1. THE LOCAL POPULATION

2. Topics Last Week n Military (we have to finish today) u Review of earlier discussion of military intervention u Tasks u Implementation u Alternatives u Conclusions n Guest Speaker: Tanya Domi

3. Topics n Readings & exercises next week n Paper u Prepare u No late dates; it will be reflected in your grade u Thursday, 8 Nov 2001, 5:00 PM u Also do your BB assignment (incl. Tom Weiss, no new BB assignments till we have delivered n Readings today (what did you think of it? u Mu Sochua u Harrel-Bond u WSP n No former refugees in our class: no speeches n Local population, unfortunately, mainly from an outsider’s perspective

4. Peace Operations

5. Question n How helpful is humanitarian aid/relief? u It can be degrading u It can be ineffective u It can worsen conflict u It can create dependency

6. Question n Should we then stop aid? u Logical fallacy: that giving aid can cause serious problems does not mean that all aid is bad u Moral fallacy: are we really doing all we can? Can we do it differently?

7. THE LOCAL POPULATION n THEY ARE THE FIRST AND FOREMOST DETERMINANT OF THEIR OWN LIVES n LOCAL ACTORS CAN BE: u HIGHLY DIVERSE F REFUGEES F LOCAL COMMUNITIES F WARRING FACTIONS, ETC. u JUST HUMAN BEINGS: DON’T CONFORM TO STEREOTYPES AND INTERVENTION POLICIES

8. THE LOCAL POPULATION n THEIR PARTICIPATION IS CRUCIAL BUT RECEIVES INSUFFICIENT ATTENTION n THEIR EXPERIENCE SHOULD RECEIVE MORE ATTENTION. ATTENTION IS GROWING, BUT IT IS NOT ENOUGH YET n IN ANY CASE, THEY WILL TAKE THEIR OWN INITIATIVES

9. THE LOCAL POPULATION TRY TO UNDERSTAND: n Power relations/Exclusion n Decision-making bodies & procedures n Coping Mechanisms/Capacities n Vulnerabilities n Language?? n What are the entry points/points of leverage? n Etc.

10. Typical Donor Org Mistakes n Set norms: u What constitutes a refugee u Policies, manuals, guidelines, etc n Language: beneficiaries, recipient, victims, empowerment: Is it differentiated enough? Just needy subjects? n Expatriate professionals: u Income and other status differences u Local Knowledge & participation u Does it validate local approaches n Programming: procedure in three stages n Positioning: Capital/Compounds/Discussion partners (e.g., war lords) n Budgets n Bad management & bad service delivery

11. WAR-TORN SOCIETIES PROJECT n PAPER IS POSITIVE n GREAT METHODOLOGY n IN REALITY….

12. WAR-TORN SOCIETIES PROJECT METHODOLOGY n TRADITIONAL PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH n THREE STEPS u LOCAL RESEARCH TEAM u PROJECT TEAM (WHO WANTS TO PARTICIPATE?) u ENTRY POINTS n RESEARCHERS BECAME FACILITATORS & TRIED TO FOSTER INFO EXCHANGE AND CONSENSUS

13. WAR-TORN SOCIETIES PROJECT RESULTS n Great new toolbox, u methodology u neutral space n Often with local follow-up, but n Management did not live up to its own ideals: Distinguish the rhetoric and reality of participation. n The Macro methodology is one example out of the toolbox, there are more!!

14. Conclusions n More attention to actual experiences of the local population & typical donor mistakes n Caution: We did not differentiate between refugees and local communities. Their relationship can be tense. n Concepts such as empowerment, participation, etc. are often used but very hard to implement n Aid can undermine local coping mechanisms and create dependency n We need to understand better the coping mechanisms & capacities, local decision making structures, and cultural sensitivities n Next week more

15. TOPICS n Readings & exercises next week n Paper n Donors? n UNHCR & Ruud Lubbers n Readings today u Mu Sochua u Harrel-Bond u WSP n Nebiat & Connie