Document Library

Local Government in Post-Conflict Situations: Lebanon Case Study

Author: K Hamill, Z Ali-Ahmad
Date: 2007
Size: 26 pages (162 KB)

Access full text: available online

Summary

How can donors contribute to sustainable post-conflict recovery and service delivery through support for local government? This paper from the United Nations Development Programme identifies lessons using post-2006 Lebanon as a case study. International actors can respond to a post-conflict situation while simultaneously building the capacity of local government. Local government can be used to reach beneficiaries comprehensively and systematically.

Local government’s lack of capacity is sometimes used as a justification for the long-term deployment of NGOs for the delivery of basic services. Without simultaneous capacity building, this affects the sustainability of service provision and undermines local government legitimacy. The July 2006 war in Lebanon provides a case study on how development agencies worked with local government to re-establish service delivery and to strengthen local planning and decision making processes.

Crisis situations call for rapid and flexible interventions at the community level, but speed and participation are not mutually exclusive. Local governments are prime candidates for working with development agencies as implementing partners. Key findings emerge:

• Post-conflict needs assessments serve as a basis for subsequent humanitarian assistance and development interventions. The turbulence of post-conflict situations can lead to hasty decisions.
• Local governments sometimes have limited power over community infrastructure and service delivery. Their willingness to undertake post-crisis recovery efforts may not be matched by sufficient capacity, skills or resources.
• Local participation in rehabilitation requires input from community representatives beyond local government. Existing networks and relationships with local communities can be critical.
• Support for local government inevitably generates questions about central government’s ability to handle post-conflict rehabilitation. If central government cannot fund local government, this compounds challenges and exacerbates tensions between government structures.

To advance work in this area, development agencies should respond quickly to crisis and post-crisis situations, but give local government flexibility to respond to local priorities. They should consult with others while investigating post-conflict needs. They should also:

• Identify which functions, services and utilities local governments are to provide and strengthen local governments’ technical expertise.
• Extend interactions beyond local government in war-affected communities, without compromising rapid response. It is important to use local knowledge and contacts generated through working in local communities.
• Provide local government with sufficient tools to sustain long-term development efforts after the early post-conflict recovery phase is over, and use existing resources to help build local government capacity.
• Communicate with stakeholders, beneficiaries and colleagues in the international cooperation community to ensure mutual understanding and to manage expectations. This includes work to co-ordinate integrated environmental approaches to post-conflict recovery.
• Be aware that direct support for local government will be interpreted as lack of confidence in central government. Identify ways of strengthening central government so it can provide sustainable support to local government in the long term.

Access full text: available online

Source: Hamill, K., and Ali-Ahmad, Z., 2007, 'Local Government in Post-Conflict Situations: Lebanon Case Study', Annex 21 from the Workshop on Local Government in Post-Conflict Situations: Challenges for Improving Local Decision Making and Service Delivery Capacities, UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, Oslo, 28-29 November
Organisation: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), http://www.undp.org/