Download PDF

Abstract

During the years of armed conflict in Nepal the Livelihoods and Forestry Programme (LFP) worked with the Risk Management Office to develop a way to continue working effectively with rural communities. The conflict lasted over 10 years and posed great hardship for rural people. It was caused fundamentally by political, economic and social exclusion, all key issues that LFP works to address.

LFP embraced a two-tier strategy of both continuing development in the conflict areas, and addressing root causes of conflict. As the conflict escalated LFP remained flexible and made continuous adjustments to respond to the situation. It soon realised there was a need for a new set of knowledge, skills and competencies and new operational strategies to respond to the situation. Thus it took a lead in applying a ‘Safe and Effective Development in Conflict’ (SEDC) strategy in all its programmes.

The reflective strategy led to a revision of objectives, activities and working procedures, and to a focus on governance, poverty alleviation and social inclusion, whilst providing incentives for peace. As the strategy evolved LFP realised its value in addressing rural development issues. LFP worked on awareness and capacity building, with careful analysis to adjust behaviour and action. It prioritised staff and partner safety, began working in ‘satellite’ areas, and undertook the following activities to effectively operate during conflict:

• Institutional and operational adjustments: LFP management made changes such as working more through local NGO partners, building capacity in SEDC analysis and skills, and understanding the psychosocial effects of conflict on staff and rural people. As part of the organisational preparedness strategy LFP developed a risk management training for staff and partners and revised annual work plans.
• Working with District Forest Offices: While District Forest Office staff were confined to the district headquarters, LFP partner NGO staff and FUG based ‘local resource persons’ worked in the field and were able to both carry on the work of updating operational plans and bring back field data.
• Revised partnership relationships: The classical funder-recipient model was changed to give greater responsibility and authority to local partners. ‘Contractual arrangements’ where the NGOs were seen as more accountable to the fund provider than to the communities they work with transformed into ‘genuine partnerships’ with shared objectives and collective decision-making, shared resources and horizontal accountability.
• Collaborative working with other programmes and projects: Seeking to work on common objectives and pool resources to cover a wider geographical area and a range of livelihood needs, LFP worked collaboratively with a range of other organisations.
• Quick and visual impact: Although LFP was designed to deliver over the long term it realised the importance in a conflict situation of balancing short-term tangible impact to meet immediate needs with longer-term forestry and capacity building activities.

The SEDC framework and its questions remain as relevant today when the armed conflict is over yet there is great uncertainty. The framework helps analyse complexity and continues to guide safe and effective community development.