Worsening conflict in Nepal is having a detrimental effect on the lives of the rural poor. As instability undermines existing policies aimed at improving rural livelihoods, development agencies have been slow to respond to the realities of working in a conflict situation. New research proposes best practice guidelines for agencies operating in similar contexts.

Nepal’s conflict is between the Maoist rebels pushing for socialist redistribution and the state security services trying to contain them. During the first four years (1996-2000) of conflict the government attempted to deal with it as a police matter and development agencies were little affected. But since 2001 the conflict has intensified and the rebels have extended the areas under their control. It is estimated that the current conflict affects the livelihoods of a million of Nepal’s 24 million inhabitants.

Research from the Overseas Development Institute looks at the way Nepal’s ongoing conflict has affected rural livelihoods and development polices and programmes. The authors identify the main livelihood effects of the conflict as being:

• Loss of life and forced migration – especially of men – and consequent loss of income to families.
• A rural exodus on the part of those most fearful of the Maoists – local elites, local government officials and activists in other political parties – from the most remote regions.
• A reduction in travel and the transport of goods as a result of lack of security and disruption of economic activities with possible implications for food availability and access in some areas.
• Destruction by the rebels of local infrastructure – particularly that which is identified with government intervention and control.
• Increasing fear among the rural population of human rights abuses by both the state security forces and the rebels.
• Rebel restrictions on moneylenders, informal taxation demands on professionals and rising theft and extortion.

Support for the rebels remains significant - particularly among the poor and socially disadvantaged - but rebel demands for contributions to the cause from the local population and their human rights abuses have limited their popularity.

Development agencies – both foreign and national – have been reluctant to adapt their approaches to the conflict situation. Increasingly, however, agencies are being forced to change as some activities prove unacceptable to either the rebels or the state security forces. Field surveys or impact evaluation exercises are particularly risky, as is any undertaking that involves sizeable numbers of people meeting together, for workshops or training sessions, for example. Restrictions on mobility also make many initiatives difficult to maintain. As a result, a number of agencies have withdrawn from development activities, while others are committed to accelerating grassroots activities despite the serious risk to field staff.

The authors propose a best practice guide for agencies in complex conflict situations which covers principles, assessment methodologies, situational analyses, intervention approaches, livelihood protection and conflict resolution. They call for:

• Meticulous observation of humanitarian principles – transparency, neutrality, participation, and flexibility.
• High levels of transparency in the allocation and use of development resources at the community level – all financial information should be on public display.
• Adoption of pro-poor agenda driven by a clear commitment to social justice – vital in gaining the confidence of poorest people.
• Greater investment in conflict monitoring and evaluation to generate deeper understandings of the context in support of rural livelihoods.
• Wider use of participatory assessment and livelihoods analysis to determine the effects of conflict on livelihoods and build on positive impacts while remaining neutral.
• Separation of conflict resolution initiatives from development programmes.

Source(s):
‘The consequences of conflict: livelihoods and development in Nepal’ by David Seddon and Karim Hussein, Livelihoods and Chronic Conflict Working Paper Series, Working Paper 185, Overseas Development Institute, December 2002 Full document.

id21 Research Highlight: 22 April 2004

Further Information:
Karim Hussein
Sahel and West Africa Club/OECD
Le Seine Saint Germain
Batiment A, 3eme Etage
4 Boulevard des Iles
92130 Issy-Les Moulineaux
Paris
France

Tel: 33  1 45 24 89 87
Fax: 33 1 45 24 90 31
Contact the contributor: karim.hussein@oecd.org

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

David Seddon
School of Development Studies
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
UK

Tel: 44 (0)1603 593704
Fax: 44 (0)1603 451999
Contact the contributor: j.d.seddon@uea.ac.uk

University of East Anglia

Other related links:
'Dilemmas of aid delivery in the midst of conflict'

'Getting it wrong? Misunderstanding Afghan livelihoods'

Rethinking principles of assessment in complex emergencies: the food economy alternative

'Conducive Conditions: Livelihood Interventions in Southern Somalia'

'Rural livelihoods at risk: land use and coping strategies of war-affected communities in Sri Lanka