programming alternatives/options that reduce negative effect and increase positive ones. Check impact.
Step 7 Repeat Steps 1 - 6 to reflect any changes made
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 17 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 1: Which groups are in conflict?
Experience has shown that needs assessment is not enough unless it is accompanied by in-depth analysis and understanding of a violent or potentially violent context. 3 Every society is made up of groups with different identities and interests. Some compete or are in conflict with others.
Do No Harm analysis should be part of development and disaster preparedness planning.4 At the start of an emergency, try to access any previous Do No Harm analysis that has been done but bear in mind that details of the community and its dynamics are likely to have changed over time.
Seek out World Vision staff or partners who already know the local situation or who understand the Do No Harm approach. Ask for their input into a rapid assessment. If World Vision has no previous Do No Harm analysis nor staff and partners with appropriate experience available, then ask other NGOs.
Focus on identifying the most dangerous inter-group division, and avoidance of actions that worsen it. If more than two groups are involved in conflict, focus on the two that appear most likely to engage in aggression towards each other in the near future. Conduct a quick Do No Harm assessment with community or crisis group leaders to inform emergency response and detailed Do No Harm assessment, when designing the next phase of the emergency response programs. Tool 1 summarises the steps needed in a rapid Do No Harm assessment.
Do No Harm starts at home. Consider how conflict and tension in the local and international community affects World Vision team members and how to build trust among different groups of staff. Ensure that the affected community understands who
18 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide we are (World Vision), why we are there and what we intend to do.
Suggested tools
Pocket Guide Tool 1 Using Do No Harm in rapid assessments page 46
Pocket Guide Tool 2 Building trust in diverse teams page 48
Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle page 60
Pocket Guide Tool 8 Implicit Ethical Messages
Good Enough Guide Tool 1 How to introduce your agency: a need to know checklist not provided
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 19 ‘Do No Harm’
Finding the right Programme Leader5
First, we hired a field director who had known the country before the conflict. He hired his former employees because he knew their skills. He felt sorry for them because they had lost so much as a result of the war. But very soon demonstrations by people of another group showed that his first decisions had not taken into account the changed circumstances and the increased communal tension since his pre-war experience.
We then hired a person with experience in other warring societies. He had extensive experience in working with governments that were completely unreliable. In the new context, he failed to consult with local authorities and with his local staff. This resulted in a move to intimidate him so that he would leave the country.
Finally, we hired a person with long-term development experience in the region. His experience aimed at integrating expatriate and local staff, to employ local staff who represented different groups in society, and to work with all of them to build a team with a common concern for humanitarian action. Our programme performance has since greatly improved.
Building connections within Field Teams6
In an emergency response team there is always a danger that factions will form. These may be based on whether people are ‘internationals’ or ‘nationals’ of different countries. Formation of cliques may also be based on
20 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide ethnic differences or simply on the basis of functional or regional separation.
To some extent these divisions are inevitable and even natural. For example, it is important to remember that some people may need to spend time with others who share their mother tonque culture, especially when they are living and working in difficult situations and using another language in their work with the team.
However, if these groupings become too strong, and especially if members of one group have significant influence within the team, the feelings of those who are excluded can quickly lower levels of trust.
Careful thought must be given to such aspects and behaviour that may be unintentional as to who should be invited to meetings, who should be included in communications, and who should be involved in social events. These decisions send out powerful unspoken messages about trust or mistrust.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 21 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 2: Who or what is dividing the groups?
The next step is to think about what divides the groups. Some dividers or sources of conflict or communal tension may be rooted in long-standing injustice. Others may be recent, short- lived or manipulated by local leaders.
Conflict or communal tension can arise from many sources, including ethnicity, access to work or resources, social status, politics or religion. Some sources of tensions may come from within a society, but tension may also be incited by people external to it.7
Understanding what divides people is critical to understanding how aid may deepen or lessen existing conflict or tension (see following example of “Most Divisive Factors” that shows dividers identified during a Do No Harm review of World Vision’s work after the Kenya post-election crisis.
The Most Divisive Factor, Ethnicity:
Of the dividers and sources of tension identified by respondents, the most divisive was ethnicity — with far reaching implications. The ethnic hostilities experienced after the disputed 2007 presidential elections were rooted in the historical injustices and inequalities between ethnic groups in Kenya. A closer look at the eight dividers and sources of tension reveals that the first five link closely to ethnicity. The main political parties (PNU and ODM) had an ethnic dimension to them, with certain ethnic groups belonging to certain political parties. The trauma and deprivation the IDPs experienced and continue to experience were due to
22 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
the ethnic clashes. The discussions that follow show how ethnicity, as a divider, manifested itself in the camps. When food aid was introduced in camps, some leaders selected to support registration and food distribution blamed the displacement on some ethnic group supporting certain political parties. They intentionally excluded some displaced communities perceived to be responsible from being registered, hence the food aid itself started fuelling the tension in the displaced camps. The actions of exclusion and discrimination as well as negative perceptions about each other emerged from general discussions around relationships between groups in the camps.
Different Ethnicity
There were different ethnic groups in the IDP camps. Most IDPs belonged to the Kikuyu ethnic group. However, the camps were a mix of Kikuyu, Luo, Kisii, Kamba, Luhya, Kalenjin, Turkana, Marakwet and other ethnic groups.
Personal and Political Differences
Different political affiliations or groupings: Majority of the people in IDP camps subscribe to the Party of National Unity (PNU), while some supported the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM).
Unequal Access to Employment
Deprivation of IDPs due to displacement from their homes and as a consequence having lost their sources of livelihood creates
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 23 ‘Do No Harm’ strong dividers. Young people had no source of livelihoods and had to struggle to survive, which lead to frustration and thus, more tension.
Competition for Natural Resources
Deprivation of IDPs who had been displaced lost their sources of livelihood potentially feeds into tension with their host communities, especially in competitition scarce resources.
Suggested tools
Pocket Guide Tool 4 Improving targeting and beneficiary selection (page 55)
Pocket Guide Tool 5 Avoiding theft (page 57)
Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle [page 60]
Good Enough Guide Tool 4 How to profile the affected community and assess initial needs
Identifying Dividers: World Vision in the Philippines8 The island of Mindanao suffers from periodic fighting between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Government of the Philippines. In 2003, a sharp escalation in hostilities caused the displacement of about 200,000 people in Central Mindanao. World Vision responded by working through
24 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide local government and NGO partners. It focused on food and non-food items for people taking shelter in evacuation centres and with relatives. Beneficiaries included all local ethnic groups: Muslims, Visayan Christian migrants and indigenous Lumads. However, the majority of beneficiaries were Muslims. Hostilities occurred faster than expected and there was no formal Do No Harm assessment. Only three of World Vision’s key operations staff were involved in the response. The three were Do No Harm practitioners and trainers affiliated with the nearby Center of Learning. They were able to apply their Do No Harm skills and their knowledge of the local context to continuous ‘real- time’ analysis of programme plans.
World Vision’s staff knew that the dividers in Central Mindanao included the following • Inequality: unequal access to resources, • Different ethnicity: marginalisation of Lumads and Muslims, and • Different religion: pervasive lack of understanding between Christians and Muslims Following a rapid assessment by partner agencies, World Vision staff tried to ensure its programme addressed these issues. In the case of food distribution, it would do the following • Include no pork or pork’ flavoured items. Though a favourite food of Christian migrants in Mindanao, pork is itals (forbidden) for Muslims • Ensure that they take place at times that did not interfere with Muslim prayers. • Have separate queues for men and women, in accordance with local Muslim practices.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 25 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 3: Who or what connects the groups?
In every society suffering communal tension or conflict, people who are divided by some aspects remain connected by others. Markets, shared experience and attitudes, formal and informal associations, individuals and institutions can all connect groups even in situations of tension or conflict. These connectors cannot prevent violence. Yet, in the long-term, they may offer an avenue for rebuilding peace.
Connectors and Local Capacities for Peace
Respondents identified connectors that interlinked the different groups as well as capacities for peace that could contribute to building trust and peace in the future. These are important since, if enhanced, they can form a basis for political, social and economic interactions necessary to facilitate advancement towards stable, peaceful and just futures for societies once in conflict. Identified connectors and Local Capacities for Peace in IDP camps in Kenya included:
• Shared value of being Kenyan: All IDPs seemed to be proud of being Kenyan and believed that if this was put at the fore, Kenya could return to peace.
• Same lifestyle: In Jamhuri and Mathare, most IDPs were poor and often had lived in slums. They shared same services in the slums and engaged in petty income generating activities such as selling fish, second hand clothes and food stuffs, and worked as salonists, barbers and domestic workers others were unemployed. In ASK-Eldoret and Noigam, displaced families were evicted from farms and all of them either owned businesses or and in Rift Valley Province.
26 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
• Common experiences of youth in Jamhuri and Mathare camps: The common experiences of growing up in slums in Nairobi have enabled the youth to bond and build strong relationships that go beyond ethnicity.
“We are not like old people. We interact well with each other. We have lived together and grown up together. We struggle together, get hungry together and roam together. We are friends. We are like brothers and sisters.” Youth during FGD, Jamhuri Camp
• Common history of displaced families in ASK- Eldoret and Noigam camps: Most displaced families in ASK-Eldoret and Noigam were immigrants in the areas they were displaced from. They were settlers who acquired land in areas not originally their own and therefore belonged to ethnic groups different from those of people in areas where they settled.
• Shared camp life: Although camp life seemed to be getting tougher for most of the families, they nevertheless had no choice but to accept to live together in the difficult life situation of displacement. Everyone was confined within the camps and had to interact with all sorts of characters. They had to share basins, utensils, tents, limited space, latrines and bathrooms. Camp life did not recognize whether one was poor or rich.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 27 ‘Do No Harm’
Suggested tools
Pocket Guide Tool 4 Improving targeting and beneficiary selection [page 55] Pocket Guide Tool 5 Avoiding theft [page 57] Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle [page 60] Good Enough Guide Tool 4 How to profile the affected community and assess initial needs
Recognising connectors: World Vision9 In one community, World Vision was distributing food to refugees who were displaced by war. While World Vision was supporting the refugees, the community around it was also in need of food as most of them led a nomadic life. After a while, the host community started demanding World Vision provide food to them as well. They started attacking the trucks and stealing. This resulted in fights between the refugees and the nomads. Members of a displaced community normally receive aid because they are perceived to be in greater need. But the host community may be frustrated if they feel that their needs are being overlooked and may perceive the refugees as competitors for improved livelihoods. It is important to recognise that the host community may have similar economic and social needs as those who are displaced. These factors can be connectors and unite communities.
28 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Addressing connectors: World Vision in Sri Lanka10
In Batticaloa, Sri Lanka, funds were earmarked for constructing wells for the Tsunami-affected communities. World Vision field staff were able to plan and build the wells in a way that allowed other communities to access to them. A consultation process was used in order to explain the reasons for the well location. In addition, cash-for-work benefits after the Tsunami were shared in ethnically mixed communities.
Addressing connectors: Helvetas in Sri Lanka
After the Tsunami, a humanitarian aid organisation, Helvetas, made a decision to not only work in districts of Sri Lanka that were tsunami affected but also the war affected ones, based upon our knowledge of Do No Harm principles. They used the dividers and onnectors part of the framework to do an analysis. The agency took it one step further by not only building houses in both communities but doing so in a way that was culturally sensitive. The result was positive.11
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 29 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 4: What do the programmes aim to do?
As is clear from Steps 1, 2 and 3, any projects or programmes can have side effects on the dividers and connectors between groups. Some dividers may also be connectors - and vice versa.
It is therefore important that World Vision staff are aware of the implications of decisions made by teams in different offices, including those in World Vision’s National and Support Offices and in donor offices. Policies established that do not consider field perceptions and context can have significant impact.
Here are some of the key questions that can be asked during most phases of the LEAP cycle.
• What resources do World Vision aim to provide or is providing?
• Why is the project necessary? What are its goals?
• Where is the project taking place? Are these the only affected areas? Why is the project not taking place in the other location?
• When does the project begin? When is it due to end? How does the timing of project activities relate to other important events happening in the community?
• Who is benefiting from the aid? How were these people selected? Who is not included? Why?
• Who is delivering the aid? How were staff and partner agencies selected? How does their identity (ethnicity,
30 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
religion, political views, etc.) connect them with or divide them from groups in conflict?
• How does World Vision deliver, warehouse and distribute aid or plan to do so? Who decides all the issues raised in the questions above? What is the process for decision- making?
Suggested tools
Pocket Guide Tool 3 Sample questions for a Rapid Social Impact Evaluation [page 50]
Pocket Guide Tool 4 Improving targeting and beneficiary selection [page 54]
Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle [page 60]
Good Enough Guide Tool 2 How accountable are you? [Link]
Good Enough Guide Tool 3 How to involve people throughout the project
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 31 ‘Do No Harm’
Who is benefiting from the aid? World Vision in Cambodia12
In 2004, Cambodia experienced a massive drought which caused the rice crop to fail. Eighty-five percent of the population are rice farmers, and most reported not having enough rice stock to survive the year. Many had begun to leave their homes to find work or were borrowing food and money at high interest.
The National Office disaster preparedness plan specified that in case of drought, space and run-on World Vision teams would integrate Do No Harm into their response. Peacebuilding and programme teams conducted participatory conflict assessments which identified as possible dividers: • Conflict between political parties • Political favouritism on the part of village leaders • Exclusion of minority party supporters
Do No Harm assessment informed programme design, monitoring and evaluation in two significant ways.
Community-based beneficiary selection
World Vision staff met local government to discuss the potentially negative side effects if beneficiary selection were delegated to village authorities. As an alternative, local government established Village Relief Distribution Committees with representatives from
• The three major political parties • Elders
32 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
• Village authorities • Village development committee • High, medium and low income families
Each Relief Distribution Committees developed beneficiary criteria and revised older wealth-ranking lists. Each conducted an open village meeting to discuss selection process and criteria and to agree on the beneficiary list.
Rapid Social Impact Evaluation
World Vision teams also developed a rapid evaluation tool (see Annex 3), which they used within one month of the initial response. This helped to assess community understanding and feelings about the distribution, and whether any mistakes or conflicts had arisen during implementation.
They found that the villages that did not use the community-based selection process experienced significant jealousy, disagreement and conflict. There were allegations of partisanship, with some threats and forced redistribution of rice.
Villages which had used the community-based beneficiary selection process had minimal jealousy problems, and were able to quickly and peacefully resolve complaints. Minority political parties expressed gratitude for being included in such a process for the first time.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 33 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 5: Programme project impact on group dividers and connectors
Aid has side effects. It can affect prices, wages and profits. It can reinforce a war economy or a peace economy. So each aspect of the project em – material resources and unspoken messages em - should be reviewed in the light of their possible effects on dividers and connectors.
Here are some of the key questions to ask.
• Who is providing humanitarian assistance and how is it provided? Who were the beneficiaries? • Might our resources indirectly support different groups or divisive structure? Which activity? • Have our resources supported activities that divide communities? • What effect might our aid have on dividers and connectors? (Impact) • What are the ‘unspoken messages’ World Vision sends through this project? • How are the unspoken messages received and perception about the programmes? What are the reactions from communities/beneficiaries?
During open warfare, aid goods may be stolen by fighters to support the war effort directly (when food is stolen to feed fighters), or indirectly (when food is stolen and sold in order to raise money to buy weapons).13 In other settings, citizens from rival groups may steal food aid for household consumption or for criminal purposes. This is more likely to happen where the groups are already divided by competition for resources, or where there is a perception of unequal access to aid. The theft then increases the tension that already exists between groups.
34 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
The effects of food aid on markets can become a Do No Harm issue if they create or add to communal tension.
Suggested tools
Pocket Guide Tool 3 Sample questions for a Rapid Social Impact Evaluation [page 50]
Pocket Guide Tool 4 Improving targeting and beneficiary selection [page 55]
Pocket Guide Tool 6 Some questions about local markets [page 59]
Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle [Link]
Pocket Guide Tool 8 page 64 Implicit Ethical Messages
Good Enough Guide Tool 1 How to introduce your agency: a need to know checklist
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 35 ‘Do No Harm’
Resources for child-headed households: World Vision in Rwanda14 After the 1994 genocide, World Vision created centres to help provide for the large numbers of orphaned and unaccompanied children. Due to tracing and reunification efforts, by 1997, the centres had mostly closed. World Vision continued supporting the children who had returned either to their families, or to other families, or had been placed in child-headed households. As one staff member described it : “The Do No Harm training helped us to know the dangers those children would face in the community when we supported them alone and not other poor kids in the community. At that time, after the war, everyone was still very poor. So if we were to take 10 kilos of sugar, and 10 kilos of rice to a child-headed household, and also give them some clothes and a hoe, then others would say, ‘Those kids are the ones helped by abazungu, they are rich.’ Then we put the kids at. So we you cause more harm that way. We had to help the children not look like elites in their own community, but to encourage them. The best approach was to involve the community in deciding how the few resources we had could be used to help the children in need.” He noted that while this did not totally eradicate jealousy, but it created buy-in from community members and local leaders, who helped to identify saw themselves as people in need and determine how to allocate funds.”
36 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Unspoken messages: World Vision in Zambia15
Staff in a World Vision water and sanitation project in Zambia found that a significant divider was wealth. Two community groups served by the same project were divided by differences in education, wealth and social status.
World Vision’s project was implemented through zone and village-level committees. But the committees were composed mainly of wealthier people. They had more formal education and there was an assumption that only educated persons could be selected for community leadership roles.
As a result, those who were less wealthy felt left out of decision-making. They felt they had been allocated fewer water boreholes. At the same time, the wealthier people resented what they saw as a lack of participation in the WASH project by the rest of the community.
The skewing of committee membership toward the wealthier people was unstated and unintentional, yet it had a significant impact on dividers.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 37 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 6 Develop programming options that reduce negative effects and increase positive ones. Check impact!
If monitoring shows that a World Vision project has or might have negative side effects, think about how to redesign it.
1. In what ways has the programme decreased tensions?
2. In what ways can the programme support or weaken the connectors?
• Identify possible options for changing project design. • Check each option. How might it affect the dividers and connectors? • Select one or two options that are most positive in their effect on connectors and test them against dividers.
Food aid and local markets: World Vision in Africa1
In one refugee camp, World Vision was distributing food to refugees. The refugees would sell the food in the local market in order to buy other things they needed. In the market, the food sold by the refugees was cheap and it affected sales by market traders from the local community. This resulted in conflict between the refugees and the local community who chased them out of the market. In revenge, the refugees chased the local people away from other facilities such as clinics and water holes.
38 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Options for project redesign should normally be consistent with the goals of the original project. If that is not possible, project managers must weigh up the benefits of continuing the project in its present form or changing its goal. Changing the project goal must be considered in consultation with donors, partners, beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders. Experience has shown that the details of the programmes that have negative/ positive effects on connectors/dividers and often not the entire programs.
Suggested tools
Pocket Guide Tool 2 Building trust in diverse teams [page]
Pocket Guide Tool 4 Improving targeting and beneficiary selection [page 60]
Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle
Good Enough Guide Tool 11 How to hold a lessons-learned meeting
Good Enough Guide Tool 12 How to set up a complaints and response mechanism
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 39 ‘Do No Harm’
Building on connectors: ZOA in Sri Lanka16
“We were working on a project for IDPs here in Sri Lanka. At first we only worked with the IDPs, but on further consideration of the principles of Do No Harm, we expanded into neighbouring communities.
We were working in a small Tamil village where the suicide rate was alarmingly high. In designing a program to try to stop the suicides we tried hard to find the “connectors” in the village that would provide a point of entry for implementation of programs. We used a village women’s group and it took four years of permanent presence and effort, but the incidence of suicide was eventually eliminated.
Do No Harm can really re-phrase the project in terms of understanding dividers and connectors. But I think there should be a caveat that the analysis should be run through to include micro and cultural factors. For example, jealousy is something that should be considered and rarely is. A regular context analysis might not uncover this but micro-level analysis would.”
Building on connectors: Colombia Red Cross17
Do No Harm analysis helped Colombia Red Cross Society staff understand that by excluding schoolteachers from a human rights and international humanitarian law
40 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide dissemination programme for teenagers they would undermine a significant community connector.
Schoolteachers are an important source of advice and wisdom in some Colombian communities and they can validate or undermine the messages and values promulgated by the programme. It was also noted that developing teachers’ knowledge of human rights and international humanitarian law would strengthen their capacity to reduce dividers in the community.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 41 ‘Do No Harm’ Step 7 Repeat steps 1-6 to reflect any project changes made
Repeat these steps as often as necessary to reflect changes you make in your project. This does not necessarily mean you must always repeat a formal Do No Harm assessment. You can also conduct informal discussions with colleagues, partner agencies, community members and local authorities. Invite beneficiaries to a lessons-learned meeting if you can and share progress reports with them.
Keep a written record of discussions and significant project changes and recommendations made so that colleagues will understand the reasons for them and so that changes will be included in future monitoring, evaluation and reflection.
Pocket Guide Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle [page 60]
Good Enough Guide Tool 11 How to hold a lessons-learned meeting
Good Enough Guide Tool 13 How to give a verbal report
42 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Changing the project: World Vision in Uganda18
In 2009, World Vision conducted a Do No Harm assessment of its food aid project in Pader, northern Uganda. This three-year programme helped over 230,000 IDPs. Example of the project’s positive impact including tte following. • Saving lives through food aid. • Making clean and safe water available closer to IDP camps. • Building schools, school toilets, teachers’ houses, stores and kitchens. • Equipping schools and providing schoolchildren with books, bags and food. • Assisting victims of landmines • Livelihoods support people living with HIV and their families
The Do No Harm review also noted some problems and World Vision could change its programme to help resolve them accordingly.
Improve access to food aid People who fled the area are now returning to their villages. If food distribution is to continue, re-registration must take place. World Vision staff should register the beneficiaries because community leaders were perceived by the community to not being biased. Prevent theft World Vision trucks should arrive at distribution points by 10.00 a.m. The community should offload trucks quicker. In this way food will not be left on vehicles
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 43 ‘Do No Harm’
overnight. World Vision should give the community at least two days advance notice so that beneficiaries can be mobilized. Early distribution will also give people the opportunity to walk home early and avoid risk of robbery.
Improve transparency and accountability World Vision should provide feedback on the outcome of complaints made. If it does not respond, World Vision will send people the wrong message and fuel communal tension.
Help people address sources of communal tension and conflict World Vision should help people to address sources of tension and conflict. It could help educate people about legal issues, such as the procedure to follow in settlement of land disputes.
44 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Pocket Guide Tools
Remember: This guide doesnot prescribes a particular course of action. Each situation is different. It presents different opportunities and risks. Therefore, it is vital that you use your own judgement, skill, local knowledge and experience in deciding what to do, bearing in mind the safety of World Vision staff, partners and beneficiaries.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 45 ‘Do No Harm’
Tool 1 Do No Harm in rapid assessments19
Wherever possible, integrate Do No Harm questions into other types of assessment, such as needs assessmentsand food monitoring information, etc.
1. In places which are vulnerable to conflict, use Do No Harm in development programming and disaster preparedness.
2. Try to access earlier Do No Harm analysis for the affected area. Bear in mind that some details of the community and its dynamics are likely to have changed since previous analysis. If there is no data, then conduct a rapid DNH assessment.
3. Look for World Vision staff or partners who know the local situation and/or who have knowledge of the Do No Harm approach. Ask for their input into a rapid analysis using the 7 Steps.
4. If World Vision has no previous Do No Harm analysis, nor staff and partners with appropriate experience, ask other NGOs, CSOs and CBOs in the area.
5. Do all you can to ensure that Do No Harm is reflected in early programming decisions. But do not try to conduct a detailed Do No Harm assessment during the early rapid response phase.
6. Familiarize key leaders with Do No Harm as soon as possible, so that they can use it to inform decision- making.
46 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
7. If necessary, use Good Enough Guide Tool 4 [page 55] to help you profile the affected population, assess initial needs and consider risks to sections of the affected population.
8. Focus on identifying the most dangerous inter-group division, and avoiding actions that worsen it.
9. Conduct a detailed Do No Harm assessment when you design the next phase of the emergency response.
Note: Use the following framework for quick Draftassessment 18 September of your context, what divides and connects 31 people in that context, how our aid would interact with relationships identified and recommendation for better programming in that context.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 47 ‘Do No Harm’
Tool 2 Building trust in diverse teams20
1. Demonstrate through your own behaviour that you treat all team members equally and fairly. Expect all senior team members to do the same.
2. Watch out for the formation of ‘cliques’ or ‘silos’ within the team, especially among local or international team members. Break down barriers, for example, by arranging meetings social events which involve every one in the layout.
3. Make sure that all work and organised social activities are inclusive of all team members. Remember, though, that it is often a relief for individuals to socialise with people from their own culture or with those who share a common mother tongue.
4. Involve people in the decision-making process wherever possible. This does not mean that decisions should normally be taken on a consensus basis, but it does mean that when you take major decisions you have listened to and understood the ideas, opinions, and information that others have to offer.
5. Involve the team in a process that results in agreement on what kinds of information must be communicated to the whole team.
6. Consider carefully whom to include in communication. The way we communicate can exclude certain group of people, especially in the decision’ making process. Excluding people can send the wrong message about trust. Including people who do not need to know can
48 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
waste their time. Overcome this by being explicit about whom you are including in major communications and why, and give everyone an opportunity to opt in if they wish.
7. As soon as work pressures allow, encourage social activities that include all team members. Try to get local team members to take the lead in organising these events, as they will know about the fun things to do locally.
8. Ensure that any privileges or perks are kept to a minimum and based on the legitimate needs of the job, (for example, access to vehicles).
9. Make use of the local knowledge and community ties of team members from the local area. Openly recognise this as a major contributions that they can make to the overall effort.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 49 ‘Do No Harm’ Tool 3 Sample questions for a Rapid Social Impact Evaluation21 a) Non-Beneficiary Interview
1. What do you think about the distribution World Vision recently carried out?
2. Did you know why the beneficiaries were selected? Why were you not included in the list? • How do you feel about it?
3. Are there any families in your community who you think should receive distributed items but who were also left out of the list? • How many? • Why should they receive food items? • What is their standard of living?
4. Are there any families on the list who were changed or replaced by others? • If yes, do you know why and how?
5. Did you notice any conflict or jealousy happening during or after food distribution? • If yes, between whom? • About what? • Who helped to resolve the dispute? • How did the Village Development Committee and World Vision staff try to avoid this conflict?
6. Have any problems occurred in food distribution in the past? • What can the villagers or World Vision do in the future to avoid such problems?
50 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
7. Do you have any ideas about how to improve beneficiaries’ selection?
8. Do you know what the beneficiaries did with the food? How did they use it?
9. Do you have any other suggestions or comments?
b) Beneficiary Interview
1. What do you think about on the distribution recently done by World Vision?
2. Did you know why you were selected to receive the items?
3. Are there any families in your community who you think should receive items but who were also left out of the list? • How many? • Why should they receive the items? • What is is your recommended criteria for those who should be receiving the assistance?
4. Are there any families on the list who were changed or replaced by others? • If yes, do you know why and how?
5. Did you notice any conflict or jealousy happening during and/or after food distribution? • If yes, between whom? • About what?
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 51 ‘Do No Harm’
• Who helped to resolve the dispute? • How did the Village Development Committee and World Vision staff try to avoid this conflict? • Is there anyone angry with you or jealous of you as the beneficiary of this programme? If yes, do you know why?
6. Have any problems occurred in relief distribution in the past? • What can the villagers or World Vision do in the future to avoid such problems?
c) World Vision Staff Interview
1. What do you think about on the distribution recently done by World Vision?
2. What do you think about this food programming response?
3. Do you have any ideas about how to improve • Information sharing • Selection process • Distribution process • Open meeting with villagers • Support from the emergency response team?
Were the instructions clear?
4. Do you know how the community selected beneficiaries in your target area?
52 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
5. Are there any problems that lead to this process not working properly? If so, do you have any ideas on how to improve it?
6. Do you think that your beneficiary selection process resulted in negative impact or social conflict in your target area? If yes, what should we do to change that?
d) Village Development Committee Interview
1. What do you think about on the distribution recently done by World Vision?
2. How did you select the beneficiaries? • Who was involved in selection and needs identification in your village? • What is your feeling about the selection process?
3. Do you have any ideas about how to improve beneficiary selection? Who should be involved in beneficiary selection to make it fairer, and to avoid conflict and jealousy?
5. Are there any families in your community who you think should receive assistance but who were also left out of the list? • How many? • Why should they receive food items? • What is their standard of living?
6. Did any family ask to have their name added to the list after coupons were distributed? If so,
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 53 ‘Do No Harm’
• Why? • What is their standard of living?
7. Are there any families on the list who were changed or replaced by others? If yes, why and how?
8. Did you notice any conflict or jealousies happening during or after food distribution? • If yes, between whom? • About what? • Who helped to resolve the dispute? • How did the Village Development Committee and World Vision staff try to avoid this conflict?
9. Have any problems occurred during food or non-food distribution in the past? What can the villagers or WVNO do in the future to avoid such problems?
10. Do you know what the beneficiaries did with the food? How did they use it?
54 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Tool 4 Improving targeting and selection22
1. When aid involves food, it is especially important to ensure that you assess needs accurately and that lists of eligible beneficiaries are kept up to date and objectively verified.
2. Helping everyone is often not the best option. You may not need to remove all perceived inequalities in your aid project, only those that overlap with dividers likely to lead to destructive behaviour in the near future.
3. Analyse beneficiary numbers to ensure that you know what percentage of beneficiaries are from particular groups, and how this compares to their percentage in the population overall.
4. As far as possible, include all sides of the conflict in your selection of staff and community partners.
5. Include key community stake-holders and, if possible, representatives of all sides of the conflict in your decision-making.
6. Be as open and transparent as possible, sharing information with community groups and stakeholders at every stage of the project.
7. If you consult representatives of groups excluded from your targeting, those individuals can help their own group to understand why priority has been given to others.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 55 ‘Do No Harm’
8. Even if your food aid is targeted at only one group, you may be able to benefit other groups through hiring of staff, contracting of services, etc.
9. Consider future plans – even if you target only one group in your current project, perhaps targeting can be broadened to include other groups in the future.
56 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Tool 5 Avoiding theft23
The Do No Harm Project identified four scenarios in which thieves often succeed in obstructing food deliveries. If you can prevent these scenarios from developing, you can reduce or avoid theft.24 The DNH project identified that thieves need 4 things in order to succeed. • Knowledge • Opportunity • Incentive • Impunity
These lessons may help you to develop options for redesign of your project and reduce the chances of theft.
1. Improve targeting and beneficiary selection Theft may be connected with the selection and targeting of beneficiaries. Use Tool 4 in design and Tool 3 in monitoring. Use Good Enough Guide Tool 12 to help you develop a complaints mechanism which will allow beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries to report problems.
2. Keep thieves guessing Food is difficult to hide and distributions have to be safely and carefully planned. But if you can vary transport routes or delivery schedules in order to keep the thieves guessing, you may be able to reduce theft.
3. Reduce opportunity Thieves need an opportunity to access the food. World Vision found that finishing distributions early in the day – by ensuring that trucks arrive in the morning
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 57 ‘Do No Harm’
and are unloaded promptly – helped to reduce theft from beneficiaries walking home with rations in the evening.25
4. Reduce incentives If thieves are motivated by financial gain, you can try to make relief items less valuable. For example, you might choose to provide a blanket that has been cut into two and knitted together that makes it less expensive for resale, or reduce the value of each distribution by providing smaller quantities of food, more frequently to smaller groups.
5. Reduce chances of impunity for thieves In Chechnya, truck drivers were told not to pick up hitchhikers. Some drivers realized, however, that if they carried elderly men from local communities as passengers, the theft of their truck was less likely. This was because any action against a vehicle carrying a respected elder would be considered a hostile act by his clan. Reprisals against the thief would follow.
58 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Tool 6 Some questions about local markets26
Local markets can be connectors or dividers. Here are some questions you can use during Do No Harm monitoring to check if World Vision’s aid is having Do No Harm effects on local markets.
Food aid
1. Which commodities are being received as food aid? 2. Are these commodities also available to buy locally? 3. Are the prices of these commodities lower than before food aid was given? 4. Has there been any effect on dividers and connectors?
Agricultural inputs
1. What agricultural inputs are being received as aid? 2. Are these inputs also available to buy locally? 3. Are the prices of these inputs lower than before the aid was given? 4. Has there been any effect on dividers and connectors?
These questions are adapted from World Vision’s Market Based Food Security Monitoring Tool which can be used to monitor distribution of a wide range of commodities and agricultural inputs.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 59 ‘Do No Harm’ Tool 7 Do No Harm and the LEAP Cycle
The questions below will help food aid staff consider key Do No Harm at every phase of the LEAP cycle.
Assess
1. What groups -ethnic, religious, political, people with disability, men, women, children, elderly and disabled persons etc. - are present in this community? How are they relating to each other? What are the dividers and connectors between them?
2. What are the resources in the community that bring tension among community? How are these resources distributed? Is food insecurity a cause of conflict? How? What are the implications for our programme design?
3. What is the most dangerous inter-group division in this community? Could World Vision’s programme make the situation worse? How? How might we avoid it?
(Re)Design
1. Which groups are included in our targeting criteria? Which are left out?
2. Which element of the programme design will help to connect different identity groups? Or does it divide them?
3. How should World Vision staffing and partnerships reflect the composition of the local community to
60 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
make sure benefits are equitable and procedure is established and tension does not increase?
4. Is there a risk of theft or diversion organ donation aid? How can we avoid it?
Implement and Monitor
1. Which groups benefit most from this programme? Which groups benefit least? Does this affect how the groups relate to each other?
2. Which groups participate in our decision making? Which are left out? Does this affect how the groups relate to each other?
3. Are meeting locations and food distribution points equally accessible and acceptable to all groups?
4. Are programme targeting criteria and participation opportunities clear to all community stakeholders?
5. What do community members say about fairness in food distribution?
6. What sort of assistance do food distribution committees need to support equitability of food distribution? Do members need training in Do No Harm?
7. Analyse beneficiary, staffing and partner statistics according to identity group. How does this compare with your original plans? How does it compare to the demographics of the local community?
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 61 ‘Do No Harm’
8. Are any of these occurring? • Theft • Insecurity at distribution sites • Groups appear to be competing for food • Groups are angry at distribution decisions • Local authorities are manipulating allocation decisions • Warring parties demand use of programme resources • The beneficiary list is often disputed • Big swings in the prices of local commodities • The community is angry with World Vision.
These are warning signs. If any are occurring, deepen your Do No Harm analysis, and seek assistance from the FPMG if..
9. Does programme implementation help to connect different identity groups? Does it divide them?
Evaluate
1. How have inter-group relationships changed since the beginning of the programme? How has the security situation changed? Has World Vision contributed to those inter group relationships either directly or indirectly?
Reflect
1. Are there any Do No Harm lessons from this programme that should be applied to future World Vision programmes? What can you do to ensure that these lessons are communicated to the right people?
62 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
Transition
1. Will the institutions created as a result of this programme be sustainable? Will they encourage collaboration between groups?
2. Will any World Vision assets be handed over to the community when the agency leaves? How will this affect relations between groups?
3. How will World Vision ‘say goodbye’? Draft 18 September 42
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 63
‘Do No Harm’ Tool 8 Implicit Ethical Messages
Aid has side-effects. As it can affect market prices, wages and profits if it undermines productivity and increases dependency. It can reinforce war economy or a peace economy. So delivery of each aspect (food, non-food items, water, shelter, health care materials or training) by agency staff carries unspoken (implicit) messages. The delivery mechanism and the behaviour of agency staff needs to be reviewed in the light of their possible effects on dividers and connectors.
Implicit Ethical Messages are unspoken messages that assistance workers communicate unintentionally and nonverbally, through our every day actions. Implicit Ethical Messages can sometimes reinforce the moods and modes of destructive conflict and warfare in the context where we work. These messages are less “tangible” than Resource Transfers, but they are important. “The community may not remember what you say . . . But they will remember what you do.”
Publicity: Agencies’ effort to use media for documentation and marketing resulted in unethical media exposure of IDPs living in camps that led to further violence, especially when those who appeared on TV were noticed by enemy groups in surrounding communities. For instance, “two youth were beaten very badly on return to Kibera because they had appeared on TV talking about the violence that had been inflicted on them, their families and communities.” ---Youth during a FGD, Jamhuri Camp
Different values for different lives: Agency staff and volunteers were not encouraged to appreciate the
64 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
impact of ethnic biases on the existing situation and some engaged in acts of discrimination while providing humanitarian assistance. They naturally brought along with them long-standing ethnic biases as they worked in camps. These acts only served to enhance the already existing inter-ethnic tensions.
There are seven different categories in which aid agencies communicate non verbally through their action in the process of delivering assistance. They communicate in one or more of the following categories: Competition, disrespect among each other, arms and power, aid workers and impunity, different values for different lives, powerlessness, belligerence tension and suspicion and publicity, example from DNH assessment conducted in IDP camp after the post - violence in Kenya.
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 65 Draft 18 September 43
‘Do No Harm’ The following framework provides the conceptual understanding of how aid workers action can negatively impact on the context as well as positive actions that promote peace among beneficiaries and strengthen accountability.
Resource Transfers (RTs) Implicit Ethical Messages (IEMs) as Aid Contributors to Dividers or Connectors
Context of Conflict
Tensions/ Aid Programs Connectors/ Dividers/ Local Capacities Theft/Diversion Capacities Knowledge NO for War Opportunity for Peace Value Impunity RTs Market Effects RTs Distributional Effects Substitution Effects Legitimization Effects
IEMs IEMs
Arms & Power Non-violence, Risk, Rule of Law Competition Collaboration, Cooperation Impunity Accountability, Transparency, Solidarity Different Values for Different Lives Expressed Value for all Lives Powerlessness Distributed Power, Hope, Possibility Thinking Belligerence, Tensions, Suspicions Respect, Courage, Perseverance Publicity Own Voice, Media Access, Truthfulness, Accuracy
66 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide Further information
Mary B. Anderson, (ed.), (2000), Options for Aid in Conflict: Lessons from Field Experience, CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc. Download at no cost from: http://www.cdainc.com/cdawww/ pdf/book/options_for_aid_in_conflict_Pdf1.pdf Mary B. Anderson, (1999), Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War, Lynne Rienner CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc, (2008), Challenges and Opportunities: Implementing Do No Harm/LCP in Rwanda CDA, (2004), The Do No Harm Handbook. CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc. Download at no cost from: http://www.cdainc.com Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007), Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: the Good Enough Guide, Oxfam Publishing Download at no cost from: http://publications.oxfam.org.uk/display. asp?k=9780855985943&ds=’The%20Guide%20to%20 the%20HAP%20Standard’%20related%20titles&sf1=ref_no &st1=00255942,002P0498,9780855985943&m=2&dc=2 Emergency Capacity Building Project, (2007), Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit for Emergency Response, Oxfam Publishing Download at no cost from: http://www.ecbproject.org/buildingtrust International Alert, (2004), Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance and Peacebuilding: A Resource Pack World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 67 ‘Do No Harm’
Download at no cost from: http://conflictsensitivity.org/?q=resourcepack GTZ-FRCS Project Team, MethodFinder’s Practitioner’s Guide: Do No Harm, GTZ, FRCS Download at no cost from: http://www.gtz.de/en/dokumente/en-publication-do-no- harm-2007.pdf Michelle Garred, (2007), Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, World Vision International Download at no cost from: http://www.wvasiapacific.org/ images/stories/ATR/cse_report.pdf IFRC-BPI, (2003), Aid: supporting or undermining recovery? Lessons from the Better Programming Initiative, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Download at no cost from: http://www.ifrc.org/Docs/pubs/disasters/resources/ reducing-risks/bpi.pdf Isabella Jean and Maureen Lempke, (2007), Footprints in the Sand? Implementation and Use of Do No Harm in Sri Lanka, CDA Download at no cost from: http://www.cdainc.com Marumbo Ngwira, (2008), Do No Harm Workshop Report for Southern Africa (WVI-FPMG) Ron Ockwell, (1999), Recurring Challenges in the Provision of Food Aid in Complex Emergencies: The Problems and Dilemmas faced by WFP and its Partners, World Food Programme Office of Evaluation
68 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
World Vision International, (2010), Utilization of M&E reports in food programming, FPMG World Vision International, (2009), Do No Harm Assessment Report Kotido District World Vision International, (2009), Do No Harm Assessment Report Kaabong District World Vision International, (2009), Do No Harm Assessment Report Abim District World Vision International, (2009), Do No Harm Assessment Report Pader District, Northern Uganda World Vision International, (2008), Do No Harm Assessment Report Kapululwe ADP, Zambia World Vision International, (2008), Making the LEAP, FPMG Do No Harm Assessment Report Kapululwe ADP, Zambia World Vision International, Market Based Food Security Monitoring Tool World Vision International, Household Survey - Post Distribution Monitoring Questionnaire (GFD) World Vision International, Focus Group Method, GFD Focus Group Discussion Guide (stakeholder’s guide)
World Vision International, Case studies of community conflict due to food programs
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 69 ‘Do No Harm’ References
1 Adapted from Ron Ockwell, (1999), Recurring Challenges in the Provision of Food Aid in Complex Emergencies: The Problems and Dilemmas faced by WFP and its Partners World Food Project Office of Evaluation
2 Adapted from Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc, Do No Harm training materials.
3 Adapted from IFRC-BPI, (2003), Aid: supporting or undermining recovery? Lessons from the Better Programming Initiative, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
4 Adapted from Michelle Garred, (2007), Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, World Vision International
5 Joop Gieling, Stephen Jackson, Marge Tsitouris Adapted from Mary B. Anderson, ed., Options for Aid in Conflict: Lessons from Field Experience
6 Adapted from Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007), Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit for Emergency Response, Oxfam Publishing
7 Adapted from the Do No Harm Handbook by CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc. See the endnotes for publication details. WVI acknowledges and appreciates CDA’s ongoing partnership.
8 Adapted from Michelle Garred, (2007), Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, World Vision International
World Vision International, Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response (WVI-APRO, 2007
70 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group Field Guide
9 Adapted from Marumbo Ngwira, (2008), Do No Harm Workshop Report for Southern Africa (WVI-FPMG)
10 Jo-hana Lavey, World Vision, adapted from Isabella Jean and Maureen Lempke, (2007), Footprints in the Sand? Implementation and Use of Do No Harm in Sri Lanka, CDA
11 Rani Samuel, Helvetas, adapted from Isabella Jean and Maureen Lempke, (2007), Footprints in the Sand? Implementation and Use of Do No Harm in Sri Lanka, CDA
12 Adapted from Michelle Garred, (2007), Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, World Vision International
World Vision Conflict Sensitivity, adapted
13 Adapted from CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc, Do No Harm Handbook.
14 Adapted from CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc, (2008), Challenges and Opportunities: Implementing Do No Harm/LCP in Rwanda
15 World Vision International, Do No Harm Assessment Report Kapululwe ADP, Zambia. (2008).
16 Timmo Gaasbeek, ZOA Refugee Care, adapted from Isabella Jean and Maureen Lempke, (2007), Footprints in the Sand? Implementation and Use of Do No Harm in Sri Lanka, CDA
17 Adapted from IFRC-BPI, (2003), Aid: supporting or undermining recovery? Lessons from the Better Programming Initiative, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
18 Adapted from World Vision International, (2009), Do No Harm Assessment Report Pader District, Northern Uganda
World Vision International Food Programming Management Group 71 ‘Do No Harm’
19 Adapted from Michelle Garred, (2007), Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, World Vision International
20 Adapted from Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007), Building Trust in Diverse Teams: The Toolkit for Emergency Response, Oxfam Publishing
21 Adapted from Michelle Garred, (2007), Conflict Sensitivity in Emergencies: Learning from the Asia Tsunami Response, World Vision International World Vision Cambodia
22 Adapted from Mary B. Anderson, ed., Options for Aid in Conflict: Lessons from Field Experience
23 Adapted from Mary B. Anderson, Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace – Or War (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1999)
24 Adapted from Mary B. Anderson, ed., Options for Aid in Conflict: Lessons from Field Experience (Cambridge, MA: CDA Collaborative Learning Projects, Inc., 2000)
25 Adapted from World Vision International, Do No Harm Assessment Report Pader District, Northern Uganda
26 Adapted from World Vision International, Market Based Food Security Monitoring Tool
72 World Vision International Food Programming Management Group