Community engagement, protection and peacebuilding: reviewing evidence and practice

Civilians are not just passive actors in conflict, but have agency in developing strategies for self-protection, including through engaging with armed actors. Community engagement with armed actors often takes place significantly before any externally supported mediation or negotiation processes. The interaction between civilian communities and armed actors is complex, can be ambiguous, and changes over time. The limits of humanitarian protection action are increasingly recognised. The Independent review of the implementation of the IASC Protection Policy found that humanitarian protection primarily focuses on remedial action and environment-building. Many humanitarian and protection actors are not proactively addressing threats to civilians in conflict, with limited focus on preventing or reducing risks of violence, coercion or deliberate deprivation. There is growing recognition of and momentum on the need for a shift in approaches to humanitarian protection, and consideration of how civilian engagement strategies can be supported, or at the very least not undermined. There are opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of these strategies when based on adequate understanding of the complex, dynamic relationships between communities and armed actors, and when approaches are tailored to those communities. Peace actors more proactively engage with threats – including through supporting dialogue, negotiation and mediation with armed actors – though not necessarily through the lens of protection. There is growing recognition of the need to build a community of practice between humanitarian, protection and peace actors, The research refers to humanitarian, protection and peace actors with the recognition that not all humanitarian actors supporting community engagement are protection specialists, and that not all protection actors are humanitarian actors, but can include policy, human rights and protection of civilians organisations, for example. and to strengthen synergies between them.

This article provides an overview of the state of evidence and practice on community engagement with armed actors towards strengthening protection, prevention and response. It summarises the outcome of a scoping exercise by HPG as part of the first phase of two years of research focusing on community engagement with armed actors for self-protection, and the implications for humanitarian, protection and peace actors. The scoping exercise involved a review of academic and grey literature, as well as interviews with 15 key stakeholders, highlighting implications for research, policy and practice.

State of evidence and practice

Communities’ engagement with armed actors for self-protection

Communities adapt their self-protection strategies depending on context, the type of armed actor and the options open to them. Community self-protection strategies range from flight and opposition to accommodation, engagement, collaboration and support to armed actors. Communities can also leverage the presence of multiple armed actors to improve their security, for example by playing armed actors off against each other or by accepting an offer of protection from one of them. Our research focuses on non-violent community engagement.

A clear finding is the need to carefully define ‘community’. However, this is not always easy. Communities are not homogeneous, and different individuals lead the process of engagement with armed actors on behalf of their community. Which individuals take on this role will differ depending on the community in question, and can change depending on the armed actor and conflict dynamics. Who leads or who is present during the engagement process may have implications for which and whose concerns are prioritised.

The line between communities and armed actors can be blurred. Some community members ‘double hat’, taking on a role both within the community and within the civilian branch of an armed actor, and existing social bonds can mean that the engagement process is organic, with low degrees of visibility. As one practitioner explained, issues of civilian protection can be discussed during something as simple as a family dinner, rather than as a formal negotiation. Examples of issues communities might engage on include negotiating movement for livelihoods, the delivery of aid, release of detainees, removal of mines and local ceasefires.

There are also differences between how communities and international actors interpret protection. For the latter, protection is framed in terms of access to rights as per international laws and frameworks. For local communities, customary laws and local values and norms matter at least as much as formal rights.

Factors, actions and actors that affect engagement

External support can strengthen the effectiveness of community engagement with armed actors. But it can also undermine the engagement process. There is no straightforward solution to achieving positive outcomes, as a range of factors can affect the parameters of engagement. For armed actors, the motivation behind the use of violence and the ideology and level of concern an armed actor has for legitimacy can influence its behaviour towards communities. Strategies for engagement must be adapted to the type of armed actor the community is engaging with, and the opportunities and barriers to engagement. For example, with groups that hold radical ideological beliefs (e.g. the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) or are criminally motivated, taking a more personal approach may lead to greater results, by analysing individual commitment to a cause or engaging through family members.

The level of internal community cohesion and capacity can be a key factor in effective engagement for self-protection. A higher level of internal community unity, strong customary organisation and pre-existing respected local institutions or leadership can all improve the effectiveness of engagement. Existing social bonds between armed actors and communities can be key, whether based on shared political interests or kinship, ethnic or family ties. These social bonds mean there is an existing element of trust critical for positive engagement, which external actors may not possess. However, this is not uniform across communities. For some, being embedded with or supportive of armed actors is effective. For others, being able to adopt a position of neutrality is key in maximising their protection.

Opportunities for engagement during conflict are not static: they are shaped by conflict dynamics, which can have both positive and negative effects. For example, if an armed actor obtains greater territorial control or experiences a change in leadership, this may affect how open it is to engagement. As a conflict drags on, the militarisation of a society and the emergence of new elites can diminish respect for the traditional authority figures whose influence is often central in restraining violence.

Opportunities for humanitarian, protection and peace actors

Despite increased attention to civilian self-protection strategies among humanitarian, protection and peace actors, there has been no systemic shift to community-driven approaches to engagement. Obstacles include concerns over neutrality; tensions between international principles and frameworks and local norms and customs; legal implications of support to engagement with proscribed armed groups; and the persistence of top-down approaches. Community involvement in decision-making and participation in programming is also inadequate, despite evidence that local communities can be in a better position to engage with armed actors than external organisations due to their proximity and understanding of conflict dynamics.

This does not mean there is no role for external humanitarian, protection and peace actors in promoting successful outcomes for communities engaging with armed actors for self-protection. Community self-protection strategies by themselves rarely provide the level of protection communities need As such, complementary approaches are called for to generate international and political will to prevent or reduce attacks on civilians. External actors can look to strengthen local capacities for self-protection but should aim to support existing community strategies rather than replace them. There are benefits for humanitarian, protection and peace organisations too: local knowledge can serve as a critical resource when engaging with armed actors through community networks, providing support for sustained access.

There are also opportunities for greater synergies between humanitarian, protection and peace actors in relation to community engagement, given that these different sectors are often working towards the same ends, albeit under different framings and using different approaches. These opportunities are not being fully explored, meaning that different actors may not realise when and where they are contributing to each other’s objectives. During a recent panel discussion at the Global Protection Forum 2022, one panellist (a humanitarian) noted that, in contexts where they have worked, peace actors were having a significant impact in reducing protection risks, including violence, through their work on conflict transformation. However, due to programme focus and approaches to monitoring, they were not aware of the immediate humanitarian impact they were having.

This doesn’t mean there are no challenges in shifting towards a more collaborative approach to civilian protection. Practically, it is not just about bringing together different sets of actors, but also different working cultures and modes of action. There are also potential risks, for example in politicising protection efforts. Protection issues have helped advance formal peace talks, as in Colombia, where humanitarian actors insisted on the inclusion of protection issues. These included the agreement between the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC-EP) and the government to pilot demining activities and share information on missing persons. But there are also risks if an actor is unwilling to engage in peace talks when protection issues are included.

Gaps in evidence and practice

The approaches humanitarian, protection and peace actors use to support community engagement with armed actors are not well documented or researched, and there is a lack of pooled learning. There is also little programmatic collaboration across humanitarian, protection and peace sectors despite working towards common outcomes. The question is how to overcome siloes and build greater synergies in order to secure better protection outcomes for civilians.

Making improvements to operational practice also requires addressing some of the gaps within the research. First, while there is a body of research documenting community engagement with armed actors, the granular details of the engagement process itself are largely missing. There is a need for a greater understanding of how community actors organise and prepare themselves for engaging with armed actors; how community representatives are chosen; what communities discuss and prioritise and how these decisions are made, as well as the trade-offs they must make; and what strategies are effective and under what conditions. Critically, the research will need to consider which voices and priorities are excluded – ­such as minority ethnic groups, women, older people or people with disabilities – and how such exclusion can be overcome.

Second, more detailed analysis is needed to understand how conflict dynamics affect the parameters of engagement, and how communities adapt to changes to these parameters. Although there are references in the research to the impact of conflict dynamics, these are more hints than detailed analysis. For example, how do internal dynamics and competition between different armed actors affect protection threats and the ability of communities to engage? This gap in current knowledge around the impact of conflict dynamics extends to external actors. How are humanitarian, protection and peace actors adapting their programming in response to the changes communities face?

Third, there is a need to better understand how geography affects the parameters of engagement. For example, comparative studies looking at urban and rural locations are notably lacking. The physical terrain will determine what protection strategies are preferable to civilians (e.g. displacement) or can determine the availability of options (e.g. displacement versus engagement). Physical proximity between communities and armed actors is also a factor. Does a different form of relationship emerge between the two sets of actors in urban compared with rural settings? Does proximity result in a greater interdependence between communities and armed actors, and how does this shape the engagement process and the trade-offs civilians must make?

Finally, there is a need to understand how community engagement conducted during conflict can lay the ground for, or obstruct, transitions towards peace. Negative experiences have the potential to leave lasting divisions within communities. As some research suggests, negotiations during conflict take place as part of a wider ‘ecology’ where a downturn in violence in one area may lead to an increase somewhere else.

Conclusions

As a national partner at a panel discussion at the Global Protection Forum stated, community engagement with armed actors is essential for protection. But communities are not homogeneous. Who is involved in community engagement has implications for whose voice, interests and priorities are put forward, how engagement is situated in interactions between armed actors and communities over the long term, and what trade-offs are made. It also raises questions of what power dynamics are at play, and how external actors can understand and shift dynamics to strengthen protection.

Humanitarian, protection and peace actors need to better understand the complex, dynamic interactions between communities and armed actors to inform how they support, engage or step back in order to maximise the potential for such interactions to reduce civilian harm. But the needs of communities, and their agency in shaping their engagement with armed actors, must be central to decisions about if, when and how these actors support engagement.

A holistic, multi-pronged approach is required to effectively reduce protection risks to civilians in conflict, while creating an enabling environment. This requires building greater synergies between humanitarian, protection and peace actors. The benefits and challenges must also be critically assessed, recognising that, at times, well-intentioned interventions can undermine community engagement with armed actors for self-protection.

There is a critical need for humanitarian, protection and peace action to focus on prevention of protection threats, grounding approaches in local contexts and the needs and efforts of communities. We hope that our research will contribute to informing a growing community of practice towards preventing and reducing protection risks.

Gemma Davies is a Senior Research Fellow with the Humanitarian Policy Group at ODI focusing on protection.

Pascal Bongard is Co-Director of the Centre on Armed Groups and a Senior Researcher with the Graduate Institute Geneva.

Leigh Mayhew is a Research Officer with ODI and the Centre on Armed Groups.

Veronique Barbelet is an independent consultant and Research Associate with the Humanitarian Policy Group at ODI.