Clues in the Labyrinth

The Do No Harm approach (DNH) was designed in the 1990s as a tool for designing, evaluating and re-designing aid and development cooperation programs in a conflict context. The approach has been designed on the basis of the experience of many NGOs in the field. Here I want to give a quick and practical overview on how it works and what questions to ask. For a more thorough approach be sure to check out Mary B. Anderson’s older publication, but nonetheless useful Do No Harm. How Aid can Support Peace – Or War and the wealth of information at the Collaborative of Development Action’s (CDA) website: www.cdainc.com. CDA has been the key player in getting this tool developed, published and implemented.

Society impacts are central, not project results

DNH is a tool looking at a project’s impact in society. Not by looking solely at the beneficiaries of a program but more looking at the wider societal impact of a program of project, especially in (post-)conflict regions.

It’s the details that count

Programs are rarely entirely wrong. DNH aims at improving an aid programs by getting rid of societal effects that may do harm in a society already torn apart by divisions. And it’s not necessarily the grand outline of programs doing harm, it may be the smallest details of the project implementation that has the impact that destroys the good intentions of the project as a whole. It’s not a tool to say yes or no, but it rather asks the question: ‘what can we change to make sure our goals are not implemented in such a way that they harm society?’

Preferably not alone

The DNH approach is a participatory approach. Ideally it should be conducted in the form of a workshop in which project implementers and stakeholders take part. When done in a workshop, it can be a powerful tool as a group has a lot of capabilities for both analysis and creative steps: more heads to use, and more viewpoints to take into account. Richness of thinking is what counts here.

On the other hand, many organizations are not willing to go for such a strategy (for many different reasons that I do not want to touch upon right here) and ask monitors and evaluators to use the standard approaches related to project cycle management.

I myself have used the method both in workshops as well as a tool for coming up with critical questions towards the program or project either in the design phase or in a monitoring or evaluation setting. Its premisses do provide you with some good questions to ask.

The method

Okay, having said that, let’s get to what to do. The method is a structure in which information is gathered, analysed and used creatively:

The traditional way to do this analysis is by using a pinboard or large piece of paper, and divide it in 5 columns. In the middle column is for step 1, the second and the fourth columns are for step 2 and 3. Step 4 and 5 are then done by drawing arrows from the middle column outward to the relevant divisions and connectors. The outer columns are for writing down redesign options.

When done in a workshop this method takes about a day. You’d need a good facilitator to make sure people are honest (especially when there are donors present) and that creative people get as much space in the creative parts of process as the critical people get in the analysis stage.

What parts of the project or program are relevant?

Basically the, the who, what and how. But to be more specific:

• HQ location and background, the organization’s mandate, and its donor(s).
• What is implemented, how, where and when is it implemented?
• By whom is it implemented (or, who are the co-workers)?
• For whom is it implemented (or, who are beneficiaries)?

Where to look for divisions and connectors?

Think of divisions and tensions in the societal context of the project or program, so think of groups of people opposing each other: rich and poor, blue vs. white collar workers, differences in skin colour, ethnical background or religions. Whatever seems relevant: a society is seldom divided along just one line, so normally several divisions can be found. Write them down, they may be relevant.

Things you want might look at in a search for what divides people and what connects them are: power distribution, access to institutions and systems in society, (different or common) histories, or (different or common) symbols and occasions.

What kind of impacts are there?

Generally, I feel that the guidelines above are enough to make people think about how a program impacts the larger societal context and redesign their program. There are some pointers as to what kind of actions provide certain harmful impacts and some general ways to avoid them. The ones you find in literature are all based on a reflection on the practices of the aid organizations that were involved in the DNH design as a tool. In this way it has a strong bias towards aid programs and development cooperation. There is less knowledge on how this tool can be used in peace building projects or even in a business environment.

Still, I do think these pointers are valuable and I will save them for another post. Just to give you one tip: the impacts tend to be related to either resource transfers carried out in the program or to implicit messages carried by the project or program.

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 14th, 2009 at 18:31 and is filed under Quick Guides. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.