This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
were. We had intentionally opened the training up to the most junior staff members and made female staff participation a priority. They seemed lit up by the attention they were receiving and were receptive to the notion that they, rather than the so-called ‘humanitarian international’ are the experts empowered to discover the needs of those they seek to serve. The training


Community livelihoods at the centre of consultation. Photo: Paul O’Hagan


seemed to be something of a transformative experience for our office, an outcome I had neither planned nor expected. The challenge the P-FIM training poses to the


notion of ‘who knows best’ was pushed even deeper. As trainees prepared to test out their new skills in consultations across a number of communities, Paul repeatedly emphasized that they must go there to listen. They were trained in techniques designed to encourage the most genuine participation possible from community members and instructed to guide the discussion around the following question: What is the most significant change you have experienced in the last two years regarding (insert theme)? The themes ranged from education, hygiene, water, and health, to culture, society, agriculture, and conflict. Trainees selected a number of stakeholder groups to consult with, including: leaders in Internally Displaced Person (IDP)


12 iAM


camps, young boys living on the streets of El Geneina, female vegetable produces, and members of local parent-teacher associations, among others. In mixed teams with representatives from diverse agencies, the trainees went out to the selected communities and asked their question. They were instructed to encourage a dialogue where community members would both set the priorities and direct the conversation. Based on these conversations, trainees were asked to compile one or two key ‘impact statements’ that encapsulated what the community had shared on a particular theme. For example, under the theme of culture and society, the young boys in the market said: ‘Nobody likes us, because they think we steal and do drugs. And it’s true, we do those things. But it’s because we have no other choice.’ Accordingly, the impact statement of the street youth was ‘increased stigma by community members against youth living in the market’. Once this statement had been arrived at, participants were encouraged to identify


what the driver of that change was. Was the change, whether negative or positive, led by community members, local business, the government, international NGOs, or the UN? Community perceptions on drivers of change were revealing: in almost all consultations, the UN and international NGOs were identified as playing the biggest role in initiating change. Next came the government. Very rarely were communities themselves, or local businesses, mentioned as drivers of change. This suggests that the international community has a long way to go if development is ever going to be—or be perceived as—community-owned. Paul and I attempted to travel to Krenek together for


the evaluation (the original purpose of the visit) three times, and for a number of reasons we were unable to get there. Paul then had the idea of sending our newly- trained local researchers there by road, and getting them to examine our program in Krenek. This is what


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43