AS we develop community projects and programmes in Guyana and across the world, many of us believe that all of our actions in the process mean that we are always doing good for the target groups we assist. If you do community work without any assessment or analysis, I hope you pause and reconsider the work you do right here and now.

Within the development space, there is a concept known as “Do no harm”. It was thoroughly explained by Mary Anderson in 1999 through her book Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace or War. The core underpinning of this concept is that aid workers, humanitarian staff, NGOs and international organisations ought to work within a framework that minimises harm and maximises peace. It is mostly used in fragile or conflict-affected areas, but it can also be applied to almost every category of country or community.

Now, many international organisations are mandated to use the concept of “Do no harm”, which has expanded into what many development staff and agencies know as “conflict sensitivity”. I am writing this column with local organisations and groups in mind—those who are not mandated to use such a framework. I am here to say that despite not being obligated to use it in Guyana, it is still important that we take it into consideration at all times.

While Mary Anderson stressed “peace” and “war”, we can also examine the concept through the lens of “peace” and “conflict” to better suit Guyana’s context. From news reports, observation or general knowledge, we know that some areas in Guyana are more fragile than others. Some communities are more prone to conflict or social issues. Do we then want to exacerbate those issues with the aid we provide?

You might be wondering, how can aid possibly cause more issues? Unfortunately, one of the most obvious ways is through dependency. If aid is constant and there are no parallel programmes or support that allow people to solve problems independently, this can create a high level of dependency within communities. It is also important that we understand what happens to the aid, how it is distributed, and who receives it. Are we giving it directly to local people, or is it given to third parties? If it is distributed through third parties, can they be trusted to fulfil that duty? The way we distribute aid, and to whom, is critical.

We must also take into consideration existing conflicts, roles and relationships within a community. In instances where there are wide margins of inequality—such as economic or gender inequality—we must be mindful that the aid we provide does not further widen those gaps. Sometimes organisations or groups do not conduct enough research to identify who the truly disadvantaged people are. As a result, aid can end up in the hands of people who are not in dire need of it. In cases of economic inequality, resources are always limited, and those living in poverty may be unable to fully benefit because people from higher socio-economic groups are better positioned to access support.

What happens in communities where gender inequality exists and households are expected to receive aid, but the focus is placed solely on men because they are viewed as “heads of households”? What does that mean for women? Similarly, when we enter multicultural communities in Guyana, how do we provide aid without creating or deepening racial divisions?

In closing, if you have never used a “Do no harm” or conflict sensitivity framework and would like to start, there are many approaches developed by international agencies and bodies such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the UK Government. The Department for International Development (DFID), now the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO), developed a conflict-sensitivity framework comprising four steps.

The first step is to analyse the area’s context, including existing relationships, key actors, and sources of conflict. The second step is to review that analysis alongside the design of your programmes and ensure that they align with maximising peace within the community. The third step is implementation, during which all necessary measures are taken to ensure that partners involved are conflict-sensitive. The final step is monitoring and evaluation, particularly for medium- or long-term programmes, ensuring that activities are reviewed and adjusted according to changes within the community.

I urge you to consider “Do no harm” in all aid, development and community work that you pursue. I know this column included many rhetorical questions, and that was deliberate. We should become accustomed to asking questions and finding suitable answers within this line of work. Is your goal simply to give relief, or will your actions reinforce existing fragility and conflict within the communities you work in? You decide.