DO NO HARM PROJECT Do No Harm in Nepal October 2006 Peter Bauman Winifred Fitzgerald This document was developed as part of a collaborative learning project directed by CDA. It is part of a collection of documents that should be considered initial and partial findings of the project. These documents are written to allow for the identification of cross-cutting issues and themes across a range of situations. Each case represents the views and perspectives of a variety of people at the time when it was written. These documents do not represent a final product of the project. While these documents may be cited, they remain working documents of a collaborative learning effort. Broad generalizations about the project’s findings cannot be made from a single case. CDA would like to acknowledge the generosity of the individuals and agencies involved in donating their time, experience and insights for these reports, and for their willingness to share their experiences. Not all the documents written for any project have been made public. When people in the area where a report has been done have asked us to protect their anonymity and security, in deference to them and communities involved, we keep those documents private 1 Table of Contents LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................2 1. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................1 2. METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................1 3. CONFLICT IN NEPAL .........................................................................................................................2 4. THE HISTORY OF DNH IN NEPAL .......................................................................................................5 5. UNDERSTANDING, INTEGRATION, AND APPLICATION OF DNH IN NEPAL ........................................... 6 BUILDING CONFIDENCE ........................................................................................................................... 10 APPLYING THE TOOL ............................................................................................................................... 11 ADAPTING THE TOOL .............................................................................................................................. 13 GENERATING OPTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 14 FACTORS THAT ENHANCE OR INHIBIT THE UPTAKE AND APPLICATION OF DNH ................................................... 17 6. DNH TRAINING .............................................................................................................................. 20 CURRENT APPROACH TO TRAINING ........................................................................................................... 20 WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS – DETERMINING WHO PARTICIPATES IN A DNH TRAINING ...................................... 21 DNH TRAINING METHODOLOGY............................................................................................................... 21 TRAINING CONTENT ................................................................................................................................ 22 MENTORING AND FOLLOW UP SUPPORT .................................................................................................... 24 RESOURCES ........................................................................................................................................... 24 MOTIVATION & INCENTIVE ...................................................................................................................... 24 7. POLITICAL RESISTANCE AND CONSTRAINTS TO DNH IN NEPAL ........................................................ 25 8. DO NO HARM AT THE MACRO LEVEL .............................................................................................. 26 9. RELEVANCE OF DNH IN THE “NEW NEPAL CONTEXT” ...................................................................... 29 APPENDIX A—CONFLICT IN THE TERAI ............................................................................................... 32 APPENDIX B—REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 34 APPENDIX C—FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................................. 34 APPENDIX D—BASIC OPERATING GUIDELINES ................................................................................... 38 1 List of Abbreviations ADRA Adventist Development and Releif Agency AIN Association for International NGOs BOGS Basic Operating Guidelines CBO Community-Based Organization CDA Collaborative Development Alternatives CECI Canadian Centre for International Studies and Cooperation CIDA Canadian International Development Agency CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement CPN/M Communist Party of Nepal / Maoists DDC District Development Committee DLA District Line Agency DFID Department for International Development DNH Do No Harm GON Government of Nepal GTZ German Technical Organization HURDEC Human Resource Development Center IEM Implicit Ethical Message LCPP Local Capacities for Peace Project LDTA Local Development Training Academy NGO Non-Governmental Organization PPR Forum for Protection of People's Rights PVSE Poor, Vulnerable and Socially Excluded RBA Rights-Based Approach RMO Risk Management Office RNA Royal Nepal Army SCF Save the Children Foundation SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Corporation SPA Seven Party Alliance ToT Training of Trainer UN United Nations UNMIN United Nations Mission in Nepal UPF United People’s Front USAID United States Agency for International Development UG User Group VDC Village Development Committee YCL Young Communist League 2 1. Introduction The Do No Harm Project (DNH), originally called Local Capacities for Peace (LCP), began in the mid- 1990s. It was designed to help those involved in humanitarian and development work better understand their potential and actual impacts so they can avoid causing greater tension and can intervene in ways that complement local mechanisms for mitigating conflict. In 2006, the Do No Harm Project set out to determine how DNH was being used in the world and whether that use was leading to more effective programming decisions. A series of Reflective Case Studies was written in multiple countries to determine how practitioners in those places are learning, thinking about, using and spreading DNH. Some organizations are experienced and effective in applying Do No Harm principles and framework to their work, while others are struggling. This range of experience provides valuable lessons. Whether implementing Do No Harm in their daily work, in their program design and monitoring, or in shaping policies and organizational procedures, the cases look at where in their work people find it easy to use Do No Harm, where they find roadblocks, and how (or if) they overcame them. As part of this process, Peter Bauman and Winifred Fitzgerald, independent consultants commissioned by CDA, traveled to Nepal to complete the Nepal DNH case study. This report highlights the major themes and questions that emerged during these interviews and field visits. The paper is divided into several sequential parts beginning with an overview of the case study methodology followed by a brief analysis of the conflict in Nepal. The third section outlines the history of DNH in Nepal leading into a discourse regarding the understanding and application of DNH in Nepal. Section five examines DNH training and is followed by a description of different approaches to conflict sensitivity and adaptations of DNH. Section nine explores the relevance of DNH in the new context of Nepal and the final section provides recommendations and areas for further inquiry. 2. Methodology This case study was developed in three phases. The first, in September 2006, included interviews with individuals and organizations in Katmandu, provided the researchers with a macro-view. During the researchers’ second visit, conducted in November and December 2006, the researchers accompanied CARE Nepal to project sites in the field, providing a micro-view of CARE’s use, application and uptake of DNH.1 Last, Peter Bauman remained in Nepal to complete an impact assessment of the UJYALO project, a major USAID funded peacebuilding and development project being implemented by Save the Children, CARE, International Development Enterprises, Winrock International, and the Asia Foundation in thirteen conflict-affected districts in Western Nepal. This experience enabled the researchers to triangulate their findings from the first two phases, adding depth and insight to the case study. 1The complete findings of the second phase of this research are available in an additional case study, “A Review of CARE Nepal's Use of the Do No Harm Framework-Executive Summary” www.cdainc.com 1 To understand and categorize the level of understanding and application of DNH, the researchers developed a framework that provides categories and indicators ranging from awareness, conceptualization and application to mainstreaming and knowledge management.2 Our aim was to understand the differing depths and breadths of understanding and application of the DNH