DRAFT
THE GLOBAL STUDY
ON CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION OF AFFECTED POPULATIONS IN HUMANITARIAN ACTION
THE CASE OF GUINEA
ALNAP / Groupe URD
Study directors
Karla Levy-Simancas
Bonaventure Gbétoho Sokpoh
Research team
Mamadou Bobo Diallo
François Grünewald
Anna Lear
March 2004
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would most sincerely like to thank all those who, on behalf of their organisation or on a personal basis, assisted us with our research.
In particular, we would like to express our gratitude to:
-Maxime Koivogui, Director of EUPD, our Guinean partner for this study, as well as EUPD staff for their kindness and collaboration;
-ERM, ACF-E, UNHCR, IRC & WFP for their invaluable logistical assistance and background information on both their programmes and beneficiaries;
-International and national humanitarian aid agencies, and representatives of the Guinean government for having welcomed us, provided us with information and helped us access the affected populations;
-Representatives of organisations in the refugee camps who assisted us tremendously with our research;
-The refugee communities and the villagers of Krimissadou, Farawaya, Boréah, Madina, Yomadou, Télikoro and Lainé, who gave us such a warm welcome and provided us with a wealth of information;
-The translators and drivers for their motivation and sense of humour;
-Everyone we met during our stay in Guinea who made our visit so enjoyable.
The research team
SUMMARY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
SUMMARY
ACRONYMS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.INTRODUCTION
1.1.Background
1.2.The Guinea case study
1.2.1.Why Guinea?
1.3.Methodology
1.3.1.Theoretical research framework
1.3.2.Hypotheses and Research Questions
1.3.3.Questions related specifically to Guinea
1.3.4.Selection of the Study Sites
1.3.5.Research Methods
1.4.Constraints
2.THE OPERATIONAL CONTEXT
2.1.Country profiles
2.1.1.Multiple identities in West Africa: a chequered administrative and cultural backdrop
2.1.2.Liberia
2.1.3.Sierra Leone
2.1.4.Ivory Coast
2.1.5.Guinée Forestière
2.2.The humanitarian situation in Guinée Forestière
2.3.Humanitarian actors in Guinea
2.3.1.International actors
2.3.2.Guinean actors
2.3.3.Refugees and refugee organisations in camps
2.3.4.Guinean populations in villages surrounding the refugee camps
3.FINDINGS OF THE STUDY
3.1.Introduction
3.2.Participation in organisation and management
3.2.1.Preliminary phase
3.2.2.Settling in
3.2.3.Departure
3.3.Participation by sector
3.3.1.Classic emergency relief
3.3.2.Protection programmes
3.3.3.Vocational training
3.3.4.Economic activity
3.3.5.Socio-cultural activities
3.3.6.Environment
4.CONCLUSIONS
4.1.The systems behind participation
4.2.What are the reasons for participating? Why ask for participation? What prevents people from participating?
5.RECOMMENDATIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ACRONYMS
ACF-EAction contre la Faim – Spain
ACTAction by Churches Together
ADRIPAssociation Développement de la Riziculture Intense et du Palmier
ALNAPActive Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action
ARCAmerican Refugee Committee
AVRAssociation Villageoise et Réfugiée pour la confection de toilettes et de douches
BMSBrigade Mixte de Sécurité
BCRBureau de Coordination de Réfugiés
BNCRBureau Nationale de Coordination de Réfugiés
CAADACommunity Action Against AIDS and Drug Abuse
CECICentre d’Étude Canadien de Coopération Internationale
CFTCash for Training
CFWCash for Work
CNSAH Comité National de Suivi de l’Action Humanitaire
CRDCommunauté Rurale de Développement
CRG Croix Rouge Guinéenne
CU Concern Universal
CVT Centre for the Victims of Torture
DDR Demobilisation, disarmement and rehabilitation
DPS Direction Préfectorale de Santé
DNFDirection Nature et Forêt
ECHOEuropean Commission's Humanitarian Aid Office
ECOMOGWest African peacekeeping mission
ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States
ERM Enfants Réfugiés du Monde
EUPD Entraide Universitaire Pour le Développement
FANCI Forces Armées Nationales de Côte d’Ivoire
FAO The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FFWFood For Work
GBV Gender-Based Violence
GLPP Gender Literacy Pilot Project
Groupe URDGroupe Urgence Réhabilitation Développement
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschatft für Tecnische Zusammenarbeit
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IDPInternally displaced person
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IGPIncome Generating Project
IMFInternational Monetary Fund
INPFLIndependent National Patriotic Front of Liberia
IRC International Rescue Committee
JRS Jesuit Refugee Service
LURDLiberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy
MAGE Men’s Association for Gender Equality
MDE Le Monde des Enfants
MODELMovement for Democracy in Liberia
MPCIMouvement Patriotique de Côte d’Ivoire
MPIGOMouvement populaire ivoirien du Grand Nord
MPJMouvement pour la justice et la paix
MSF-B Médecins Sans Frontières – Belgium
MSF-CH Médecins Sans Frontières – Switzerland
MSF-F Médecins Sans Frontières – France
NGONon Governmental Organisation
NPRCNational Provisional Ruling Council
NPFLNational Patriotic Front of Liberia
NPFL-CRC National Patriotic Front of Liberia - Central Revolutionary Council
OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
OCPH Organisation Catholique pour la Promotion Humaine
ODICOrganisation pour le Développement Intégré Communautaire
PU Première Urgence
RUFRevolutionary United Front
SCFSave the Children
SRRSecours Rapide Rural
SENAH Service National des Affaires Humanitaires
SNAPE Service National d'Aménagement des Points d'Eau
TWINToday’s Women’s International Network
ULIMOUnited Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy
UNUnited Nations
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAIDUnited States Agency for International Development
WFPWorld Food Programme
WHOWorld Health Organisation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Part 1: Introduction
The participation and consultation of affected populations and beneficiaries in humanitarian action now seem widely accepted as crucial to effective social targeting, resource utilisation, accountability, sustainability and impact. As such, the participation of affected populations has become a central tenet of policy for a number of humanitarian agencies. Despite policylevel commitments, there remains wide variation in practice. It is against this background that ALNAP commissioned the Global Study, seeking to understand how participatory approaches can be established in crisis contexts.
Guinea was put forward as a case study in order to gain a better understanding of participation in a refugee context, by virtue of the large numbers of refugees concentrated in south Guinea, namely the region of Guinée Forestière. Variousinterlocked crises have provoked waves ofpopulation displacement (mainly refugees but also Guineans), giving rise to a large ethnically diverse refugee population. This ethnic diversity by nature has generated complex protection issues, on both a national and international level.
The basic hypothesis of the Global Study is that the participation of the affected populations in humanitarian action is both feasible and beneficial in terms of project outcomes and longterm social impact. In addition to this hypothesis, the research team drew up a series of pertinent questions, such as: “Who should participate?” “Why is participation necessary?” “How can participation be achieved?” Furthermore, the refugee context in Guinea has uncovered specific issues linked to diversity in terms of culture, ethnic group and nationality of the refugees, as well as how best to coordinate humanitarian aid in Guinea and in regions to which the refugees return.
Part 2: The operational context
Guinea’s geographical position at the heart of a crisis-embedded region, its role as host country to one of the largest refugee populations in Africa and the diversity of ethnic populations that overlap into neighbouring countries makes it a valuable choice for a case study. Indeed despite the influence of the different colonising communities, namely France in Guinée and Côte d’Ivoire, Britain in Sierra Leone, and emancipated slaves in both Sierra Leone and Liberia, a strong sense of identity exists between members of the same ethnic group, even if their nationality differs. However, the presence of numerous ethnic groups coexisting within any given territory offers few guarantees for political and social stability, as the current context shows.
Three of the six countries surrounding Guinée, namely Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast have undergone a period of extreme instability over the past couple of decades. Sierra Leone and Liberia have embarked upon a fragile process of peace consolidation following several years of civil war. Similarly, Ivory Coast, until recently considered the most stable of West African countries, has too been plunged into socio-political turmoil. Much of the infrastructure in both Sierra Leone and Liberia has been destroyed and many people’s houses and livelihoods have been demolished. The policy of ivoirité in Ivory Coast has forced many people to abandon their lands. However, the impact of these crises on the region can also be counted in terms of the waves of thousands of people fleeing their country over the past ten years, the majority of whom have sought refuge in Guinea.
So it is that Guinée Forestière, the southern-most region of the country is currently hosting a refugee population of an estimated 180,000 people (Oct. 2003). A large proportion of these refugees receive shelter in refugee camps but a certain number have been taken in and provided for by the local community. In addition, the enormity of the humanitarian crisis has also prompted a response from numerous humanitarian aid organisations, both national and international. The region’s proximity to war zones, the ever-fluctuating demographics and the presence of the aid community have all inevitably had an effect on the Guinean population. The conflict has encroached on Guinean territory threatening the security of local communities, local economy and markets have shifted, the environment has been placed under extreme pressure, and towns and villages have undergone sometimes dramatic changes. Indeed, although Sierra Leoneans are now beginning to return to their country, many of the refugees have been present in Guinea for a number of years. It is this very diversity in length of stay, nationality, ethnic group, refugee camp set-up, etc. that makes Guinée Forestière an interesting case for research on participation in the refugee situation.
Part 3: Findings
To give our analysis a structure, we decided to follow the process by which refugees are provided with support (the refugee camp being the preferred strategy) in Guinea. The support process includes the following steps (although this is not the case for all refugees, some are taken in by host families):
Preliminary period (Arrival in host country; Settling temporarily);
Settling in period (Settling more permanently in refugee camp; Relocation);
Departure (Resettlement; Return to home country/Repatriation; Camp closure).
We analyse our findings along two axes: participation in terms of organisation and administration when providing support for refugees and how refugees are involved in humanitarian programmes.
Analysing participatory mechanisms in terms of organisation, reveals the following:
Populations fleeing conflict rarely participate on arrival at entry points due to their critical physical and psychological state. Occasionally, the Guinean State provides support for the refugees until international humanitarian actors arrive.
After a few days in a provisional settlement (transit centres), refugees are asked to organise themselves and establish some form of representation. They elect tent leaders, commune leaders, zone leaders, etc.
Setting up refugee camps generally gives rise to a process of negotiation, involving the UNHCR, Guinean government, local administrative authorities and local populations (taking into account traditional organisational systems). This process enhances the relationships between host populations and refugees. However, expanding refugee camps and the closing down process are subject to less consultation.
Administration in refugee camps is carried out jointly by the UNHCR and the BCR and involves the following participatory mechanisms: UNHCR Field Officers and Focal Points (refugees), BCR representatives, Community Services, Refugee Committees and coordination activities.
The departure process appears to be characterised by a lack of information for both refugees and host populations.
In general, participatory mechanisms enable information to be passed on effectively (events timetable, etc.) between refugees and humanitarian actors but refugees do not seem to be overly involved when important decisions are made, concerning life in the refugee camps (programmes to be implemented, relocation, etc.).
In order to examine how refugees are involved in humanitarian action itself, we chose to group programmes in accordance with the type of participatory mechanisms.
Classic emergency relief (health care, food, shelter, education). Refugees are rarely, if at all, involved in the needs assessment and programme design phases. Meanwhile, there are several forms of participation in the implementation phase, depending on whether the refugees have just arrived or whether they are already settled in the refugee camp: refugees and Refugee Committee are involved in distribution, building family houses, with shower and latrines, in schools and education issues, etc. MARP participatory mechanisms and tools (such as focus groups) are used in monitoring food distribution, Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM).
Protection. When a situation of relative stability has been attained, many programmes focus on reducing violence against vulnerable persons (women, children, etc.). Examples include deploying security officers, prevention via awareness campaigns, support for victims via vocational training schemes and financial grants for small businesses. The forms of participation resemble those identified in socio-cultural activities and vocational training schemes.
Vocational training. Refugees sign up for these courses on a voluntary basis. They are involved in defining the choice of training courses on offer and the conditions under which the training will take place (choice of trainer, timetable, etc.).
Economic activity (IGP, agricultural activities, market gardening, livestock, etc.). Beneficiary selection can occur in one of two ways: 1) refugees form their own groups and fill in their application form or 2) a survey is carried out on refugees’ professional skills, and humanitarian actors select beneficiaries and place them in groups. Refugees state a preference for the first process. Agricultural programmes use mechanisms that encourage Guinean landowners to sign up voluntarily for rice cultivating activities. In general, these programmes allow beneficiaries a certain autonomy in the daily running of their activity. This study has illustrated in the importance of the physical ability to participate in projects that support, especially when targeting extremely vulnerable persons.
Socio-cultural activities (awareness and information campaigns, cultural and sporting events, recreational activities, etc.). These programmes stand out for their high proportion of refugees who are involved as animators, and for their involvement with refugee associations (who propose activities, request support from humanitarian actors).
Environment. These programmes often draw on techniques found in development programmes for activities such as reforestation of village land. Difficulties include motivating villagers and refugees to take part in reforestation activities on land within the refugee camp.
Participation is limited in highly technical activities (health care, water and sanitation, etc.). A greater participation can be found in activities associated with animation, training and economic activity.
Part 4: Conclusions
The Guinée Forestière case study has brought to light many examples of participation that exist within the refugee camp situation. Within this context, participation is a key component of humanitarian assistance, in that it gives rise to 1) a response that is adapted to affected populations’ needs and 2) organisational structures that represent the affected population. Thus, participation mechanisms focus on ensuring that affected populations are represented within camp administration and facilitating communication between the various actors – NGOs, structures that represent the Guinean State, refugees and local communities. Yet, the absence of participation in decision-making processes may hamper spontaneous initiative and individual motivation.
The range of structures that are involved in humanitarian programmes is considerable, and includes those that are set up to represent the refugee population in camp administration to working groups or associations that provide some kind of support for the affected population, either within the framework of a humanitarian programme or as a result of refugee/villager initiative. However, no matter how extensive the network of participatory structures, the difficulty of ensuring that everyone is represented persists.
There are many reasons that prompt actors to implement participatory mechanisms and tools. The Guinean government is involved in coordinating humanitarian assistance as they have accepted responsibility for the refugees. Actors involve affected populations in humanitarian programmes in order to improve communication between actors and affected populations, or between refugees and villagers, and thus enhance programme effectiveness. Affected populations also provide a work force for programme implementation. Refugees can be seen to set up their own initiatives in sectors where the humanitarian response is lacking. And finally, in a long-term perspective, participatory mechanisms are implemented in order to link humanitarian interventions to national systems, and thus ensure continuity, and also to promote self-reliance amongst affected populations.
The factors that limit participation are also varied. Actors maintain that in the acute emergency phase, affected populations are not physically capable of participating. Even when this phase is over, they do not necessarily possess the skills required for certain specific tasks. External constraints often limit how flexible humanitarian programmes can be. The wide variety of national and refugee NGOs and associations makes selection difficult especially when actors do not have a good knowledge of these structures and when refugees demands are in general high.
Our appreciation of the refugee context in Guinea gives rise to two elements that would appear crucial for participation mechanisms. The first is that the importance of understanding the different nuances in operational context, the background of the various refugee cultures present in the refugee camp, of the host communities and the host country. The second is the ability of humanitarian programmes to retain a certain flexibility, given that refugee contexts are by nature continually fluctuating.
Part 5: Recommendations
Humanitarian assistance provided in refugee camps generally requires an highly technical approach and this has been shown to influence the way in which participation mechanisms are set up within a camp.
The main recommendation is that
it is time to move beyond merely using participation as a tool within classic emergency relief programmes and that instead participation can used as a means of questioning humanitarian response (and respond to the true expectations of affected populations).
Our other recommendations are cover four main areas: