Share

Frontline: The benefits of consulting with beneficiaries

Copyright Peta de Aztlan
Blogs

Frontline: The benefits of consulting with beneficiaries

Governance | Andrew Chaggar | 25 Aug 2011

From the frontline in Haiti, Andrew Chaggar discusses the problems that can arise when beneficiaries are not consulted in the regeneration process.

I recently read a very engaging article on the Rolling Stone website entitled How the World Failed Haiti. While this in-depth piece covers a lot of ground there is a critical sentence that really stands out for me. The author notes that in all the talk of reconstructing a new Haiti from the rubble “no one really found out what the Haitian people's concept of build[ing] back better actually was."  

A lack of consultation with the very people being helped may seem surprising, but it is neither a new nor unusual issue.  Concerns about a lack of beneficiary involvement have been raised in many past disasters as well in Haiti. In fact the issue is so common that the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) conducted a global study on consultation and participation.

While the study acknowledges wide variations in practice, with some NGOs and agencies doing better than others, its findings make frequent references to issues such as “a limited culture of participation and consultation” and that “many [humanitarians] make no effort to consult or keep affected populations informed”. A more recent ALNAP document on Haiti also noted that “[the lack of] Haitian participation in decision making processes [is] a major concern and obstacle”.

Such failures to effectively engage with beneficiaries are problematic on a number of levels.

Firstly, a lack of participation by beneficiaries leads to far less effective solutions to the problems they face. For example after the 2004 tsunami many beneficiaries weren’t consulted on replacement housing and consequently many new homes failed to consider people’s livelihoods.  Fishermen were left without space to store equipment and new houses were left empty as people sought out their own solutions. The question is simple: If you don’t know what your beneficiaries want or need how you can effectively help them obtain it?

"Treating survivors as helpless 'victims' to be saved is a direct way to create dependency."

Further, while beneficiary participation can lead to enhanced outcomes it’s opposite, exclusion, can lead to negative ones. As a tsunami survivor I personally know how devastating disasters can be as they wrench away all feeling of control. If assistance provided in the aftermath further increases the sense of helplessness then this can be extremely damaging. Treating survivors as helpless “victims” to be saved is a direct way to create dependency.

On another level there is also the issue of beneficiary capacity building. Some would argue, myself included, that disasters and humanitarian programming offer opportunities for development rather than simply just providing relief. By giving beneficiaries a real stake in programming decisions, skills and knowledge can be transferred as well as resources.

Regardless of the exact reasons why, almost all humanitarian policy makers agree that improved participation and consultation can only be beneficial.  So why, if this is issue is so widely recognised and understood, does it keep recurring in disaster after disaster?

A recurring problem

Part of the reason is the nature of disaster zones themselves. Given that one of the main premises of humanitarian relief is to save lives, an emergency mindset that values speed of delivery and a top-down, chain of command over all else often emerges. This rapid action, top-down approach fundamentally contradicts with lengthier consultations and “messier” participatory methods that aim to collate and synthesise different opinions and solutions.

Another often cited reason for failing to engage with beneficiaries relates to NGO accountability. While NGOs acknowledge their responsibilities to a wide range of stakeholders, including both donors and beneficiaries, they frequently face competing pressures in terms of priorities. If NGOs feel donor pressure to deliver results quickly then it is likely that the less powerful voice of beneficiaries will go unheard.

NGOs are obviously very reliant on funding to operate and perhaps this is the most obvious route to tackling the participation problem. If donors were to judge results in terms of beneficiary involvement rather than speed of implementation then accountability pressures would naturally become more balanced.

What’s more, because participatory processes lead to more sustainable results donors would also get more value for their money. The houses left empty after the 2004 Asian tsunami were a very poor investment. In contrast those designed in conjunction with survivors may have taken longer to complete but are inhabited by thriving fishermen today.

Ultimately then, is it too much to imagine the priorities of donors and survivors being one and the same?

 

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

  • Robust but respectful debate
  • Strongly held opinions
  • Intelligent relevant discussion
  • The sharing of relevant experiences
  • New participants

We will not publish:

  • Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
  • Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
  • The posting of contact details for yourself or others
  • Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
  • Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
  • Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
  • Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
  • The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

  • Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
  • Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
  • You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

  • Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
  • Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.

Andrew Chaggar

Andy Chaggar is executive director of International Disaster Volunteers (IDV) which he co-founded in 2008. In 2004, he was seriously injured and bereaved in the South East Asian tsunami, after which he became a disaster response volunteer, and founded IDV.

Follow Andy on Twitter @IDVExec

Tesse Akpeki (55) Martin Farrell (46) Robert Ashton (41) Tania Mason (23) Andrew Chaggar (23) David Ainsworth (15) David Philpott (14) Making Good: The Future of the Voluntary Sector (13) Ian Allsop (12) Vibeka Mair (11)
Niki May Young (11) Celina Ribeiro (10) Gordon Hunter (9) Kirsty Weakley (9) Leon Ward (9) David Davison (8) Dorothy Dalton (8) John Tate (8) Neal Green (5) Jeremy Swain (5) Rowena Lewis (5) Daniel Phelan (4) Andrew Hind CB (3) Suzi Leather (3) Stephen Lloyd (3) Pauline Broomhead (3) Rosie Chapman (3) Ingrid Marson (3) Alexander Swallow (3) Belinda Pratten (3) Sir Stuart Etherington (2) Adrian Beney (2) Joe Saxton (2) Jesper Christensen (2) Paul Gibson (2) Andrew Scadding (2) Anne Moynihan (2) Kevin Carey (2) Garreth Spillane (2) June O'Sullivan (2) Dan Corry (2) Paul Emery (2) Simon Steeden (2) Alice Sharman (2) Lesley-Anne Alexander CBE (1) Victoria Cook (1) Claris D'cruz (1) Peter Gotham (1) Sir Thomas Hughes-Hallett (1) Justin Davis Smith (1) Kate Sayer (1) Alison McKenna (1) Anne-Marie Piper (1) Jo Swinhoe (1) Karl Wilding (1) Richard Williams (1) Mike Hudson (1) Sir Christopher Kelly (1) Martin Brookes (1) Simon Hebditch (1) Lindsay Driscoll (1) Jo Coleman (1) Cedric Frederick (1) Jonathan Lewis (1) Dame Mary Marsh (1) Rosamund McCarthy (1) Jill Pitkeathley (1) Nick Brooks (1) Linda Laurance (1) Suzie Who (1) James Thompson (1) Stephen Hammersley (1) John May (1) Julian Blake (1) Malcolm Hurlston (1) Andy Gregg (1) Anne Owers (1) Beth Yorath (1) Paul Amadi (1) Caroline Beaumont (1) Judith Davey (1) Douglas Rouse (1) Jackie Turpin (1) Jonathan Last (1) Tom Flood (1) Dan Sutch (1) Jonathan Crown (1) Ruchir Shah (1) Katy Wing (1) George Ames (1) Jenny North (1) Sir David Varney (1) Liam Barrington-Bush (1) Mairéad O'Reilly (1) Tobin Aldrich (1) Michael O'Toole (1) Lisa Clavering (1) Ian Joseph (1) Jonathan Bruck (1) Rachel Short (1) Dr Debra Beck (1) Andy Rich (1) Ian Leggett (1) Leigh Daynes (1) Tim Willis (1) Richard Caulfield (1) Emma Callagher (1)
Less +++ More +++

Defending the right

7 Nov 2014

Ian Allsop calls for a charity to be set up to campaign on behalf of oppressed right-wing politicians.

Fiery rocket or damp squib?

4 Nov 2014

As bonfire night approaches, John Tate is cautious about the pace of the new developments setting the...

The social investment arguments are not black and white

3 Nov 2014

Social finance is not wrong for the voluntary sector - but we must learn lessons from history, says Ashley...

Free eNews

Join the discussion

Twitter
 
Training

Attending our one day courses is a highly effective way of ensuring new and existing trustees fully understand their role, responsibilities and liabilities.

>> Find out more <<