1. CEPA 10 th Anniversary Colloquium 30 June – 1 July 2011 Azra Abdul Cader, CEPA

2.  Objectives  Horizontal inequality  Study framework, methodology  Selected findings Grievances and programmes Targeting Strengths and challenges of programmes in conflict Recommendations

3.  Present selected findings from a study on group inequalities and conflict Factors that programmes consider/need to consider  The study was undertaken during the war (2009) still relevant in the context of aggressive relief and development efforts

4.  Inequality measured VERTICALLY over a range of individuals or households related to income or consumption  Policies (efficiency/poverty…) generally in terms of individuals BUT  People grouped by religion/race/ethnicity/age/gender/location/cl ass  Not easy: defining group boundaries; boundaries often fluid; people can ‘regroup’  Yet in many contexts group identities are persistent and important

5. Groups & Demographics -Socio-economic -Political -Cultural -Size Power and politics -Leaders -Competition & interests -Patron-client networks Resources -Natural -Man-made -Social & Economic capital -Access -Management Institutions -Government structures -Non-government structures -Capacity, willingness, skill History Grievances Trigger Conflict (violent/ social tensions) OR Reduce conflict improve social relations Development resources, policies, processes and programmes

6. Social Structure Inter-group relations Society-state relations Social Structure Inter-group relations Society-state relations Social Norms Behavior Cognition Social Norms Behavior Cognition Programme resources, rules & regulations  Inter-group participation  Decision-making process  Transparency, accountability Targeting, funding distribution BUILDS SOCIAL COHESION (or not) REDUCES INEQUALITIES OF ACCESS (or not) Programme resources, rules & regulations  Inter-group participation  Decision-making process  Transparency, accountability Targeting, funding distribution BUILDS SOCIAL COHESION (or not) REDUCES INEQUALITIES OF ACCESS (or not) SOCIAL TENSIONS INDIRECT INTERVENTIONS THROUGH PROGRAMMES: IMPACTS ON CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT INDIRECT INTERVENTIONS THROUGH PROGRAMMES: IMPACTS ON CONFLICT ENVIRONMENT DIRECT INTERVENTIONS THROUGH PROGRAMMES: IMPACTS ON CONFLICT Programme Structures: Forums/ Complaints Mechanisms (Spaces to negotiate) Programme Structures: Forums/ Complaints Mechanisms (Spaces to negotiate) Facilitators and Points of Contact (People) Facilitators and Points of Contact (People) CONFLICT Adapted from Barron, Diprose and Woolcock (2006; 2010)

7.  Q2 mixed methods – HH survey and indepth interview  Household sample Target beneficiaries (purposively selected) People who were not targeted (purposively selected) Random sample (to capture other programs)  In-depth interviews – program staff, local leaders, other programs in the area  3 development programmes studied in-depth Community focus and involvement Delivery  tangible resources (homes, infrastructure, savings and loans schemes)  intangibles (trainings, skills development, peace forums, meetings, etc) Areas working in ethnic homog/heterog  3 districts – tension, level of aid, homog/heterog

10.  Exist with ALL development programmes programmes bring change and this is contentious  Higher levels of grievances indicate BOTH knowledge and demands for democratic decision making potential problems  People complaining can be a positive indicator of social change and transparent decision making  Managing tensions so they don’t escalate is key

11.  Group targeting (how funds distributed between local groups)  A lack of village level/specific group participation in design/needs/implementation  Poor knowledge of local context and response to community needs  Elite capture and programme manipulation

13.  The context in which people live, and how safe they feel in taking action to redress grievances is important  Sometimes field staff have good local knowledge but are restricted in managing tensions by program rules and organisational mandates  Sometimes programmes are aware of conflicts they generate but have no budget or resources to deal with it

15. Targeting: Groups who benefit  Groups were primarily defined based on gender (especially women and widows), and based on livelihoods (farmers and fishermen were the main beneficiaries identified)  Beneficiary identification defined by vulnerabilities and socio-economic characteristics rather than religious or ethnic identities  People rarely disagree with who gets the programme – but know when groups are excluded (it is more contentious in places where there is less aid)

16.  Grievances around targeting arise from: who is included and excluded knowledge of what is available the nature of the programme and community involvement in it whether groups were excluded initially or there has been a level of manipulation  Some avoidable, some are not

17.  Overall satisfaction of implementation, main reasons Community trust in implementers Implementers’ ability to study the situation, their experience and technical knowledge, lack of biased and favouritism Transparency and communication Meeting community needs, and targeting the right groups  All worked with local partners over the short and long term Built their capacities through training Brings local knowledge into the programme Made them sensitive to local conflict triggers  Other: Transparent selection criteria, inbuilt checks and balances and open complaints mechanisms

18.  Attempts by elites to influence selection of beneficiaries and other areas of programming  What has helped mitigate a great deal of dialogue and facilitation with state partners programmes identify at the onset which groups may pressure them for access to resources and design strategies to manage these tensions Using networks at the national and local level – facilitation, dialogue and compromise

19. Programmes need…  Flexibility to accommodate local contexts (power relations, group presence and demands, existing institutions, existing tensions)  Incorporate local knowledge to not worsen inter- group relations  Facilitation, coordination, complaints mechanisms and protection to ensure that people take action to voice and seek redress for their grievances safely  Social mapping and pre-planning, budgetary allocations for in-built conflict management processes which take into account national and local group dynamics and manage the tensions programs generate