In Acord Newsletter Issue 1: February 2001

Return to Contents page

Article 2:

Clarifying our role in conflict

ACORD recognises that conflict is a deep cause and effect of poverty, marginalisation and social injustice; most its programmes occur in conflict areas or are working specifically on conflict. Yet how far can ACORD go, and how much can it hope to achieve in these situations? These were some of the issues raised at a workshop on 'Working in and On Conflict' organised by ACORD's East Africa and Great Lakes team at the Lake View Hotel, in Mbarara, Uganda (4-6 December 2000).

Thirty ACORD staff from the East Africa, the Great Lakes region, Mali, Tanzania and Liberia met in Mbarara, Uganda at the end of last year to clarify and deepen ACORD's strategy for working with conflict. The focus was on how ACORD could increase its capacity to operate in conflict zones.

The rich and diverse presentations highlighted the main obstacles facing the programmes. These were staff security and the complex political and military contexts in which many of the programmes are forced to operate.

While some of the teams, such as the ones in Mali, were seen to have developed successful strategies in response to these obstacles, other teams were less confident in openly engaging in conflict work.

There was general agreement that real change could only come about if programmes working in conflict zones did not just deal, for instance, with HIV and gender, but also addressed the conflict itself. It was also felt 

that ACORD has a comparative advantage in working on conflict and that it should build on the community support it has. This, combined with ACORD's need for a clearer identity, means that it could benefit from being better known as an agency which specialises in long term development in conflict areas.

Security risks
One of the important issues raised was whether ACORD can work effectively on resolving conflict issues without endangering its staff and those it works with. ACORD has managed this better in areas such as Uganda and Mali but it has had less success in areas such as the Great Lakes. The Ruhengeri and South Gisaka programmes in Rwanda and the Opala programme in the DRC were forced to suspend or stop activities even though they were starting to make significant impacts.

The lives of ACORD staff and partners working in conflict zones have, on a number of occasions, been at risk. Members of staff died during the Rwanda genocide and again recently in Nyakinama. The workshop participants observed a minute's silence in their memory.

It was generally agreed that ACORD should have a clearer risk-prevention policy for dealing with these situations and for ensuring a greater capacity to support the people it works with, many of whom live in persistent violent conflict. ACORD should also have a clearer policy on when and how it should intervene or withdraw in conflict situations.

The situation in the Great Lakes
The need for a coherent strategy was seen to be of particular importance for the Great Lakes region. Every country in the region has experienced violent conflict in the past 10 years. This has had a severe impact on the population; vast numbers of people are still dying and there are hundreds of thousands of refugees and displaced people. This, along with the destruction of material goods, basic infrastructures and means of production has led, and continues to lead, to extreme levels of poverty.

More questions than answers
The workshop raised a number of other important questions which it was agreed ACORD should start to answer. For instance, is neutrality compatible with advocacy and the protection of human rights? Can an organisation like ACORD that claims solidarity with the poor and marginalised be neutral or impartial and yet also call for democratisation and social justice? How should organisations like ACORD relate to local authorities that are not seen, or do not wish, to be neutral? Should such organisations reinforce the local authorities' capacities or simply use them in the framework of programme implementation? The Bur/4 and the Gulu programme in Northern Uganda were cited as key examples.

Other questions revolved around the issue of working in areas without central government and whether an organisation can guarantee neutral and risk-free interventions when it mostly employs local staff who are products of, and have been bound up with conflicts in their regions.

There were further questions concerning ACORD's programming choices. Are these made by identifying and recognising the priority needs of the poor or are they made on the basis of accessibility, efficiency or ACORD's specific interests or visibility?

Recommendations
The workshop resulted in several important recommendations:

• operational guidelines concerning working in conflict should be integrated into ACORD's existing policies on staff security (risk management), advocacy and insurance.
• a general security fund should be set up, based on 1% of programme budgets
• funds should be identified for managing security risk
• ACORD should organise further workshops with donors.

A number of recommendations focused on communication issues:

• greater lesson learning between the programmes
• increased use of the ACORD web site
• further dissemination of documents.

Other recommendations highlighted the need for increased training in advocacy, fundraising, impact monitoring, psychosocial support skills and research and data analysis.

Recommendations with regard to ACORD’s strategic development included: supporting coping mechanisms; advocacy on local, national and international levels; public relations and networking; early warning mechanisms and collaborative research, learning and joint actions.

Though the workshop seemed to have raised more questions than it answered, it was felt that important steps had been taken towards clarifying ACORD’s role in conflict work and in developing a framework to minimise the risks for those working at the forefront.

Return to top