i FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja July 2015 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by the QED Group LLC. FINAL EVALUATION REPORT Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Rose Azuba, Ph.D. Jino Meri Maude Norah Mugisha Lawrence Robertson, Ph.D. July 2015 The QED Group LLC Order No.: AID--617-C-13-00007 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. iii Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................... iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ vi 1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE .....................................1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 EVALUATION PURPOSE ................................................................................................................. 3 2. METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................4 3. FINDINGS ..............................................................................................................6 3.1 How has the involvement of women in peace-building activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations?.......................................................................... 6 3.2 To what extent did the projects strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? ......................... 10 3.3 How responsive were the two activities to the conflict dynamics, i.e. did they adapt to emerging socio-economic and political developments in Karamoja during the program period? ..................................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.4 Is there evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable beyond the program period? ....................................................................................................................................... 19 3.5 What lessons can USAID/Uganda and its partners learn from the implementation of the two activities in Karamoja? .................................................................................................................... 20 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................23 4.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 23 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................................................................................. 28 ANNEXES ...................................................................................................................31 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK ................................................................... 31 ANNEX 2: EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS ..................................................................................... 38 ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 48 ANNEX 4: SUB-COUNTY SELECTION CRITERIA ...................................................................... 51 ANNEX 5: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE EVALUATION ..................................................... 54 iv Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Evaluation Team would like to thank the people across Karamoja that have worked hard for peace and gender empowerment in their communities – and for sharing their knowledge and views with the Evaluation Team during this exercise. In addition, the Team greatly appreciates the support of the International Rescue Committee staff in the region for the technical support given in conducting the evaluation and the staff of QED, Uganda and USAID Mission Kampala for their feedback on the reports. To all those that that supported the data collection, we thank you. Cover Photograph: Peace Dialogue in Panyangara, Kotido District, February 2015. We would like to thank the DISO in Kotido for sharing the photograph. v Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CDCS Country Development Cooperative Strategy CMM Office of Conflict Mitigation and Management DISO District Internal Security Officer DO Development Objective DSC District Security Committee EoP End of Project ET Evaluation Team F Female FGD Focus group discussion Fig Figure GBV gender based violence GISO Gombolola Internal Security Officer GoU Government of Uganda IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result IRC International Rescue Committee KII Key informant interview KAWUO Karamoja Women’s Umbrella Organization OCODI Omaniman Community Development Initiative LC Local Council LDU Local Defense Unit M Male MEL Monitoring, Evaluating, and Learning NGO Non-governmental organization PB Peacebuilding PC Peace Committee PMP Performance management plan Q Quarter RDC Resident District Commissioner RV Raising Voices SASA! Start Awareness Support Action SCSC Sub-county Security Committee SGBV sexual and gender based violence SOW Scope of Work SPO Special Strategic Objective S/C Sub-county UNDSS United Nations Department for Safety and Security UPDF Uganda People’s Defense Forces UPF Uganda Police Force USAID United States Agency for International Development USG United States Government UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority WBP Women Building Peace WID Women in Development Y Year vi Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE USAID/Uganda commissioned a performance evaluation of the Mission’s Conflict Mitigation and Management activities in the North-Eastern region of Karamoja to learn from past programming and consider future engagement in the region. The evaluation covers two activities: Women Building Peace (WBP) and Akimorikin (which means “coming together” in the Ng’ Karimojong language). Both were implemented by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) with civil society organization partners, Omaniman Community Development Initiative (OCODI), Riamiriam Civil Society Network, Raising Voices (RV) and Karamoja Women Umbrella Organization (KAWUO). The evaluation was conducted in Uganda between March 9 and April 2, 2015, including fieldwork in Karamoja from March 19 to 27. WBP was a $1.4 million, 42 month activity from September 2010 to March 2014 implemented in two of Karamoja’s seven districts, Moroto and Napak. The objective of the Activity was to build the capacity of women to effectively participate in peacebuilding. The activity used and trained in Start Awareness Support and Action (SASA!), a behavior change methodology designed to counter power imbalances between genders, adapted to the Karamoja context. WBP targeted two outcomes: a) increased individual and group reflection and action to mitigate violence and discrimination in the household and community; and b) enhanced participation of women in promoting peace within committees. Akimorikin was a $1.2 million, 24 month activity from March 2013 to March 2015 in five districts of Karamoja, namely: Napak, Moroto, Kotido, Nakapiripirit, and Amudat. The objectives of the activity were: 1) strengthening the capacity and cooperation of local institutions to identify and respond to conflict; and 2) strengthening relationships among conflicting communities. The evaluation examined activity performance by answering five questions from the Scope of Work: 1. How has the involvement of women in peacebuilding activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations? 2. To what extent did the activities strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? 3. How responsive were the two activities to the conflict dynamics, i.e. did they adapt to emerging socio-economic and political developments in Karamoja during the program period? 4. Is there evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable beyond the program period? 5. What lessons can USAID/Uganda and its partners learn from the implementation of the two activities in Karamoja? METHODOLOGY The evaluation was carried out by a four person team of Lawrence Robertson, Team Leader, Rose Azuba, National Expert, Maude Norah Mugisha, Gender Expert, and Jino Meri, Evaluation Specialist, supported by staff from QED and the IRC. A mixed-methods non-experimental evaluation design was used to gather useful, valid and reliable data through five methods: document review, focus group discussions, key informant interviews, a survey, and structured observations. The team triangulated information gathered through these different methods. Data has been gathered from 10 sub-counties (S/Cs) of 4 districts, 9 of which were activity implementation sites and one was a control S/C where neither of the activities were implemented. Data was gathered from 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) of 124 people, 48 individual Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), 4 small group interviews, and a survey of vii Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 201 residents of the above-mentioned 10 S/Cs – a total of 390 people were interviewed. Limitations included limited resources, limited data collection, and challenges of dealing with contribution rather than attribution, recall bias, and acquiescence bias. The team effectively managed these limitations. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS BY EVALUATION QUESTION There was remarkable acceptance of women to participate in the community violence prevention (early warning) mechanisms and community-led conflict resolution dialogues. While there has been no change in number of women elected or appointed to formal statutory security and leadership structures at lower local governments, the sub-County security committee (SCSC) has been expanded by co-opting additional women. Prior to WBP and Akimorikin, participation of women in the sub￾county Security Council was limited to one woman. While the limited number of women on SCSCs remains a challenge, the local leadership affirmed that there are no doubts about the role and value of women’s participation in peace building processes. WBP and Akimorikin demonstrated that involving women in peace building processes was critical since they were considered effective agents of conflict prevention and good messengers of peace messages to the men, youth and fellow women. SCSC meetings attendance records revealed that the commitment of women co-opted on SCSCs during peace building processes was seen as exemplary. The women co-opted on the SCSCs influence the decisions by providing early warning information and their participation in conflict resolution discussions. The evaluation confirmed clan/kraal leaders’ acceptance of women’s participation in peace building processes and appreciated their contributions though the structure of customary decision making spaces or composition elders’ /clan councils have not been adjusted to reflect formal inclusion of women. Women are not yet allowed to participate in deliberations of critical clan meetings that discuss other cultural matters. This remains a preserve of men even though it is acceptable for them to deliberate or even chair a community dialogue aimed at conflict resolution. Though not yet wide spread, men’s participation, especially among SASA! activists, in domestic chores which previously was exclusive preserve of women, signals a breakthrough in changed gender roles. This has resulted into new understanding of women’s rights and gender roles brought about during the implementation of WBP and Akimorikin. Key informants admitted that this new development, - the changing gender roles and relations - has challenged age-old stereotypes and triggered debate on patriarchal beliefs and practices that have in the past fueled gender-based violence and conflicts. In spite of discomforts about early manifestations of women’s emancipation, the evaluation revealed a growing appreciation of women’s role in conflict prevention and resolution of conflicts. Increasingly men view women more positively and appreciate them as capable players in the pursuit of peaceful resolution of inter-community conflicts. The changes in social perceptions include positive appreciation of women’s capabilities as active security mobilizers who effectively influencing peaceful outcomes. High acceptance of women in positions of leadership in peace building processes is expected to have some influence on future decisions affecting general security within communities of Karamoja. Involvement of women in peacebuilding activities and changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations The evaluation found evidence of changed social perceptions at the individual and family level, and support for change at the community level. The change at individual levels includes positive or progressive appreciation of capabilities of women as change agents in peace building efforts among the members of the “circles of influence” (Sub-county Chiefs, Community Development Officers, Parish Chiefs, Local Council leaders, clan leaders and elders) and generally men within communities. Projects strengthening of the capacity of local peace actors to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation viii Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja There is evidence that the Activities strengthened the capacity of local actors to respond to, prevent and manage conflicts and reconciliation. Knowledge of security structures among the community has increased and the SCSCs have developed planning and implementation capacities. There is marked improvement in the local peace actors’ capacities to apply Early Warning Early Response (EWER) mechanisms which are critical in conflict mitigation. Responsiveness of the two Activities to conflict dynamics WBP modified the SASA! approach to fit the gender and conflict challenges of Karamoja. This adaptation was a core aspect of the WBP project not an aspect that emerged in implementation. The SASA! Activists are attempting to address new challenges using the cadre of activists and SASA! approaches. Akimorikin adapted project approaches based on capacity limitations of key partners. The original project design assumed that the district-level security committees had adequate capacity to handle EWER, Gender integration, Do No Harm (DNH) and conflict dynamics; as it became apparent that the DSCs lacked these capacities, Akimorikin changed its original design and included strengthening of District Security Committees (DSCs) in its schedule. Akimorikin supported the priorities of sub￾Counties (S/Cs) and Districts in reaching peace agreements within and between communities based on their requests and priorities, which evolved over the two years of the project. Evidence of sustainability In the case of WBP, the evidence for sustainability is clear – the signs of existence of program activities one year after the official closure of the project are evident. SASA! Activists continue to engage in peace building activities and are recognized by their communities for their role as agents of peace. They are respected in their communities and by both the elected and traditional leaders. The institutional base whose functions and operations were re-activated as well as the commitment, knowledge and skills achieved are the key drivers for sustainability of the benefits attained. Cessation of financial support that previously facilitated peace building processes, combined with the failure to provide additional structural support required for livelihoods support, may threaten the sustainability of the outcomes. LESSONS LEARNED The major lessons learned from these two Activities focus on the Karamoja region and issues of women’s empowerment and their participation in peacebuilding. These include:  Conflict prevention and mitigation; and peace building approached from behavioral change perspective can effectively influence drivers and triggers of conflict. The use of SASA! behavioral change approach in the two Activities demonstrated that influencing /changing mindsets and worldviews of community members about roles of gender in the perpetuation of the culture of violence can go a long way in preventing and mitigating local level conflicts.  Promotion of women’s participation in conflict prevention and mitigation; and peacebuilding processes has an empowerment and emancipation aspects both for women and men, especially those in leadership positions.  Peace is unstable without addressing the question of what comes next after peace; and the incomplete coverage of peacebuilding programs in Karamoja and among pastoralists in neighboring countries threatens the sustainability of project achievements and peace so far attained. RECOMMENDATIONS ix Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja USAID and other development partners, including the Government of Uganda and officials and community organizations at the district and sub-country levels, should consider: 1) Extending Akimorikin to reach additional districts and sub-counties so as to support the security of the entire region through stronger SCSCs, DSCs, and linkages between these formal structures within and between districts. 2) Integrating an extended Akimorikin project with activities in Kenya and South Sudan on peacebuilding, as a cross-border approach to security is needed to support peace in the region. 3) Design and implement follow-on projects in the Karamoja region in order to address emerging issues that come right after violent conflicts have been managed successfully; this programming should focus on addressing attainment of positive livelihoods across the region. 4) Retooling and integrating SASA! Activists into other activities that help address the many emerging issues within Karamoja communities. 5) Using social activism as an approach to advance social change in Karamoja. 6) Advocacy to amend the National Security Councils Act (2000) to provide for expanded women representation at SCSCs so as to increase women participation in security matters, but also enhance women’s participation in leadership positions at the lower local governments. 1 1. INTRODUCTION, BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE This section introduces the evaluation and region, provides a background on Karamoja’s challenges and the two activities, and the purpose of the evaluation. 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Karamoja region of Uganda is named after the main group of people who have lived there for hundreds of years, the Karimojong. The semi-arid north-eastern region is geographically isolated from the rest of the country with more extensive borders with Kenya and South Sudan (see Annex 7, Map 1). It covers about 10% of the country. The majority of the Karimojong are semi-nomadic agro￾pastoralists who combine small-scale agricultural production with herding cattle and other livestock. Karamoja has been characterized for decades by poverty, underdevelopment, and violent conflicts. Conflict in Karamoja has been common and takes many forms, including but not limited to cattle raiding, inter-communal fighting, and gender based violence (GBV), competition over water and pasture, and increasingly competition over access to land. For the Karimojong, traditionally cattle raiding was not considered criminal as long as raids were endorsed by the community and targeted livestock from outside the community. Ownership of a large herd of cattle has been the key indicator of prestige among the Karimojong. The violence in the traditional practice of cattle raiding escalated exponentially after the fall of the Amin regime in 1979 and other conflicts in Uganda and neighboring countries led to explosive growth in the number of small arms across the region. This persisted until the Government of Uganda initiated a disarmament campaign in 2001. 1.2 BACKGROUND International Rescue Committee (IRC) has worked in Karamoja on conflict and development since 2002 through successive projects. USAID’s Office of Women in Development (WID) and Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM) provided the initial funding to USAID/Uganda to support the two conflict mitigation and reconciliation activities that are the subject of this performance evaluation: Women Building Peace (WBP) and Akimorikin (“coming together” in the Ng’ Karimojong language). The two activities were aligned with USAID/Uganda Special Strategic Objective (SPO) on peace and security in the 2011-2015 Country Development Cooperative Strategy (CDCS). The SPO emphasized strengthening peace and security structures in the region, in addition to improving infrastructure and livelihoods for the Karimojong. The CDCS is aligned with the Government of Uganda’s Karamoja Integrated Development Plan; Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP) for Northern Uganda; National Development Plan (NDP I) and other development partner initiatives in the region. There have been significant changes in the region since USAID Uganda’s programming in the region began in 2011. With improved security, conditions in Karamoja have changed; interest has grown in alternative sources of income; mining and farming have become alternatives to pastoralism in some areas. These and other changes may have ramifications for future programming in Karamoja and beyond. Women Building Peace Women Building Peace (WBP) began as a 2-year initiative funded by the Office of Women in Development in USAID/Washington and ended up as a $1.4 million 42 month activity, from September 2010 to March 2014, following an extension with additional funding provided by USAID/Uganda. While women play prominent roles in Karimojong society, social norms in Karamoja tend to undermine women’s participation in public life; domestic violence and a male domination over decision-making are common across the region (IRC, Gender and Conflict Analysis, November 2011). WBP was therefore designed to increase women’s participation in peace processes in the Karamoja region. The 2 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja goal of WBP was to build the capacity of women to effectively participate in peacebuilding. Through partnership with Karamoja Women’s Umbrella Organization (KAWUO) and Raising Voices (RV), the activity was implemented in two districts; Moroto and Napak in 8 sub-counties. The activity adopted the Start Awareness Support Action (SASA)1 methodology and adapted it to support behavioral change addressing conflict in Karamoja. SASA! is a participatory, community driven approach used to promote balancing of power dynamics between men and women with a focus on community based activism on violence against women and girls. It is a four phased (Start, Awareness, Support, & Action) behavioral change approach designed to motivate, facilitate and structure effective reflection on men’s power over women as a root cause of violence against women. In the WBP project, SASA! was adapted for the first time to peace building processes at the community level. In addition to the four phases of SASA! the IRC introduced two additional components, psychosocial support and the involvement of the spouses of SASA! Activists. WBP had two objectives: 1. Increasing individual and group reflection and action to mitigate violence and discrimination in the household and community; and 2. Enhancing participation of women in promoting peace within committees. WBP developed sub-objectives under each objective grounded in the people to people approaches based on a theory of change that : Fostering individual and community reflection and action on issues of power imbalances and violence against women and girls would open social spaces and enhance more meaningful participation of women in peace building structures. The activity targeted both attitudinal and structural change at individual and community level. The first objective used SASA! methodology to promote balancing of power dynamics between men and women while the second objective aimed at causing structural changes that promote women and girls’ participation in peace building processes. Akimorikin Akimorikin was implemented by IRC in five Karamoja districts of Kotido, Moroto, Napak, Amudat, and Nakapiripirit in partnership with Riamiriam and the Omaniman Community Development Initiative (OCODI). The goal of Akimorikin was to reduce the likelihood of violence in Karamoja by strengthening capacity and cooperation of local institutions and promoting healthy relations between conflicting communities. The objectives were to strengthen: 1. the capacity and cooperation of local institutions to identify and respond to conflict; and 2. relationships among conflicting communities. Akimorikin was based on two theories of change: Increasing the capacity of and cooperation among local institutions to identify and address conflict enhances Early Warning, Early Response Systems, and creates tangible disincentives for people to engage in cattle raids and attendant violent acts. If communities with a history of conflict have a common understanding of local conflict dynamics and its potential negative impact, then those communities can constructively engage 1 Sasa is a Swahili word which means “now.” The methodology is referred to as SASA!. 3 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja to address conflict dynamics, understand and appreciate each other’s perspectives better, and strengthen relationships and will to peacefully resolve conflicts. The $1.2 million Akimorikin Activity was implemented over 24 months, from March 2013 through March 2015. 1.3 EVALUATION PURPOSE The purpose of the evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja was to: a) Assess the outcomes of the two activities, as well as the different implementation approaches contributing to those outcomes; b) Document the extent to which the two activities have contributed to changes (if any) in the conflict dynamics and gender relations in Karamoja; and c) Identify elements within the changing context in Karamoja likely to affect and/or inform future conflict programming. The performance evaluation focused on five specific evaluation questions: 1. How has the involvement of women in peacebuilding activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations? 2. To what extent did the projects strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? 3. How responsive were the two activities to the conflict dynamics, i.e. did they adapt to emerging socio-economic and political developments in Karamoja during the program period? 4. Is there evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable beyond the program period? 5. What lessons can USAID/Uganda and its partners learn from the implementation of the two activities in Karamoja? 4 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2. METHODOLOGY This section explains the research strategy and techniques used to evaluate USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja, and the steps to delivering findings, conclusions, and recommendations to answer the evaluation questions. The Evaluation Team (ET) used a non-experimental mixed method approach to gather both qualitative and quantitative data through five methods: Structured Document Review, Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews, Surveys, and Structured Observation. The evaluation instruments are included as Annex 2. Primary data was gathered in 10 sub-counties (S/Cs) from four districts in the region: Moroto, Napak, Kotido and Nakapiripirit. Ten S/Cs (Rupa, Nadunget, Napak, Iriri, Ngoleriet, Kotido Urban, Kacheri, Nakapelimoru, Namalu, and Moruita) were purposefully selected based on incidences of conflict, extent of activity implementation, and gender trends (See Annex 4). A structured review protocol [Annex 2a] was used at the inception phase to focus attention on the five evaluation questions; Secondary data used was predominantly from activity documents of the two activities and other literature (Annex 3). Key informants interviews were stratified as follows: District Government officials including District Local Council Chairpersons (LCV), Resident District Commissioners (RDCs), Chief Administrative Officers (CAOs), District Internal Security Officers (DISOs); Sub- County Officials including Sub-county chairpersons(LC IIIs), Sub-county Internal Security Officers (GISOs), Community Development Officers, and Community level respondents including informal leaders i.e. elders, clan leaders, and Kraal leaders. A total of 48 Key Informant Interviews KIIs were conducted, with 37 formal leaders and 11 informal leaders. A total of 124 people (43% F, 57% M) attended 15 FGDs. Twelve (12) FGDs mixed men and women, 2 were composed of men only, and one was for women only. Participants comprised of Sub County Security Committee (SCSC) members who did not fall in the KII District and S/C categories i.e. Sub county Chiefs, Sub-county Secretaries for Defense, Parish Council representatives, Area Police Commanders or their representatives, Community Development Officers from the Lower Local governments (Sub County), representatives from the local UPDF security units, Peace committee members, women councilors and women’s representatives. By default of positions held, both KIs and FGD participants were purposively selected. Four (4) group interviews were conducted; 2 with key informants, one with IRC staff members and another with partners who implemented the projects. Information gathering was with assistance of interpreters with knowledge of the Ng’ Karimojong language. In each of the 10 districts visited, structured questionnaires were administered to 201 (53% F, 47% M) randomly selected community members by 4 independent survey enumerators; two females and two males. Data was analyzed using thematic and content analysis using percentages and numbers from frequency of responses. Quantitative data has been analyzed using SPSS and results presented with assistance of Microsoft Excel graphics. Evaluation findings are reported focused on the five key evaluation questions. Limitations This evaluation was mainly constrained by the limited resources, particularly time, allocated to the evaluation. To manage this limitation, the team used purposive sample selection by initially stratifying S/Cs into 3 performance cohorts (good, medium and poor) and then randomly selecting S/Cs from each group for fieldwork. To maximize data collection, the team was divided to cover multiple fieldwork sites at the same time. By the time of the evaluation, 12 months had elapsed since the WBP activity had ended; therefore implementing partners were not easy to trace. In addition, the beneficiaries of the WBP activity had a recall bias which may have limited their memories past activities. Respondents may have been tempted to tell the Evaluation Team what they thought would influence extension of the activities 5 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja (acquiescence bias). The Team used data collection tools consistently and triangulated responses across the board to manage these risks of bias. With limited data collection, the presence of other peace building programs in the region, and other variables that may have affected peace building and women’s empowerment in the region, the findings cannot be solely attributed to IRC’s two activities. The team thus has considered the contribution rather than attribution of WBP and Akimorikin to the results found in the fieldwork. These limitations not-withstanding, sufficient evidence has been gathered to draw findings to effectively answer the evaluation questions. 6 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 3. FINDINGS 3.1 How has the involvement of women in peace-building activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations? The goal of WBP was to enhance women’s involvement in peace building processes in Karamoja by strengthening the capacity of women to actively take part in peace building activities. Akimorikin emphasized gender integration in strengthening institutions involved in conflict management and resolution; and increasing the role played by women in security institutions in Karamoja, which also influenced social perceptions of women’s roles and gender relations. The Activities’ Engagement with Women in Peace-Building In the implementation of activities, SASA! methodology was adapted to peace building processes especially at the community level. The SASA! methodology was used to motivate, facilitate and structure effective reflections on men’s power over women as a root cause of violence against women; and how this manifests into the culture of violence. Raising Voices provided technical support and guidance for the use of the SASA! methodology. Three of the five SASA! approaches - local activism, training, media and advocacy - were used to enhance learning. IRC and KAWUO directly engaged a network of community volunteers, referred to as SASA! Activists, to facilitate SASA! processes at community level. The SASA! toolkit and visual aids were introduced, modified, translated into Ng’ Karimojong and used to train IRC and KAWUO staff, who in turn trained SASA! Activists. To support SASA! Activists, WBP established “circles of influence”2 comprising of Sub-county Chiefs, Community Development Officers, Parish Chiefs, opinion leaders, Local Council (LC) leaders and spouses of SASA! Activists. Circle of influence members were trained on SASA! methodology to broaden their knowledge and understanding of peace-building. In addition to community outreach, WBP used local media and drama to raise awareness of violence against women and unhealthy power dynamics in in the household and community that undermine the attainment of peace. The interventions were effective in helping community members to understand gender relations and the importance of women’s involvement in peace processes. The WBP work supported 8 peace committees (PCs) in the two districts (Moroto and Napak) to facilitate acceptance of greater involvement of women in peace building processes. In addition IRC identified and trained 70 women leaders to support peace processes in their communities. Akimorikin built on the activities of WBP to increase the understanding and promotion of gender and women participation in peace building processes. In strengthening the formal and informal institutions involved in peace building, Akimorikin also advocated for increased participation of women by co-opting more women into the membership of SCSCs3, PCs, and 10-10s (police-inspired community watch groups focused on combating crime). These measures increased the direct engagement of women in peace￾building. Results: Changed social perceptions of women’s roles and gender relations as a result of involvement of women in peace-building activities. The evaluation found evidence of changed social perceptions at the individual and family level, and support for change at the community level. The change at individual levels includes positive or progressive appreciation of capabilities of women as change agents in peace building efforts among the members of the “circles of influence” (Sub-county Chiefs, Community Development Officers, Parish Chiefs, Local Council leaders, clan leaders and elders) and generally men within communities. 2 Circles of influence are defined in this context as “key stakeholders who would need to be engaged in order for change to be effected” Women Building Peace: Annual Report: September 29, 2010 – September 30, 2011 3 Co-opted members of the SCSC are unofficial representative and do not have voting rights 7 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja (i) Greater acceptance of women’s participation in community affairs and leadership positions There has been no change in number of women elected or appointed to formal statutory security and leadership structures at lower local governments. This is mainly because representation in the official security management structures is defined by law (in this case, the National Security Council Act of 2000 which provides for only one woman representative at security councils). However, there is remarkable acceptance of women to participate in the community conflict prevention (early warning, early response) mechanisms and community-led conflict resolution dialogues. The clan /kraal leaders talked to, especially where SASA! Activists operated, confirmed that women are invited to take part in peace dialogues and that their active participation had contributed to bringing about peace in Karamoja. In areas where Akimorikin was implemented but no WBP activity, there was also a high level of recognition of the contribution of women’s participation in conflict prevention and resolution activities. This is attributed to Akimorikin since community leaders were taken through SASA!-like processes that increased their level of understanding of the value of involving women in conflict prevention and resolution processes. “Women now participate in following up thefts of animals until the culprit is brought to book” (Male SASA! Activist, Rupa S/C, Moroto District). Considering the broader changes in social perceptions about women’s capabilities, the evaluation revealed that it is currently acceptable for a women to chair a community conflict resolution meeting (see figure 1 below). However, the acceptance of women as important contributors to peace building has not yet translated into adjustments of the clan structures that are decisive in decision making on cultural issues. Further probing revealed women’s participation in other leadership roles is still curtailed by deep-seated patriarchal attitudes of male members of Karamojong communities. Women are not yet allowed to participate in deliberations of critical clan4 meetings which are a preserve of men. The WBP baseline survey5 highlighted this dichotomy between perception and reality in the inclusion of women in decision making processes. Responses to a similar question during the baseline indicated that 93% of respondents said it was “very acceptable” to have a woman chair meetings and 86% of respondents asserted that they would vote for a woman to be their leader on a peace committee. The baseline study noted however that “the reality on the ground showed that still the peace committees did not have many women as members in key positions of decision making” (IRC Baseline Survey Report 2011). The gap between expressed opinions – that women should be part of peace-making processes – and action – when in reality there are few women who have positions of influence and power to date highlighted the deep impact of patriarchal structures on Karamojong society which WBP and Akimorikin made efforts to address. However high acceptance of the idea of women in positions of leadership in peace processes is expected to have some influence on future decisions related to elections and appointments of women in official leadership positions. Figure 1 4 Traditionally, women were not part of clan meetings. Clan meetings focused on matters affecting specific clans or related to clan norms and beliefs. However, when peace committees came into existence, they involve community members. Peace Committee meetings can be within one community or between communities belonging to different clans. 5 SASA! Baseline Survey Report, 2011 8 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja An interesting comparison is of the survey participants’ views across the WBP and Akimorikin implementation areas with the control sub-county (Kotido S/C,) where neither WBP nor Akimorikin activities were implemented. The programme areas registered high support (85%) for women chairing peace meetings, compared with 65% support the non programme area of Kotido S/C (ii)Women are active and valued participants in peace building processes Ordinarily, the composition of the security councils does not provide for a significant women’s representation. For instance the sub-county security committee (SCSC) is comprised of the sub￾county local council chairperson (LC III) who is also chairperson of the committee, the Gombolola internal security officer (GISO) at the sub-county who is the secretary for the council, the sub-county chief, the sub-county secretary for defense, the area Police commander, all secretaries for defense of parish council councils and the chairperson of the sub-county women’s council. Most of the positions mentioned, save the chairperson of the sub-county women’s council, are usually occupied by men. This means that the participation of women in the sub-county Security Council has remained limited to one woman, prior the implementation of Akimorikin. However, key informants from SCSCs reported that after interaction with Akimorikin, some sub-counties have co-opted additional women on their SCSCs. Going by analyzed SCSC meetings attendance records, the commitment of women co-opted on SCSCs to peace building processes was seen as exemplary. “Women are active participants. They are very intelligent and they give intelligence information from the community. Women do not hide information. They are committed and want peace. Involving women in peace discussions is critical” (Male SCSC Member, Kacheri S/C, Kotido District). But it should be noted that women co-opted in the SCSCs are not voting members and their influence on the decisions of the security committee is limited to provision of early warning information and participation in the debates that shape the decisions taken. While the limited number of women on SCSCs remains a challenge, District and S/C leaders, security officials and SCSC members met by the Evaluation Team noted that there were no longer doubts about whether women should participate in peace building or not; it was now clear that women must be involved in order to create lasting peace. WBP and Akimorikin demonstrated that involving women in peace building processes was critical since women were considered effective agents of conflict prevention and good messengers of peace to the men, youth and fellow women. Advocacy aimed at amending the National Security Council Act (2000) to provide for expanded women representation at SCSCs was beyond the scope of Akimorikin and WBP. This evaluation highlights this key gap that limits women’s participation in the National Security Council Act (2000) with a hope that the issue can be brought to the attention of those responsible for initiating amendments to the law. (iii) Break-through in transforming gender roles among SASA! Activists 9 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Evaluation findings provide evidence of some breakthroughs in changing gender roles. Interviews and focus group discussions with SASA! Activists, local government officials, and community leaders pointed to changing attitudes and practices relating to household chores - indicating that men were embracing roles that were previously thought of as women’s work in the household. Male SASA! Activists, reported that by participating in the implementation of WBP and Akimorikin they gained a new understanding of gender roles and hence forth started helping out on some of the ‘care work’6 previously thought to be the exclusive preserve of women. It should be noted that occasional failure of women to satisfactorily fulfill some of the responsibilities has been a contributory factory to domestic violence, which in a few times escalated to community-level conflict. While the actual involvement in domestic work such as washing clothes and taking care of young children is only evident among male SASA! Activists of Napak and Moroto where WBP was implemented, some of the key informants admitted that this new development in gender relations has challenged age-old stereotypes and triggered debate on how patriarchal beliefs and practices have in the past fueled gender-based violence and conflicts. a good number of community members (88% M, 75% F of Nakapiripirit, 71%M, 68%F of Moroto and 76%M and 52%F in Napak) indicated that they would not find it strange to find a man who regularly helps a wife to cook at home is evidence that messages on changing gender roles were understood. However, the results also show that there was still a level of resistance to changing gender roles. A near majority of female respondents from Napak (48%) and Kotido (45%) said they would find it strange to find a man who regularly helped his wife to cook. Similarly 35% of male respondents in Kotido, 24% in Napak, 23% in Moroto and 24% in Nakapiripirit indicated that they would find it strange. These results suggest that there is still a level of resistance of both female and male community members to changing gender roles, confirming that while change in gender relations was strong among SASA! activists, there were still some elements of resistance to changing gender roles among community members, both women and men. Changing perceptions, attitudes and behaviors that are deeply embedded in culture takes time. In a culture where men do not normally participate in care work, it is understandable that even after they have been sensitized and understood that gender roles are changeable, some would still find it strange to see men doing such work. In relation to changing gender roles, the IRC end of project report mentions that through the use of SASA!, “communities were engaged in deep reflections on the current reality of their communities, comparing it with what they would prefer to see and worked together to achieve a new vision and reality for their community and future generations” (IRC, 2014)7. Hence confirming that implementation of the WBP started a process of confronting gender related violence, and the perceived resistance is but part of that process of change. 6 “Care work,” sometimes called reproductive or domestic work, refers to the provision of services for family and community members outside of the market. It includes direct care of persons, such as child care or care of dependent adults, as well as other chores , such as cooking, cleaning or fetching water or firewood, washing clothes, etc.. 7 International Rescue Committee – Uganda (2014), Supporting Women’s Engagement in Peace Building Processes in Karamoja, Uganda, “Women Building Peace” , Final Report: September 29, 2010 to March 30, 2014 10 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja (iv) Women are viewed more positively, respected and appreciated Findings of the evaluation indicate that increasingly, men view women more positively and appreciate them as capable (and active) players in the pursuit of peaceful resolutions of inter-community conflicts, especially the ones about sharing of resources like water and pasture, matters that were previously exclusively decided upon by only male members of the community. Below is one of the quotes from a key informant to illustrate the degree of confidence in women’s capabilities to prevent and resolve inter-community conflict, which underlies the shift in men’s attitudes and perceptions of women in peace building processes. Sometimes when meetings are called, men can send their wives as representatives to attend the meeting on their behalf. (Male SASA! Activists, Rupa S/C, Moroto District) In spite of discomforts about early manifestations at family level of women’s emancipation in Karamoja, there is the growing appreciation of women’s role in conflict prevention and resolution. For instance women reporting their own sons involved in planning for raids is a departure from the norm. There is no doubt that the interventions of these two Activities positively contributed to greater recognition of women’s roles in peace building processes but they are not the only factors at play. Relatedly, another outcome of WBP and Akimorikin is the greater understanding of women’s rights among communities in the project areas as recounted by several FGDs and key informants. A quote from one of the FGDs is illustrative of this understanding: “Before there was discrimination and women were not supposed to have equal rights and now their rights are recognized. People have realized that women have the same potential with men. The difference is only biological. Women now participate in following up thefts of animals until the culprit is brought to book” (FGD with male and female SASA! Activities, RUPA Sub-county, Moroto District). (v) Women’s increased participation in decision-making at family level and reduction in gender based violence The evaluation established that there is a trend of increased women participation in decision making at household level indicating a shift in power relations. Findings indicate increased understanding of how power relations are gendered. Challenging power relations helped the beneficiaries to realize that each of them possessed power which was sometimes misused to harm other people. Evaluation respondents reported that prior the WBP and Akimorikin there was limited understanding of how power was misused in decision making at family level. In a strongly patriarchal system often this resulted in gender based violence that would sometimes escalate into intra or inter-community violence. 3.2 To what extent did the projects strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? The analysis first examines the capacity building activities of projects and then analyzes to what extent capacity of local peace actors in conflict management and mitigation has been strengthened. Local peace actors are defined as formal and informal institutions that work on peace issues in the region. The formal peace actors were established by the National Security Act (2000).8 The informal 8 In line with the provisions of the National Security Act of 2000, the National Security Council is chaired by the President and represented by District Security Committee (DSC) at the District Level. The DSC is mandated to advise the National Security 11 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja actors include community and local institutions which may take on varying names like peace committees (PCs), as well as elders or cultural leaders who hold positions of responsibility in the community and are designated so by the community. These include clan leaders and kraal leaders. The peace actors take front seats in discussions at any community gathering discussing issues of peace; and law and order, both within the traditional and alternative justice systems. Whereas Clan leaders handle community issues from a broader perspective, Kraal leaders mostly handle day to day issues affecting Kraal members. Hence an Akimorikin objective aimed at strengthening collaboration between these informal structures and the formal ones like SCSCs. Capacity development in the Akimorikin Activity context was multi dynamic. It was about enhancing information sharing and awareness to roles and responsibilities in Early Warning Early Response (EWER), Do No Harm (DNH), gender and conflict dynamics. Accordingly, conducting training and attendance of meetings that created awareness were considered success indicators at output level. Further to this, ability to utilize such knowledge to plan; and implement any conflict linked response, prevention or management activities of any form be it early or late response and / or reconciliatory activities was deemed as capacity enhanced. The number of persons from both formal and informal institutions who participated in any such event; including the revitalization and sustenance of SCSC operations was a quality dimension of measure added to the achievement. At impact level, capacity developed would have been assessed basing on numbers, types and complexities of conflict activities successfully handled and/or prevented. Defining the capacity to prevent, respond and manage conflict proved unhelpful in the evaluation. During instrument pre-testing, we observed that informants across the region seldom maintained a definitional division between capacities to prevent, respond and manage conflict as well as promote reconciliation. For them, all three components are regarded as conflict management and for this reason, the report collectively addresses all concerns as conflict management. Prevention of conflict in addition includes expecting but then managing to avoid violent conflict. Furthermore, in this context, the definition of “conflicts” embraces a wide range of incidents, including cattle raids, thefts, GBV, and violent crimes like shootings. Capacity strengthening activities undertaken by the Activities Akimorikin focused on strengthening the capacity of local actors to respond to, prevent and manage conflicts and reconciliation. Through the Activity, implementing partners Riamiriam and OCODI trained over 200 SCSC members from 19 S/Cs in concepts of Early Warning Early Response (EWER), Do No Harm (DNH), Conflict Dynamics, Gender Integration, Communication and Effective Leadership. The Activity also supported the community and SCSC planning meetings, intra- and inter￾community ethnic and clan dialogues, DSCs to SCSCs monitoring meetings and any EWER response activities aimed at addressing insecurity and resolving conflicts within the project sub-counties and their borders. Project reporting suggests a direct reach to over 15,000 people in the Karamoja region. The benefits from training are seen as capacity strengthening, as the activity translated learning skills into tangible outcomes which are discussed further on in this report. They include the ability of members of sub-committees to hold meaningful dialogues with formal leaders and community elders; improved planning and ability to detect and curtail potential conflicts; increased participation of women in peace building activities; and other associated benefits. Council on matters related to security in the district, review and forward security needs and goals, and coordinate and advice on policy matters related to intelligence gathering and security. The DSC is chaired by the Resident District Commission and comprises of ; District Internal Security Officer, LCV Chairperson, Secretary for Defense, Chief Administrative Officer, District Police Commander, UPDF Commanding Officer, District Prison Commander, District Criminal Investigations Officer. The DSC is fed by the Sub-county Security Committee (SCSC). The SCSC is chaired by the LC III chairperson and comprises of Gombolola Internal Security Officer (GISO), Parish Chief, secretary responsible for defense, area police commander, all secretaries for defense of the parish council committees and chairperson of the women’s council. They have a mandate to incorporate other members. In Uganda levels of local government are district (LCV), county (LCIV), sub-country (LC III), parish (LCII) and village (LCI). In reality, however, the LCIV (county) level is dormant. 12 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja WBP developed capacity of 156 (77F, 79M) community activists whose role was to raise awareness on issues concerning violence against women, unhealthy power dynamics, peace in the household and community, and increase women’s participation in peace building processes. These activities which served as building blocks for Akimorikin, subsequently translated into increased acceptance of women’s participation and leadership in peace building activities. Respondents from KIIs and FGDs asserted that the involvement of women in peace building activities to a greater degree influenced the capacity to prevent and manage conflicts in the region. Literature from the region, including findings from IRC Gender and Conflict Analysis report (2011), written for WBP, underscored the previous dual role of women as perpetrators of insecurity and conflict who were at the same time the most vulnerable victims of conflict. Consequent to increased involvement of women and hence better awareness of dangers of conflict, their push-action on males in their household to engage in cattle raiding reduced. It translated benefits like reducing number of male spouses or sons joining organized cattle raiding missions or reducing numbers of women that supporting members of their families joining raiding parties. This was seen as leading to the peace that now largely prevails in the region noted in FGDs and key informant interviews. At a focus group discussion in Nakapelimoru, two male participants commented: Women challenged, pressed, prepared and blessed their sons and husbands to go for animal raids yet they were losers when the sons and husbands were killed during such missions. The full-time burden of taking care of homes when husbands and sons were unavailable did not become any lighter when men were killed during such raids. The women also used to conceal their sons and relatives who were wanted by authorities for criminal acts of raiding or thefts. Through increased awareness and deliberate actions that integrated gender into the peace building activities by several peace building projects including Akimorikin, the situation has long since been reversed. The role played by Akimorikin in sensitizing women, advocating and lobbying for their inclusion and increased representation in the security committees and at peace gatherings is not only reflected in the voices of men and women. Project records show the number of women who started participating in various peace processes as a result of Akimorikin project training. The IRC Mid-term Evaluation Report reported that of 1,276 people whose knowledge and skills for gender, conflict dynamics, DNH and EWER concerns, 519 (41%) were women (Azuba 2014). The same report also shows that 32% (3,408/10,882) of people who had attended the more than 50 peace dialogues supported by the project were women. Furthermore, every FGD in this evaluation included a mention of the positive and central role that women played in the mitigation of conflicts. Two examples of these views are: Women are now key in prevention of conflict. They are bright, quick to discern a potential conflict before it occurs. They are so committed to curbing conflict that they report all potential and actual incidences including reporting a relative or household member who shows/has bad intentions that may escalate conflicts and violence. When we have women among peace actors, we know we are covered in early warning. (Tepeth elder, Tapac S/C, Moroto District) Women these days are so committed that they participate actively in pursuing perpetrators of insecurity or thieves of animals until they are brought to book. (Matheniko elder, Rupa S/C, Moroto) Capacity of local peace actors, to prevent and manage conflicts Akimorikin strengthened the capacity of local peace actors in several ways. The operational capacity of the 19 SCSCs where Akimorikin operated was strengthened. SCSC members report in interviews and FGDs that they once did not know their roles and responsibilities, were not meeting, and committees were non-functional. In contrast, we note that by the EoP, the legal interpretations and requirements of National Council Security Act (2002) are known to all members (100%) of SCSCs interviewed. Members know their mandates and roles with regard to security actions including generating security information from communities and the upward vertical transmission pathways to the DSCs. This knowledge about security organs and vertical and horizontal referral systems has 13 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja progressively improved, from 70% having no knowledge in the baseline survey - to 15% by midterm evaluation - and to 0% by end of the project. Knowledge of security structures among the community have also grown. According to community members’ responses, the Sub-county Chairperson, popularly referred to as LC III chairperson, is the official responsible to handle security concerns. Other security organs include Parish Council Committees who serve as Secretaries for Defense on the SCSCs and Women’s Council representatives. Whereas these offices were well known as components of the security structures in S/Cs implementing the Akimorikin Activity, this was not the case in the non-Activity areas visited. Eighteen percent of respondents in communities in the non-program area surveyed neither knew their SCSC representatives nor how the security reporting system worked. By comparison, only 9% of survey respondents in program areas lacked this knowledge. Furthermore, the Evaluation Team (ET) observed that SCSC members in Kotido, which was the control S/C still had limited knowledge of their roles and responsibilities. The SCSCs have developed planning and implementation capacity. All program-supported SCSCs visited, now hold regular monthly or bimonthly meetings that discuss sub-county security concerns and other development related issues. They in addition hold joint security meetings with the DSC members; this is an improvement from findings at the Mid-term evaluation when only 13 of the 19 S/Cs did - and a major change from the situation prior to Akimorikin, when neither joint meetings nor joint plans existed to link SCSCs and DSCs [Akimorikin baseline report 2013]. In all visited sub￾counties, the ET observed well-kept records of regular SCSC meetings and special gatherings addressing security and conflict which were under custody of the Gombolola Internal Security Officers (GISOs) who are the designated Secretaries to each SCSC. Also noted was that prior to Alimorikin, members of SCSCs fronted external facilitation (cash allowance for transport and refreshment) as a conditional pre-requisite for holding security meetings (Azuba 2014, Mid-Term Evaluation of Akimorikin). The evaluation exercise now found a stronger SCSC member commitment to meet and address insecurity whether or not such facilitation existed. SCSCs meet as regularly - as need arises to address conflict risks or manage actual conflicts. The SCSC records in all 9 S/Cs visited showed several daily or week long peace dialogues and meetings held between elders, clan leaders, government leaders and stakeholders. 9 The meetings have ‘Peace’ as their common denominator. One Rupa FGD participant noted: A group of us SCSC members had to move 4 days on foot to the border with Turkana to address insecurity issues. The challenge is when the weather is bad and we need rain gear like gum boots and rain coats which we don’t have. Capacity to apply Early Warning Early Response mechanisms improved: - The structural capacity of SCSC members and their counterparts in the community to identify, spot and share signs of an eminent conflict or insecurity has also been enhanced over time. Although committed and trained to prevent insecurity, the 10 person SCSC team is undoubtedly inadequate to effectively gather all the relevant information from communities. As a gap–filling measure, many of the SCSCs have innovated structures referred to as “ten–ten” or “nine–nine” informers, “peace ambassadors” or “peace champions” within and outside their communities to raise alarms at any apparent sign of conflict or presence of peace spoilers within their communities. To ensure timely response to prevent conflict, reports can are now made to any SCSC member in the community. Surprisingly, now collaborators from within previously conflicting communities some of whom are reformed warriors themselves volunteer to give information. “These days we even have informers within the Pian and Bokora community, who can call us and tell us when animals have been stolen or when impeding raids are due,” says one elder from the Tepeth community, “Previously, this was unheard of!” he concluded. 99Examples include: i) the Rupa SCSC weekly meetings held between the Turkana, Matheniko, Jie and Bokora on the sharing of grazing land and water for animals near the Kobebe Dam in August 2014; ii) Records of the September and August Kacheri peace dialogues between Dodoth and Jie elders, kraal leaders, official security personnel, districts officials and various clans; and iii) SCSC Lolelia meetings on theft and raids of animals which made agreements for repayment according to the Nabilatuk resolution. 14 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja In some areas, various members of SCSCs have acquired mobile telephones for purposes of timely information sharing when and if potential conflicts/thefts/raids arise. Records show that the percentage of SCSC members applying EWER mechanisms in collaboration with community members increased from 0% at the baseline to 95% by EoP as shown in Table 2. These structural innovations exemplify increased preparedness to prevent or manage conflict through improved communication. Asked on signs of an emerging raid, one community leader noted: Those days, a group of young men would come to your home and request to speak to your son. He would disappear for hours. During the same time, another neighbor would report that friends of his son also came and picked him up to join them in their discussions. Later your son comes back hastily, picks some cereals and some gourds mentioning that he was going on a journey. These and many more signs were shared during EWER training. They were reflected as indicators that our sons have intentions to raid. We learnt to quickly apprehend them, remind them of their peers who went to raid and were killed. We usually succeed to distract them, but if it fails and push comes to shove, we just report them to the authorities. (Woman elder, Nadunget S/C, Moroto) The capacity to timely prevent or respond to emerging conflicts has been greatly supported by presence of government security forces namely Uganda Police and Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF). Several military detaches and police posts are established in potential areas of conflict whenever need arises. On occasions, the demands emanates from communities. The collaboration between the military and/or police with the community peace actors and community members themselves improved tremendously. One female community respondent from Nakapelimoru S/C Kotido, when asked about the most significant achievement in the peace processes, mentioned: For me, I am happy because we used not to mix with the army and police. Previously before the Akimorikin Project, whenever we would see an army man, we would go into hiding. Now when there is an issue to do with peace or conflict we can even seek for dialogue with the police and army and we discuss together. This was de-mystified and I am very happy with that. It has contributed to early warning and response. The observation was affirmed by the Area Police Commander: When I came to this place more than one and half years ago, the civilians ran away from us whenever they saw an army person. Now things have changed. They don’t run, when you meet, they greet and continue with their businesses. They even often come to the barracks to invite us for any peace meetings or dialogues whenever there are issues of conflict or insecurity that needs to be addressed. This is an example of a real positive change. Another specific example of steps undertaken by local actors to manage conflict and sustain peace is the implementation of the Nabilatuk and Moruitit resolutions. The 2 bye-laws established to bring to book perpetrators of cattle thefts and raids, have been discussed and implemented to conclusion with support of the Akimorikin Activity. According to the Bye-laws, when culprits are apprehended and found guilty, they are required to pay back twice the number of animals raided/ stolen plus one extra animal for the security and peace actors who apprehended the culprit. With exception of Kaabong District, the bye laws are now operational in all other districts of Karamoja (Y1Q3, Y2Q2, Y3Q3, Akimorikin reports). The bye-laws have gone a long way in instilling discipline, fear and alertness to presence of new or strange animals in kraals. As one community elder from Kacheri S/C, Kotido, said, Table 2: SCSCs Applying EWER mechanisms in collaboration with communities Year Baseline FY2014 Q2 FY 2014 Q3 FY 2014 Q4 FY2015 Q1 % of SCSCs 0% 58% 68% 89% 95% Source : IRC PRS, USAID 2015 15 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja “I am very cautious because I am a leader, I have to live by example and therefore will not allow in my kraal any animal whose origin I don’t know. Aside, I don’t have any extra animals to pay when the Nabilatuk resolution catches up with me … whether guilty or not.” Figure 2 Akimorikin also strengthened the capacity and opportunity of SCSCs to network with other peace actors. The Akimorikin emphasized and promoted networking as a means of sustainability. Currently, SCSCs on their own, or through the district leaders can now approach other development partners in search of support when needed. A recent example was the February 2015 Panyangara dialogue which involved communities from Kotido, Kaabong, Kenya, and Ethiopia. The activity was supported by a Danish Demining Group cross-border project after being approached by the relevant SCSC. When asked about the extent to which their own capacities have been strengthened to prevent and manage conflicts through Akimorikin, 90% of the respondents both formal and informal peace actors mentioned that they are more than ready to manage conflicts as exemplified in figure 2 and statements in Table 3. Table 3: PERCEPTIONS OF PREPAREDNESS TO PREVENT AND MANAGE CONFLICTS Reasons why respondents believe the capacity to prevent /manage capacity has improved Attitudes changed Changed attitudes about women’s involvement Increased involvement of women More empowerment of women Volunteerism of former warriors Women taking part in peace activities More involvement of communities Involving women in the peace building activities Better communication capacity Communication is better because of friendship We Identified Peace Champions in conflicting communities Because there is more consulting Use of phones to report security incidences Early reporting, and timely sharing/reporting of information by Communities Better communication with UPDF Community members reporting to SCSCs Better reporting mechanisms Sharing information with security agencies 16 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Reasons why respondents believe the capacity to prevent /manage capacity has improved Capacity of security organs strengthened LDUs with guns support the systems More involvement of the military personnel PCs readiness to participate in tracking animals Peace structures at all levels Better knowledge on EWER and National Security Act Peace actors have a better understanding of EWER Peace Actors know their roles stipulated in the security law PCs know the right channels to report security concerns Being able to identify potential conflicts (signs of conflicts, EWER) Knowledge of channels for reporting Better knowledge on how to detect conflict/EWER systems strengthened Capacity for planning and coordination better More regular Village security meetings Involvement of participation of previous offenders in tracking stolen animals PCs back up activities Regular meetings being held PCs more organized and coordinated Collective planning and timely reporting Cohesion and people working as one Community readiness to work together Conducting meetings immediately after reporting Selection of active members of Peace committees Calling for a meeting immediately after an incident Collaboration with SCSCs Improved sharing of resources Sharing grazing land and water near the Kobebe dam Grazing together, Little/Limited satisfaction that communities have been strengthened to prevent conflicts Insufficient financial support from government for SCSCs SCSCs Lack transport and lack facilitation Need for continued sensitization, Improve action plans. Some S/Cs send reports late Some PCs are need more sensitization because they take sides with community members and hide the peace spoilers Need to make resolutions to address theft and involve communities Sharing information late Conflict trends across Karamoja demonstrate the reduced incidence of violent conflict across most of the regions. Figure 4, compiled from United Nations Department for Safety and Security (UNDSS) reporting of security incidents by district captures trends towards less conflict over time across most districts. The exceptions are non-project areas. The ET observes that Kaabong District has not benefitted from the 2 Activity support despite it being a potential conflict hub as it shares borders with the Toposa in South Sudan; Turkana and Pokot of Kenya who are all still heavily armed. Records show that the Dodoth from Kaabong have continued frequent attacks to their neighbors. Capacity for reconciliation between previously conflicting communities has improved. Akimorikin has supported numerous reconciliation dialogues between previously conflicting communities. These events reached practical resolutions, which were endorsed by community leaders and local officials. The reconciliation concept is well understood, but challenging to implement. While some resolutions were easily implementable, others were not for they require more extensive support. An example of such is the creation of a joint settlement at Lokali for Bokora and Matheniko, agreed to in the Nachuka peace dialogue (Napak) between the Matheniko and Tepeth. Figure 3 17 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Based on the responses to one of the questions shown in the Figure 3, under a quarter of people surveyed would not support revengeful approaches as solutions to violent conflicts in their community. This implies that the appetite for continued cycles of raids and revenge in Karamoja has now weakened. 3.3 How responsive were the two activities to the conflict dynamics, i.e. did they adapt to emerging socio-economic and political developments in Karamoja during the program period? The question focused on how projects adjusted to changes in the region. In four and a half years of program implementation, substantial changes have occurred in Karamoja some of which were within project management control and while others weren’t. Changes that affected communities across Karamoja and how projects could have (have not) responded to them are discussed. Emerging Developments The most notable changes mentioned by community members surveyed, the leaders interviewed, and FGD participants was that in the program areas, security incidents have declined and massive cattle raids have evolved to small-scale theft. Data from UNDSS, IRC security incidence reports, and District Security Office sources (2011-2015) confirm the impression that number of security incidences in the region have dramatically reduced. The character of incidents have changed as well - from community￾encouraged mass cattle raids on neighboring communities to covert stealing of a few animals (Figure 4 ). Figure 4 18 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja With relative peace in the region, there is increasing migration of people to the region with resultant increase in movement of people within Karamoja in search of additional land for farming, grass for livestock grazing, and alternative livelihood options. Urbanization is on the increase and businesses are starting to grow. There are growing concerns about the spread of HIV/AIDS with migration, movement, and urbanization. The development of new settlements brings additional challenges about land rights. In addition, there are growing environmental concerns, particularly around mining. On a positive note, Issues about education are growing as more people recognize the importance of education – especially with changes in gender perceptions that raise awareness about the need to educate both girls and boys. Questions about how to occupy the youth who previously were almost fully engaged in planning and executing cattle raiding activities are widely recognized as pressing issues for communities across Karamoja. Activity Responses WBP was designed to adapt; the project began by modifying the SASA! approach to fit the gender and conflict challenges of Karamoja. This adaptation was a core aspect of the WBP project not an aspect that emerged in implementation. Whereas no KII or FGD noted ways that WBP was adapted in implementation over the 42 months of the project, SASA! Activists mentioned that they were now attempting to address new issues SASA! Approach with help from trained cadre of activists. Akimorikin adapted project approaches within capacity limitations of the support they got from key partners. The original project design assumed that the district-level security committees had adequate capacity to handle EWER, Gender integration, DNH and conflict dynamics; although it became apparent that the DSCs lacked these capacities. Akimorikin therefore changed its original design and included strengthening of DSCs in its schedule. The Akimorikin project design had aimed at responding to particular conflicts by facilitating community dialogues. The project, however supported other priorities of S/Cs and districts in reaching peace agreements within and between communities based on their requests and priorities, and this evolved over the two years of the project. As growing communities and new settlements led to a number of disagreements between Karimojong communities and the Uganda Wild Life Authority (UWA) about the size of nature reserves and the use of resources in these parks, Akimorikin began to support addressing these new issues. On several occasions, clashes developed between communities and UWA over new settlements, land ownership 19 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja and borders with gazetted game reserve land.10 Akimorikin adapted to support meetings between communities, district leaders and UWA officials which resulted in resource sharing agreement and mechanisms for co-existence between people and wild animals. Akimorikin furthered resource sharing as part of peace building by providing modest but critical resources that facilitated meetings and dialogues. The project was able to provide limited funding to help communities work together productively on an ongoing basis after dialogues through sharing resources such as grazing land, water, or markets. In addition, the project supported the implementation of the Nabilatuk and Moruitit resolutions. However, Akimorikin had limited resources with which to support executing resolutions arising from peace dialogues. For the most part, supporting structural changes such as developing shared roads, joint markets, new settlements, or water infrastructure such as dams was out of reach for the project. 3.4 Is there evidence that specific elements of the two Activities are sustainable beyond the program period? In WBP, evidence of sustainability is clear – the signs of existence of program activities one year after the official closure of the project are evident. Evidence for Akimorikin’s sustainability is prospective, as the project was just closing at the time of evaluation fieldwork. Active presence in the community: Although challenging, activists report that they are engaging in new work, both by reaching non-SASA! communities and by addressing new issues. The initial evidence for sustainability for WBP is that SASA! Activists continue their activities a year after closure of the project. The Evaluation Team was able to easily mobilize activists to talk with because they remain active in their communities and remain interested using and talking about SASA! methodologies. Activists in FGDs noted their continued activity: When SASA! closed, we decided to break up into smaller groups so that each small group in a village visits the homes (manyattas) nearby. (Tapac, Moroto District). We meet every market day and share information about what we have been doing. Market day is a common day for our meetings. (Ngoleriet, Napak District). Recognition of presence: A factor that helps sustainability is that activists continued to be recognized by communities and Local Councils as SASA! and are invited to participate as SASA! Activists. One Activist in Ngoleriet, Napak District, said: “The Sub-county also gives us opportunities to talk to people. In council meetings, sometimes we are invited to come and talk about peace and issues relating to SASA! like domestic violence and also about our work.” Knowledge and skills imparted: The “equipment” of WBP also remains in use; the project built human capacity in the activists and wider community, equipped them with knowledge and skills to continue raising awareness and training other activists enhance power dynamics and participation of women. They still have the SASA! training materials which are replicable and the champions still proudly wear the SASA! T-shirts they were provided with by the project. SASA! activists have continued to sensitize communities about the need for spouses to support each other especially with regard to working together and against domestic violence. SASA! activists have continued to sensitize communities about the need for spouses to support each other especially with regard to working together and against domestic violence. 10 For examples, in Amudat District, a school constructed by Save the Children Uganda on game reserve land was brought down (IRC, Y2Q1 report) which led to SCSC intervention and the SCSC of Karita in Amudat District held meetings to solve boundary issues between UWA and community of Naporokocho. 20 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Evidence for Akimorikin’s sustainability is prospective, as the project had not yet closed at the time of the evaluation. The elements that suggest that project outputs and outcomes will continue are: Strong function and presence of the project’s institutional partners: DSCs and SCSCs continue to operate as mandated by the National Security Council Act of 2000. Both formal and informal community leaders are proud of their achievements with Akimorikin. They believe and have indeed strengthened the security architecture for their sub-counties through building skills and practices of their security committees as well as the upward and downward linkages between the DSCs, SCSCs, Parish committees and the community leadership structures. S/Cs visited had not only notes but also other physical manifestations of project work that was prominently displayed in LC III offices which served as reminders of project processes. Practices institutionalized and knowledge imparted: The leadership of all four DSCs and the nine assisted SCSCs interviewed affirmed that they would continue to use the practices trained in and institutionalized by Akimorikin, including monthly meetings and minutes; sensitization and training on DNH, EWER, and gender and conflict; expanded SCSC composition (when used); DSC monitoring; and meetings and peace dialogues. The project’s support for strengthened implementation of the key conflict management bye-laws, the Nabilatuk and Moruitit declarations, also found continued support from SCSCs and DSCs. KIIs and FGDs noted that security committees and communities would continue to adhere to these resolutions as key deterrents to cattle raiding. The commitment of community Peace Champions or Ambassadors whom Akimorikin had worked with was also emphasized by government KIIs and in FGDs with these members of PCs, who also pledged to continue working for peace in their communities. Finally SCSC leaders and PC interviewees emphasized that they would continue to use the knowledge, skills, and abilities of EWER to monitor risks to security and respond to risks of cattle raids as well as track thefts and work towards fast recovery of stolen animals. 3.5 What lessons can USAID/Uganda and its partners learn from the implementation of the two activities in Karamoja? Lessons learned from these two activities focus on the region and issues of women’s empowerment and peacebuilding. LESSON FROM WBP Staff, activists, and officials reported that the empowerment of women for peacebuilding through an approach that focused first on changing individuals worked well and was able to shape community perceptions. KII and FGD data suggested that the SASA! behavioral change approach can change mindsets among activists about gender roles and relations, even in the challenging Karimojong culture. In FGDs, all SASA! Activists asserted that the approach had led to a personal revolution in their attitudes and behaviors. Empowering women through an approach that demystifies gender appears to have worked well. Projects that focus on gender and women’s rights can be unpopular; the relevance of these topics is frequently not recognized across the country, not just in Karamoja. Through a focus on the critical issue of peacebuilding, with limited emphasis and use of terms like “woman’s rights” or “gender equality,” WBP was able to effect substantial change in gender relations among activists and perhaps in communities. Social activism is a potential resource that can be used to support social change in Karamoja. The approach of empowering activists to work within communities through WBP appears to have resonated and is replicable. 21 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Explicitly engaging women to manage conflict in areas like Karamoja was rewarding. Working with women as peace builders has been a successful approach in Karamoja and it can be replicated elsewhere in situations where women are still largely excluded from peace processes such as South Sudan. Time is a key element in the peace building processes. The activity took substantial time to bring SASA! methods to the region and adapt them to Karamoja and the peacebuilding process; one year into the two-year project, there was little outreach to communities in the two districts. WBP benefitted greatly from the cost extension of the project. The IRC and partners were able to use additional time and funds to build and network sustainable community activism. Additional time was needed to start influencing communities in these two districts. LESSONS FROM AKIMORIKIN Program implementation benefits from sequential, related projects: over a decade of IRC engagement in peacebuilding built relationships and implementer capacity that was expanded on in Akimorikin. IRC and partner staff noted that the activities in transforming gender roles and women’s empowerment under WBP built a strong base for Akimorikin and contributed to Akimorikin’s success in empowering women and strengthening security institutions. Strengthening existing institutions can be effective, even when these official state institutions basically exist only on paper. Efforts from the Akimorikin partners to inform leaders about their roles and mandates as SCSC members and the modest resource facilitation of SCSC activities worked well to create functioning formal participatory bodies for security. This was mainly attributed to ability to build on what already existed rather than starting from a fresh position. Elected leaders from the region, informal community leaders, and appointed officials from outside of Karamoja all noted how the security environment in the region was now completely different from that of the past – in a positive way – and that Akimorikin support had contributed substantially to this transformation by adding to what other programs had initiated. Peace building processes do not create a straight line from conflict to peace. FGDs and KIIs emphasized that while the region was disarmed and there is relative peace, people’s minds had not yet been disarmed which means that the situation in the region is not completely secure. Elected and community leaders asserted that without a change in mind-sets, back sliding and reversion to violence is still possible. The overwhelming consensus from project beneficiaries and stakeholders was that two years was simply too short a time period to change mind-sets about conflict. FGDs and KIIs emphasized that Karamoja needed to address emerging issues, especially livelihoods. Local elected leaders, community leaders, and civil servants stressed that peace is unstable without addressing the question of what comes next after peace is attained. The old way of armed raids may be gone for now, but new socio-economic and cultural practices to sustain Karimojong communities have not been developed. The region was thus not stable and all interviewees were concerned about risks of returning to violent conflict. Another lesson is that the incomplete coverage of peacebuilding programs threatens sustainability and peace. KIIs and FGDs noted that while their S/Cs and communities had benefitted from Akimorikin, peace infrastructure in neighboring districts, sub-counties, and countries have not been strengthened. Both formal and informal leaders emphasized that unreached communities in Uganda or across international-borders in Kenya or South Sudan threaten the security of their communities. For 22 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja example, the Turkana in Kenya have rivalries with the Pokot in Kenya and Amudat in Uganda and the conflict between the two armed groups in Kenya spills over into Uganda.11 11 See for example Daniel Cere, “Pokot, Turkana clashes threaten Karamoja peace” Daily Monitor April 2, 2015 http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Pokot--Turkana-clashes-threaten-Karamoja-peace/-/688334/2673058/-/8l070dz/-/index.html. 23 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 4. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The section first summarizes the findings and conclusions for the five evaluation questions above and leading to recommendations. Recommendations are stated bearing in mind development partners that have interest in designing and implementing programs and activities that prevent and mitigate conflict or support development program in the Karamoja region of Uganda. The recommendations cover the whole gamut of operational, programmatic, and policy issues related to conflict mitigation and peace building as illuminated by this evaluation. 4.1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION (i) Changed social perceptions of women’s roles and gender relations as a result of involvement of women in peace-building processes.  What social perceptions towards women’s roles and gender relations changed? WBP and Akimorikin demonstrated that involving women in peace building processes was critical since women were considered effective agents of conflict prevention and good messengers of peace messages to men, youth and fellow women. Men view women more positively and appreciate them as capable (and active) players in the pursuit of peaceful resolution of inter and intra -community conflicts, especially the ones about sharing of resources like water and pasture. Consequently, this has impacted on how the Karimojong perceive women’s capabilities and roles in peace building. The changes in social perceptions include positive appreciation of women’s capabilities as active security mobilizers who effectively influence peace outcomes /dividends. There are no more doubts about whether women should participate in peace building or not; it was now clear that they are integral part of peace building. There is increased appreciation among clan /kraal leaders of women’s potential and actual contribution to conflict prevention and resolution. As a result, customary barriers that in the past used to keep them out of peace building processes, have now been removed. Further, acceptance by local government officials that women, out of their own volition, are competent to pursue peace spoilers and perpetrators of insecurity has led to cooption of additional women on the SCSCs. Within the broader changes in social perceptions about women’s capabilities, it is currently acceptable for a women to chair a community conflict resolution meeting. High acceptance of women in positions of leadership in peace processes is expected to have some influence on the type of future decisions affecting general security within communities of Karamoja. The evaluation revealed changes in attitudes and practices relating to gender roles i.e. men embracing roles that were previously regarded as exclusive preserve of women in the household. Some, especially SASA! Activists and community leaders are now helping out on some of the household chores or ‘care work’. There is increased women participation in decision making at household level indicating a shift in power relations. Findings indicate increased understanding of gendered power relations and the need for change. Challenging power relations helped beneficiaries to realize that each of them possessed power which was sometimes misused to harm other people.  To what extent are changes attributed to the program? Largely the two Activities (WBP and Akimorikin) contributed to improvements in conflict management in the project areas. For instance, it was evident in the evaluation that the Activities enhanced the implementation of the Nabilatuk and Moruitit declarations. Evaluation respondents reported that prior to WBP and Akimorikin, they had limited knowledge about the National Security Act (2000) in Karamoja. Therefore, increased knowledge among district and community leadership about the operationalization of National Security Act (2000) in the functioning of the DSC and SCSC is directly attributed to the sensitization and training conducted under WBP and Akimorikin. Expansion and revitalization of the DSCs and SCSCs can be attributed to the program 24 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja because the two Activities facilitated the co-option of more women into security committees at both levels of the local governments and supported the convening of security meetings. Most importantly, members of these expanded security committees were equipped with knowledge and skills in conflict prevention and mitigation through approaches like DNH and EWER. The acquired knowledge and skills, especially in EWER approach has been applied by women and local leadership to monitor risks to security and respond to risks of cattle raids as well as track and report cattle thefts, consequently leading to high rates of recovery of stolen animals. Successful integration of gender aspects and active involvement of women in peace building processes in Karamoja region is directly attributed to WBP and Akimorikin. Application of the SASA! approach reinforced positive behavior and perceptions of women’s involvement in peace processes. While it is recognized that the two Activities do not constitute the only enabling factors, it is however no doubt that they are the trigger and the most direct mechanism for women’s inclusiveness known to date.  Will the changes be sustained? For the case of WBP, during the evaluation there was evidence for sustained aspects a year after its closure. The knowledge and skills acquired by community leaders, women and SASA! Activists, are the key drivers for sustainability. SASA! Activists continue to engage in peace building activities and are recognized and respected by their communities and its leadership. The DSCs and SCSCs whose functions and operations were re-activated are another factor that enables sustainability. However, cessation of financial support from WBP and Akimorikin that previously facilitated execution of peace building activities in the community, combined with the failure to identify and secure livelihoods support, may undermine the sustainability of the outcomes. (ii) Extent to which the projects strengthened capacity of local peace actors to prevent, respond and manage peace and reconciliation  Was the capacity to respond to conflicts strengthened? The two Activities worked from different angles in strengthening capacity for EWER. The Akimorikin program was more focused on the general public and its security while WBP was mainly on situations concerning violence and unhealthy power dynamics between men and women within a domestic setting. Through training, sensitization and logistical support, the number of peace actors to respond to potentially arising or real conflicts/ insecurity incidences expanded. Effective response is not only about numbers but also their skills and commitment to better plan and implement timely and successful mitigation actions to curb conflicts was also desired. The projects supported skill enhancement and supported peace actors to generate quality, timely information and, share it with relevant authorities horizontally, upward and downstream. Most notable outputs were the projects ability to resurrect existence and /or functionality of already established government structures (security committees i.e. DSC, SCSC, PSC) that were previously inactive and thrust them to strengthen their coordination mechanisms, rather than creating new ones. Some Parish security committees which never existed before arose as well as smaller groups of peace actors like ‘nine - nine’ or ‘ten-ten’ as described earlier on. The project had envisaged strengthening functionality of informal structures like the Kraal leaders and elders as well. This has been achieved but to a lesser extent since engagement with community members showed that local councils chairpersons (LCI and LCII) are considered as the security organs while community or traditional leaders are seen to handle domestic issues. The dual role that either of them can play is not fully appreciated. The capacity of leaders to bring together multitudes of people or groups of elders from various ethnic backgrounds who previously could never sit together, make them hold meaningful dialogues and agree to potential sources of conflict and resolutions to address conflicts was in itself a positive step in capacity enhancement towards managing conflict and reconciliation. With involvement and acceptance of women (previously labeled as perpetrators of insecurity) to participate in peace activities, WBP had already set a platform for enhancement of training and embracing gender, EWER and understanding 25 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja of conflict dynamics. Ensuring women representation and in some cases increasing numbers of women representatives to formal peace structures was very easy due to the platforms and /or tools and methodologies already established by WBP. The achievements are however not attributed to Akimorikin Activity or WBP alone, since there were already ongoing programs by other actors in the region addressing peace and reconciliation way before the two programs. Therefore the highlight probably is again the number of activities that were successfully supported to continue bringing more people on board to subscribe to positive benefits of peace activities. In addition, women were made to finally to accept that they were key perpetrators of insecurity and accomplices to conflict crimes when they instigated their sons and spouses into cattle rustling as confessed to and also cited in various studies & reports in Karamoja region (IRC Gender and Conflict Analysis report 2011). The discussions show that this has been put to an end as all testimonies from men and the women themselves in the program attested that currently women restrain themselves totally from the vice. WBP activities including tools used and subsequent knowledge imparted set a platform that quickly enhanced achievements of the Akimorikin Activity objectives. Inferred capacity benefits include institutional and financial strengthening of implementing organizations and their staff who through developed knowledge and skills were able to train and interact with community members on collective brokering of peace and security concerns for the current and future. The Activities enhance the capacity of Police and military security organs to peacefully interact and work with community members in a collective effort to address insecurity and conflict within and across international borders. Community members now believe in and have confidence that UPDF and Police have capacity to support and protect them against insecurity and violence. This position is new and different from previous reports on security in Karamoja including a report on ‘Karamoja Conflict and Security Assessment (2010)’ by Safeworld in which it is on record that community members distrusted and were un satisfied with capacity of official security organs to protect them. UPDF officials were a perceived threat to civilians who dared not move close to them. Now there are free movements to and from the barracks to discuss security related issues when a need arises, according to respondents within project areas. To what extent is the capacity strengthened and will it be sustained? Several questions can be discussed to aid in answering this question effectively Are numbers of peace actors and their skills adequate to detect and respond early enough to any arising insecurity or insurgency? ‘Yes’ to numbers, knowledge and skilled capacity of peace actors enhanced in districts where the program has been but ‘No’ to areas where the program has not been . Only a net coverage of 20% of Karamoja sub-counties was achieved. Regular conflict and insecurity incidences are still arising from a district like Kaabong where no activity was implemented and moreover this district borders with at least 5 others including those across international boundaries. However ability to address emerging conflicts and insecurity has been stepped up with better planning, mobilization, and improved relationship between previously conflicting groups as well as collaboration between community members and government security organs. Are structures and systems adequately supported financially, politically or otherwise to detect and respond early enough to any arising insecurity or insurgency and is there commitment to the changes? ‘Yes’ to political support, existence of vertical and horizontal referral systems and bye-laws to support the systems. However, ‘No’ to logistical support unless lower local and district governments step up financial support to peace activities including structural programs to continue supporting peace and reconciliation. Although there is higher political and policy support to the processes, the work of SCSCs, dialogues & reconciliatory meetings as well as reconciliatory structures like joint markets or common roads require more financial support. Up till now, financial support has been predominantly by development partner programs like Akimorikin project. Without continued support, the activities will be not be sustained. 26 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja It is also apparent that women are unconditionally committed to peace through their decision to desist from instigating spouses and sons into cattle rustling. However, voices of ‘caution’ are still echoed by males about possibility of insurgence or backlash of conflict and violence if their immediate live-hood needs like food, land for agriculture and settling, or water for animals are not addressed soon in the near future as detailed in section 3.3 and 3.4 of this report. These fears, in our view are justified since we observed that one of the consequences to relative peace is increased migration of people in search of new livelihood options to and from places that were previously inaccessible. Several reports including a report on ‘Karamoja Conflict and Security Assessment (2010’ ) by Safeworld; noted that community members strongly felt that alternate livelihood options may be a more sustainable peace approach as members especially young adult men were now keen to engage in diverse economic activities a move from traditional livestock keeping. This position is still held by many. Unfortunately up till now, lots of energies has been spent on addressing immediate – conflict sources and managing outbreaks with a little lesser effort on planning for future long-term options of avoiding conflict. (iii) Project responsiveness to conflict dynamics and to socio-economic and political developments Adaptation is a difficult challenge for short-duration development projects. While a changing Karamoja faces many new developments with substantial effects on the population and thus potential impacts on programs, small-scale, short-duration development projects like WBP and Akimorikin were not well equipped to address the large set of emerging issues in the changing Karamoja. Neither time nor resources was in bounty for WBP or Akimorikin projects to address large emerging issues in Karamoja. The Activities were not able to adapt to the changing region, but should not be expected to adapt either. While WBP did not adapt, SASA! activists adapted and have continued to work on key socio-economic concerns in communities. After the project, activists have been able to use their new knowledge, skills, and attitudes to help communities address new issues such as alcoholism that are clearly related and are regular causes of conflict like GBV. This is not surprising first and foremost because WBP was designed as trial program. Akimorikin on the other hand was responsive to particular conflicts but not to emerging socio￾economic and political developments across Karamoja. With modest resources and a two-year implementation period, the project focused on supporting the capacity of local peace actors to respond, prevent, and manage concrete conflict risings within and between communities – and promote reconciliation in the wake of conflict. The Activity was able to support community requests based on emerging risks and opportunities around particular conflicts, to great appreciation of project beneficiaries and other stakeholders. (iv) Evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable For WBP, the dedication of SASA! Activists and their continued recognition as activists by local governments and communities are key elements that support sustainability. For Akimorkin, stronger relations between formal and informal security institutions; and strengthened security institutions supported by local governments are the pillars of sustainability in this cases. Lack of resources and limited support for addressing broader emerging issues in the region however, threatens sustainability of project achievements, as does the limited geographic coverage of project activities strengthening SCSCs and their linkages across Karamoja. CONCLUSIONS 27 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja For WBP, evident dedication of SASA! Activists and the continued recognition of them by local government and communities themselves is evidence of the sustainability of project processes. In this way, SASA! has become like an institution – with activists prepared to continue to support norms, rules, and behaviors that empower women in communities and peace building. However, while SASA! activists report that they want to extend the benefits of the project to new geographic areas and emerging issues in the region, the absence of project support for activists no longer facilitates movement across the vast region nor analysis, training, and planning for them to address new issues in their communities. Secondly, SASA! Activists’ capacity is expected to decline over time without refresher trainings or formal ways to strengthen the cohort. The commitment of SASA! activists fuels this sustainability, which is reinforced by continued recognition of SASA! activists by SCSCs across districts and S/Cs where WBP was active in the region. The Akimorikin approach of working with GoU institutions supports sustainability as the security committees retain their mandates and strengthened capacity after the project. SC leaders remain responsible for their roles and responsibilities on the committees and asserted that they will continue to work well – as they have thanks to Akimorikin support. All GoU leaders interviewed asserted that the SCs were sustainable – but went on to note that they had no budget for security at the S/C or District level, which they saw as a threat to sustainability of project achievements. Without resources that Akimorikin had provided, SCs noted that they would only be able to sustain hosting of modest meetings and monitoring missions as demands increase if deeper coverage is required. Even with absolute commitment, modest transportation or refreshments for meetings every once in a while are essential for larger peace dialogues between communities. Sometimes, participants of peace dialogues walk as far as 40 km to and fro to attend key meetings. The findings from the experience of WBP and Akimorikin Activities are both about what works in women’s empowerment and peacebuilding in Karamoja and the issues that remain critical to gender and conflict management across the region. Understanding context and actors in the peace building processes, setting realistic time and coverage as well as building on already existing institutions and sequential and related projects are key to effective and efficient successful program implementation. The evaluation findings above note substantial lessons learned from working over a four and a half year period in challenging culture and region of Karamoja. These lessons learned have important implications for potential future work among pastoralists and in Karamoja. WHAT HAS NOT WORKED Limited Geographic Focus: Akimorikin’s coverage was selective and limited to some districts and sub counties. It consequently reduces overall effectiveness of the project, as conflict remained unaddressed (or under addressed) in other districts and sub counties, which spills over into Akimorikin-supported districts and sub-counties. For example, Akimorikin did not work in Kaabong. UNDSS reports over 2011 - 2015 notes the highest number (257) of insecurity and conflict incidents in this particular district of Karamoja over the last 4 years. Kaabong shares international borders with Sudan and Kenya as well as district borders with Kotido and Abim. District and sub counties, particularly Kotido note multiple incidents of conflict allegedly instigated by perpetrators from Kaabong. Youth as the missing link: The Akimorikin and WBP Activities underscored pivotal roles played by the youth in perpetrating insecurity and conflict - especially in liaison with their mothers – as well as their unique ability for detecting potential or escalating conflicts via early warning. However, beyond sensitizing the youth on the negative consequences of conflict and warning them to desist from participating in violence, the project neither defined nor exploited the potential roles, mandates and energies of the youth within formal peace structures. Youth capacity enhancement was therefore unsatisfactory and the program made no deliberate efforts to reach to the youth especially those that reside deep within the communities. 28 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja The future beyond Peace Building: Although Akimorikin project met its direct objectives - strengthening capacity and collaboration of local institutions to identify and respond to conflicts and strengthening relationships among conflicting communities - peace-making in itself is not an end. Preventive structural changes, like social economic opportunities, are needed to underpin long term and sustainable peace. Although elements of sustainability exist, in terms of institutional capacities, neither the formal nor the informal institutions seem to be ready for the IRC exit. The government (district and sub-counties) have not budgeted for any funds to sustain activities like operations of the SCSCs that have been initiated by the projects. Other development partners have not stepped up to support these structures and peace building. LESSONS LEARNED The major lessons learned from these two activities focus on the Karamoja region and issues of women’s empowerment and peacebuilding. These include:  Conflict prevention and mitigation; and peace building approached from behavioral change perspective can effectively influence drivers and triggers of conflict. The use of SASA! behavioral change approach in Activities demonstrated that influencing /changing mindsets and worldviews of community members about roles of gender in perpetuation the culture of violence can go a long way in preventing and mitigating local level conflicts.  Promotion of women’s participation in conflict prevention and mitigation; and peacebuilding processes has an empowerment and emancipation aspects both for women and men, especially those in leadership positions,  Peace is unstable without addressing the question of what comes next after peace; and the incomplete coverage of peacebuilding programs in Karamoja and among pastoralists in neighboring countries threatens the sustainability of project achievements and peace. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES In Rupa, Nakapelimoru and Moruita FGDs discussions, some respondents noted that that changes in gender relations with men taking on more domestic chores were being abused by a few women. Instead of utilizing the extra time gained for other useful domestic activities, some women were seen as instead spending the time drinking and absconding more and more from chores. FGD participants however emphasised that such unintended negative results were very few in number. On a positive note, Akimorikin not only strengthened the operational capacity of formal institutions within the local governments to plan and implement peace building activities, but also revitalized informal/cultural institutions through recognition of their roles and participation in security and peace building processes. Their integration in peace building activities is a strong element supporting sustainability. 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS The GoU, USAID and other development partners should consider: 1. Extending Akimorikin to reach additional districts and sub-counties across the region to support the security of the entire region through stronger SCSCs, DSCs, and linkages between these formal structures within and between districts. To date, only 19 of 61 (38%) sub-counties in the region benefitted directly from the institution strengthening under Akimorikin. Sub-counties that have not been supported by the project, which as a consequence do not have strong SCSCs or linkages between security committees 29 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja with communities and their DSCs, risk the security of people in these sub-counties as well as security in project-assisted S/Cs. USAID is in a strong position to provide a modest extension as the previous funder and as the funder of a conflict management project that works in Kaabong implemented by Mercy Corps. 2. Strengthening peace building across district boundaries in Uganda, including outside of Karamoja, as well as across international borders to consolidate security gains. “Armed communities” and “weak formal and informal institutions” across districts within Uganda and especially across the international borders with South Sudan and Kenya threaten peace in Karamoja. USAID and other development partners should continue to support activities to address conflict and security concerns across borders, whether internal Ugandan ones (districts) or international ones with neighboring countries. Activities should include formulating and implementing, policies, bye-laws and agreements on peace. These should be pursued through the logic that “We cannot be secure if our neighbors are not secure.” 3. Integrating an extended Akimorikin with projects in Kenya and South Sudan on peacebuilding, as a cross-border approach to security is needed to support peace in the region. Armed pastoralists in adjacent countries remain a threat to peace in Karamoja; comprehensive peace building support is needed that reaches across borders to extend and sustain peace. The weak formal and informal institutions across national and international in South Sudan and Kenya are problems for Karamoja, as well as the inhabitants of these countries. USAID and development partners should continue providing resources to facilitate dialogs as well as support activities such as formulating and implementing, policies, bye-laws and agreements/memorandum of understanding to address conflict and security concerns across borders. USAID is in a strong position to support this integration as the funder of conflict management programs that work with pastoralists in South Sudan and Kenya through Mercy Corps. 4. Developing new projects in the region to help people across the region answer the question of what comes next as conflict issues are managed successfully; this programming should focus on emerging issues and livelihoods across the region. Now that there is relative peace, and having identified gaps and needs for strengthening infrastructure and livelihood options for the resettled communities, USAID should work with Government, Office of the Prime Minister, and other development partners in the region to consolidate the infra-structural development for sustained peace. The Akimorikin project has generated resolutions and agreements from the peace dialogues which propose infrastructure projects as part of reconciliation and moving forward in peace together. Resolutions and agreements from peace dialogues highlighted in project documents will richly guide decisions. 5. Continuing the Akimorikin Project or “Akimorikin approach” that targeted strengthening the capacity of formal and informal peace structures, especially the SCSCs, to widen and deepen coverage across the region. Akimorikin has demonstrated value in the “people to people” approach through strengthening formal government structures and linkages to communities rather than focusing only on the informal peace structures of the peace committees. The impact however is limited since only 19 of 61 (38%) sub counties in the region were reached in the two year project. The capacities of the formal sub county peace structures in other sub counties of the region must be brought near to the same level for sustained peace gains. 6. Advocacy to amend the National Security Councils Act (2000) to provide for expanded women representation at SCSC. Expanding women representation at the SCSC would increase women participation security matter, but also form basis and point entry of women participation in leadership positions at the lower local government level others 30 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 7. USAID should demonstrate more coordination and synergism with other partners in tackling peace and security interventions for Karamoja as a region. To date, USAID partners have operated in particular districts rather than the region as a whole. For example, assistance in Kaabong district is associated with Mercy Corps, rather than IRC who did not implement any of their last 3 activities in this district. Coordinated operations are required to harmonize the advancement of peace for the whole region rather than just in some districts of Karamoja. 8. The government and Uganda’s development partners should address key emerging development concerns in Karamoja as a priority. Emerging concerns like increasing need for pasture and water for animals, land and land rights for agriculture and resettlement, education for children, livelihood options for youth and ‘reformed warriors’ previously engaged in cattle raids, and increasing HIV/AIDS in the Karamoja region and challenges that require urgent attention. These emerging developments have been brought about by increased migration, urbanization, reduced violence and redundancy. In addressing these concerns, a People to People approach, DNH, and deep women’s participation principles must be continually embraced. USAID and other development partners should endeavor to integrate their plans with government-developed plans aimed at improving capacities of people in Karamoja to sustainably address their own livelihoods - including food security and economic development - over the next 5 -10 years. This would be a superior approach to waiting for support from donors in the wake of food insecurity and crises in the absence of economic development. 9. Development partners and government programs addressing emerging socio￾development issues in Karamoja, should integrate and use SASA! Activists in their program activities. The group of trained activists from WBP are available and interested in supporting other social changes across the region; they are thus an asset that can be productively deployed as part of supporting social change in the region. For example, the Department of Community Services and Ministry of Gender should consider strengthening the capacities of SASA! Activists and working with them to address unequal gender relations in communities, especially to counter domestic violence through counselling. Linking SASA! Activists to local government initiatives at community and sub-county level, where they can continue to play an important role in sensitising communities, is a promising approach worthy of replication. 10. USAID should revise the SPO1 performance indicators specified in the CDCS for “peace and security in Karamoja improved.” Measuring Nutrition status, the percentage of population below the poverty line, and the incidence of conflict by type were not appropriate indicators to measure peace and security improved. There is need to design more robust indicators within the context of the changing terrain for peace, security and development in Karamoja. At all levels, projects and activities need to ensure that there are measurements for both strategic policy engagements and programmatic achievements. USAID should outline key policy indicators to measure policy engagements aimed at enlisting GoU and local authorities (as well as other development partners) in addressing the long term structural development needed for conflict resolution, reconciliation and support for livelihoods across the region. 31 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ANNEXES ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK USAID Scope of Work Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Statement of Work 1.0 Background Karamoja region is characterized by poverty, underdevelopment, and intermittent violent conflict. Violence in Karamoja takes several forms including but not limited to cattle raiding, inter-communal fighting, sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) and competition over water and pasture. Although the security environment in Karamoja has improved in recent years, paving the way for increased development in the region, violence persists. Social norms in Karamoja tend to undermine women’s participation in public life; domestic violence and a male monopoly over decision-making still prevail. Through funding from USAID’s Office of Conflict Mitigation and Management (CMM), USAID/Uganda supported two conflict mitigation and reconciliation activities implemented by IRC and its partners in Karamoja – Women Building Peace (WBP) and Akimorikin12. These activities were aligned with USAID/Uganda Special Strategic Objective (SPO) on peace and security in the 2011-2015 Country Development Cooperative Strategy (CDCS). Women Building Peace WBP cost $1.4M across a program period of 42 months, starting in September 2010 and ending in March 2014. Men rather than women have long been the powerbrokers in Karamoja region. In light of the impact of violence on women’s rights and the unequal power relations between men and women the goal of this activity was to build the capacity of women to effectively participate in peacebuilding in Karamoja’s Moroto and Napak districts. WBP was implemented through a partnership between IRC, Karamoja Women’s Umbrella Organization (KAWUO) and Raising Voices. The activity used Start Awareness Support Action (SASA), a behavior change methodology designed to counter power inequities between the genders. WBP had two specific outcomes: a) Individual and group reflection and action to mitigate violence and discrimination in the household and community; and b) Enhanced participation of women in promoting peace within committees. Akimorikin Akimorikin was designed to reach 913,000 beneficiaries in the districts of Kotido, Moroto, Napak, Amudat, and Nakapiripirit. Implemented by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) as USAID/Uganda’s primary partner, in collaboration with local partners Riamiriam and OCODI, the activity cost $1.2m over a program period of 24 months. The program started in March 2013 and will run to March 2015. The central goal of Akimorikin was to reduce the likelihood of violence in Karamoja by strengthening capacity and cooperation of local institutions and promoting healthy relations between conflicting communities. The specific objectives of the activity were: a) Strengthening the capacity and cooperation of local institutions to identify and respond to conflict; and b) Strengthening relationships among conflicting communities. 12 Akimorikin means ‘coming together’ in the Ng’ Karimojong language 32 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja The theories of change for the activity were: By increasing the capacity of and cooperation among local institutions to identify and address conflict, Early Warning, Early Response Systems will be enhanced, thereby creating tangible disincentives for people to engage cattle raids and attendant violence acts. If communities with a history of conflict have a common understanding of local conflict dynamics and its potential negative impact, then those communities can constructively engage to address conflict dynamics, better understand and appreciate each other’s perspectives, and strengthen relationships and the will to peacefully resolve conflicts. 2.0 Purpose of the Evaluation The purpose of the proposed evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja is to: a) Assess the outcomes of the two activities, as well as the different implementation approaches contributing to those outcomes; b) Document the extent to which the two activities have contributed to changes (if any) in the conflict dynamics and gender relations in Karamoja; and c) Identify elements within the changing context in Karamoja likely to affect and/or inform future conflict programming. This Statement of Work (SOW) provides guidance for a performance evaluation of two USAID/Uganda projects funded through CMM and implemented in Karamoja. USAID/Uganda and its partners are interested in learning what worked and why. In the process, we expect to gain significant insight into what did not work during the implementation and design of the two activities. This information will provide useful lessons when designing future conflict activities as well as provide strategic guidance as the Mission rethinks its engagement in Karamoja. USAID/Uganda’s five-year CDCS 2011-2015 includes a Special Objective (SPO) on Karamoja that emphasizes strengthening peace and security structures in the region, in addition to improving infrastructure and livelihoods. The CDCS aligns with the Government of Uganda’s Karamoja Integrated Development Plan; it’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan for Northern Uganda; and other development partner initiatives in the region. The evaluation should take into account provisions of the CDCS, especially the Special Objective. The activities contributed to the two standard indicators: a) Number of new groups or initiatives created through USG funding, dedicated to resolving the conflict or the drivers of conflict; and b) Number of local women participating in a substantive role or position in a peace-building process supported with USG assistance. Conditions in Karamoja have changed significantly since 2011. With an improved overall security situation, farming has emerged as an alternative to pastoralism, not to mention other alternative sources of income. All three changes may have ramifications for future programing in Karamoja and beyond. 3.0 Key Evaluation Questions a) How has the involvement of women in peacebuilding activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations? b) To what extent did the projects strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? c) How responsive were the two activities to the conflict dynamics, i.e. did they adapt to emerging socio-economic and political developments in Karamoja during the program period? 33 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja d) Is there evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable beyond the program period? e) What lessons can USAID/Uganda and its partners learn from the implementation of the two activities in Karamoja? 4.0 Literature Review A partial list of the documents to be reviewed includes:  Original Annual Program Statement (APS)  WBP and Akimorikin baseline reports  Program applications for the WBP and Akimorikin agreements  Cooperative Agreements and amendments, if any  Annual and quarterly reports  Annual work plans, results frameworks, and performance monitoring plans  Mid-term review reports  WBP End-line Survey Report 5.0 Evaluation Methodology The evaluation team is expected to employ quantitative and qualitative methodologies in its evaluation. The team will develop and share their detailed methodology with the Democracy, Human Rights and Governance section of USAID/Uganda (DRG) and select partners for approval before commencing fieldwork. The proposed methodology should demonstrate the consultants’ understanding of the level of complexity of such an evaluation and how it will be addressed. With regard to data quality, the evaluation team is expected to be familiar with USAID data quality standards for objectivity, validity, reliability, precision, utility and integrity and be able to apply them in the final report, by identifying such data limitations as may exist with respect to these standards. The methodology should explicitly state the sampling procedures for identifying survey respondents to be interviewed for the evaluation, including program beneficiaries, –as well other categories of persons –community leaders and women’s group leaders that did and did not participate in the programs, program staff, local government leaders, relevant USAID Mission staff and other donors. The methodology should outline the sampling frame for activity sites to be visited by the evaluation team. In designing the evaluation methodology, where possible the consultants will take into consideration sample size, sampling framework, and activity sites visited by the baseline, mid-term review for the two activities, and the WBP end-line survey in order to enable comparison of data and trend analysis. The evaluation team will ensure gender sensitivity and disaggregation of data where possible. Given that WBP closed in March 2014, the team should specify how they will address recall/response/reporting bias in the evaluation methodology. The consultants should also put forward a detailed plan for how the evaluation team skills set structure will handle sensitive questions and approaches in activity sites to be visited. 6.0 Deliverables The evaluation team is expected to deliver the following outputs: Deliverables Due date 1. In-Briefing: Introduction of the evaluation team and discussion of the scope of work and other emerging issues that may affect the evaluation. Please refer to Consultants SOW (Annex 1) 2. Draft and present an Inception Report to be reviewed by USAID and select partners. The report will include: The evaluation team’s interpretation of the key Within 4 working days after the in-brief 34 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja evaluation questions and their approach to how each question will be addressed. The Consultant shall attach a completed evaluation design matrix using the template attached as Annex 1 of USAID SOW  Methodology including sampling/selection procedures for key informants, beneficiaries, and project sites to be visited  A detailed work plan showing a timeline for each evaluation activity to be undertaken, including the field work and allocation of expertise efforts  Detailed analysis plan/map for each of the evaluation questions  Draft instruments for data collection 3. Draft and present to USAID and selected partners a detailed Desk Review of secondary data Within 4 days after in￾brief 4. Field work and interviews conducted in Karamoja 10 work days 5. Present preliminary findings from fieldwork, to USAID and select partners Within 2 working days after completion of fieldwork 6. Draft and submit a Draft Evaluation Report for review by USAID and select partners. The draft report should comply with the USAID/Uganda Evaluation Report standards set out in Annex 2. The draft report is expected within 1 working day after the oral presentation Within 6 working days after presentation of preliminary findings 7. Final Evaluation Report: Draft and submit a Final Evaluation Report incorporating comments from USAID and other stakeholders.  The Final Evaluation Report should be cleared by the DRG director (or in his absence, the acting director and PPDO) before submission to the DEC.  The final report should be a maximum of 25 pages of text in body of the report (excluding the executive summary, table of contents, glossaries, and annexes), provided in 4 hard copies and 1 electronic copy.  This final draft report will also include a 2-4 page briefer that highlights the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations presented in an attractive and easy to understand format for the wider public use. Within 5 working days after receipt of comments from USAID and select partners 7.0 Team Composition The evaluation team will comprise, at a minimum, a Team Leader and two National Experts –one must be a gender expert. 8.0 Institutional Relationship and Reporting  Whereas the consultants will be supervised by the QED Group LLC in their daily work, they will be answerable to DRG for all deliverables  DRG will review and approve all deliverables produced by the consultants for this evaluation 9.0 Roles and Responsibilities Uganda Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning program (QED Group LLC will be responsible for the evaluation by ensuring the recruitment and management of a competent team of consultants to execute the assignment in strict compliance with USAID standards and contracting requirements. QED Group LLC will be responsible for the day-to-day management of the consultants and quality assurance of all products and deliverables before they are submitted to USAID. This shall involve:  Review of USAID’s SOW and provision of comments especially on the clarity of the tasks and allocation of efforts  Procure and supervise the consultants  Review consultants’ work, especially key deliverables, to ensure they respond to the SOW and meet USAID quality standards 35 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja  Facilitate and supervise fieldwork  Provide office space, assistance with logistics, and requirements as required by the consultants while conducting the evaluation  Submit a copy of the duly approved Final Evaluation Report to the Development Experience Clearing House (DEC) USAID’s roles and responsibilities include:  Review and approval of the SOW and all deliverables from the consultants  Provide recommendations to and clearance on selected evaluators for this assignment  Convene USAID, IRC, and other relevant stakeholders to review evaluation reports and discuss emerging lessons and their implications for existing and future programs IRC’s roles and responsibilities are to:  Provide input in the design of the evaluation  Review SOW and draft evaluation reports  Provide relevant documents as needed  Provide logistical support for the evaluation team, including office space, assistance with setting up meetings and interviews, and providing a vehicle for fieldwork  Advise the consultants on identifying translators 10. Schedule and Logistics Team members will be expected to spend approximately 26 days overall on the evaluation. Illustrative Level of Effort in Days No. Activity Team Leader Number of Days Local Experts Number of Days 1. In-brief 1 1 2. Preparation and presentation of inception report, including draft tool 4 3 4. Desk review, finalization of tool, and presentation 4 3 5. Field work and interviews, including travel time 10 10 6. In-brief to USAID and select partners about preliminary findings 1 1 7. Draft and submit a Draft Report for review by USAID and select partners. 5 1 8 Draft and submit a Final Report and an evaluation brief incorporating the comments of USAID and select partners 5 5 9. International travel 4 0 Total 34 24 36 Annex 1b: ILLUSTRATIVE EVALUATION DESIGN MATRIX13 Evaluation Question Sub-question (will help you answer the key evaluation question) Indicator/Performan ce Measure (both quantitative measures and quantitative statements) – how do we deal with those things that we do not know yet but will learn from the evaluation? Data Source (primary and or secondary) Data Collection Tool Data Analysis Plan Evaluation Question 1 Evaluation Question 2 Evaluation Question 3 13 This framework is facilitative, and should not be constraining 37 ANNEX 1c: CRITERIA TO CHECK THE QUALITY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT  The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not, and why  Evaluation reports will address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work  The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology, or timeline must be agreed upon in writing by the DRG technical officer  Evaluation methodology will be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, protocols and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the Final Report  Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females as well as youth (defined as under 30) vis-à-vis adult participants  The report should employ graphics, visual data, statistics, and other means that increase the readability and concision of the evaluation  Limitations to the evaluation will be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.)  Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data, not based on anecdotes, hearsay, conjecture, or compilations of opinion. Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence  Sources of information must be properly identified and listed in an annex  Recommendations must be supported by a set of specific findings  Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action  The report should be written in proper U.S. English, including correct grammar, absence of typographical errors, and written in a clear and concise active voice. 38 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ANNEX 2: EVALUATION INSTRUMENTS 2a) DOCUMENT REVIEW PROTOCOL AND QUESTIONS In reading and analyzing project reporting and other documents from WBP and Akimorikin, the team focused on assertions and finding supportive evidence (or the absence of evidence) on the areas below from the five key evaluation questions. Note reported activities, qualitative and quantitative outputs and outcomes, and reported causal relationships. Reading and analysis will focus on the five key evaluation questions from the SOW, and the variables and relationships embedded in them. Note in analysis when change over time is supported by evidence that is connected to project activities. Note in analysis when comparisons across communities is supported by evidence that is connected to project activities. 1. How has the involvement of women in peacebuilding activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations? The Projects’ Engagement with Women Involvement of Women in Peacebuilding Activities Changed Social Perceptions 2. To what extent did the projects strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? Capacity Strengthening Activities of the Projects Capacity of Local Peace Actors to Respond to Conflict Capacity of Local Peace Actors to Prevent Conflict Capacity of Local Peace Actors to Manage Conflict Capacity of Local Peace Actors to Promote Reconciliation 3. How responsive were the two activities to the conflict dynamics, i.e. did they adapt to emerging socio-economic and political developments in Karamoja during the program period? Conflict Dynamics, Socio-economic Changes, and Political Developments in Implementation Period Responsiveness of the Projects to Developments in Karamoja 4. Is there evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable beyond the program period? Sustainability to Date Evidence Suggestive of Future Sustainability 5. What lessons can USAID/Uganda and its partners learn from the implementation of the two activities in Karamoja? Lessons’ Learned Identified Explicitly Possible Lesson’s Learned Identified by Team 39 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2b) FOCUS GROUP AND KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW INTRODUCTION [The introduction and consent note to introduce the team, the evaluation, and methods to participants in the evaluation was used to gather the explicit consent of participants in participating in the evaluation. The introduction was first be discussed with the IRC and its partners to ensure that the Team asks about project activities using the words that were used by the implementing partners. The introduction was tested in Ruba sub-country of Moroto on the first day of fieldwork and determined not to need revision. The Team or survey enumerators recited the introduction and consent note to all prospective focus group discussion participants, key informant interviewees, and mini-survey participants.] Introduction and Consent Note Thank you for talking with us today. We are an independent team conducting a review of the conflict programs implemented across Karamoja by the IRC and its partners over the last four and a half years since September 2010. The goal of the review is to learn about what has been accomplished in the region by the programs, what has worked well, and what has not worked as well. The information collected today will only be used for the review. We will not use this information in a way that identifies you as an individual or your specific community in the report. We would also like to clarify that this interview is entirely voluntary and that you have the right to withdraw from interview at any point without consequence. Are you willing to participate in this study? [Ensure that participant(s) verbally or non-verbally assent to participation] Do you have any questions for us before we begin with a short list of questions to learn about the ways that conflict and addressing conflicts affects you and your community - and your knowledge and experience with these projects and their activities? 40 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2c) FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS District_________________________ S/C____________________________ Parish _________________________ Interviewer ______________________ Date/Time ___________________ 1. What activities have you been involved in relating to Peace Building through these IRC projects? Tell us about the positive experiences resulting from your involvement in these activities. (Solicit separate experiences from men and from women) Men’s positive experiences Women’s positive experiences Tell us about any negative experiences resulting from your involvement in these activities. (Solicit separate experiences from men and from women) Men’s negative experiences Women’s negative experiences 2. Since the introduction of the IRC projects (WBP) and Akimorikin, what has changed concerning the way men and women relate to each other in your community here? (Since the introduction of WBP) (Since introduction of Akimorikin) 3. Has the involvement of women in the Peace Processes since brought any changes (positive or negative) to Peace processes in your sub-county? What are these positive changes? What are the negative changes? Positive Negative 4. Do you believe that your community is better prepared to prevent and respond to conflict now? 5. What makes your community better prepared now? Please explain. 6. What are most important issues affecting your community now? 7. How can you be helped? 8. [question for WBP only] What activities have you managed to continue doing since the project ended in March 2014? 9. [Question for WBP only]. What are the main challenges you have faced since then? 41 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2d) KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW QUESTIONS GoU Officials and Implementer Staff Members District____________ S/C ____________ Position __________ Organization ________ Interviewer ______________________ Date/Time __________________ 1. What IRC project activities do you know of? What activities have you been involved with in these IRC projects? 2. How have the IRC projects increased the capacity of local peace actors to respond to conflict? 3. How have the IRC projects increased the capacity of local peace actors to prevent conflict? 4. How have the IRC projects increased the capacity of local peace actors to manage conflict? 5. How have the IRC projects increased the capacity of local peace actors to promote reconciliation? 6. With changes in Karamoja over the past few years, have the IRC projects changed to address these changing realities? What changes in your District/Sub-County/Parish have led to what kinds of changes in IRC support to you? 7. Do you think the activities supported by the IRCs project will live on after the project? What evidence makes you think this is the case? 8. What do you think has worked well in the implementation of the IRC projects? Why has this gone well? 9. What do you think has not worked as well in the IRC’s project implementation? Why has implementation had these problems? 10. Have - and how have - the IRC activities changed the perceptions of women’s roles and gender relations among leaders in your area? 11. Have - and how have - the IRC the activities changed perceptions within the community of women’s roles and gender relations? 42 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2e) Clan heads, Community Leaders, Elders, Kraal leaders District____________ S/C ____________ Position __________ Organization ________ Interviewer ______________________ Date/Time __________________ 1. What activities have you been involved in relating to Peace Building? 2. Which of those activities were specifically introduced in the last 2 years for Akimorikin and last 3 ½ years for WBP? 3. Tell us about the positive experiences resulting from your involvement in these activities. (solicit for separate experiences from men and from women) Men’s positive experiences Women’s positive experiences 4. What negative experiences have you had regarding the programs? Men’s Negative experiences Women’s Negative experiences 5. Have you been trained in gender and conflict dynamics under the Akimorikin or WBP project? 6. What do you do differently now as a result of the above training? Type of training What do you do differently? Gender (SASA) Conflict dynamics Early warning Early response 7. Were women also involved in these activities? 8. If Yes, in which of the following activities did they participate? i) Training ii) Counselling iii) Peace Dialogues iv) Other mention 9. Which of the following arrangements were adopted during the above gatherings? i) Women and Men sitting together to discuss ii) Women and Men sitting separately iii) Women were given equal opportunity to speak iv) Women were given opportunity to chair joint meetings v) Others 10. Is any of the above arrangements against the Karimojong cultural beliefs/practices? If Yes, which one(s)? 11. Do you think the involvement of women in Peace Building activities has changed the way men think about or relate with women? If yes, how? 12. Do you think the involvement of women in Peace Building activities has changed the way women think about ( relate to ) men 13. Has the involvement of women brought any changes (positive or negative) to the Peace process? 14. If a girl is experiencing violence in your community, what would you do? 15. How would you help a man who has been violent to his wife and children? 16. In what way has the IRC (Akimorikin/WBP) supported your community to a) Prevent and respond to conflict? b) Promote reconciliation? On a scale of 1 -5 , (Not satisfied (1), fairly satisfied (2) , satisfied(3), very Satisfied(4) , Totally satisfied(5 ), answer the following questions by ticking one answer that applies. Question (Link question to Akimorikin project ) Not at all satisfied (1) A little Satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Absolutely satisfied 1. My Community is better prepared to prevent conflicts How? 2. My Community is better prepared to respond to conflicts 43 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja How? 3. The Peace committees are better prepared to respond to conflict How? 4. We are now able to plan together to address security and conflict mitigation issues with the sub county security persons 16. What are the Peace actors doing differently since the projects were introduced? Section to be answered by Men only. For each statement, tick only one answer (For Women only) Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree My wife taking up a leadership role My wife taking off time to attend monthly meetings if she has to Men sharing domestic chores with women I don’t have a problem sharing household chores A women experiencing domestic violence speaking out to a Man’s family LC representative Cultural leader Religious leader A man always helping out with domestic chores My wife sitting together with men to discuss peace issues in a Peace committee gathering My wife being elected to chair a peace meeting is acceptable Statement Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree My husband supports me to take up a leadership roles in my community My husband allows me to attend meetings regularly I believe men should share in domestic chores with women My husband does not have a problem sharing household chores A woman experiencing domestic violence should speak out to a Man’s family LC rep Cultural leader Religious leader My husband allows me to sit together with men to discuss peace issues in a Peace committee gathering My husband would be allow me if I were elected to chair a peace meeting. 44 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2f) SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE [Read Introduction and Consent Note] SECTION ONE: PERSONAL INFORMATION 1. District: 2. Sub-county: 3. Parish 4. Sex: 1. Female 2. Male 5. Age: 5.1 18 - 35 5.2 36 - 50 5.3 50 – 70 Interviewer’s Initials: Date: Time: SECTION TWO : Social Perceptions of women’s roles and Gender Relations In this section, there are statements which I am going to read to you; please will tell me your views by answering “Yes” or “No” Statement Reponses 6. I know about peace activities implemented in my sub-county by IRC/KAWUO 1. Yes 2 . No 7. I participated in: WBP (SASA!) only, SASA! and Akimorikin, Akimorikin only or I did not participate in any of the projects 1. Gender (SASA!) 2. Akimorikin 3. Gender (SASA!) and Akimorikin 4. None 8. If participated in gender (SASA! only, or SASA! and Akimorikin) ask questions 9. Do you think that a woman should tolerate violence from her partner to keep her family together? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not know 10.Do you think that women are sometimes to blame for the violence their partners use against them? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 11.If a married woman has been beaten by her husband, is it okay for her to tell others? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 12.In your opinion, does a husband have a right to beat his wife when he is angry with her? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 13.Do you think it is strange for a married man if his friends see him regularly washing dishes at home? 14.Is it acceptable for a married woman to ask her husband to use a condom? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 15.In your opinion, can a married woman refuse to have sex with her husband if she doesn’t feel like it? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 16. Is it acceptable for a woman in your community to get involved in peace building activities? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 17. Does it cause problems in the community when men and women in a family make decisions together? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Not sure 18. In the last 12 months, have you heard or known of a neighbor who was beating his wife? 1. Yes 2. No 19.If yes, what did you do? 1. Intervened 45 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2. Reported to LCs or other 3. Did nothing 20.In the last 12 months, have you told a local leader about domestic violence happening in a family or families you know in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 21.If No to question 20, why didn’t you? 1. Not bothered 2. Not my responsibility 3. Did want to interfere 22.In the last 12 months, have you spoken out about violence against women to others in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 23.Do you regularly do things that are typically thought of as men’s/women’s role? 1. Yes 2. No 24.In the last 12 months, have you made some key decisions about your family with your spouse? 1. Yes 2. No 25.In the last 12 months, have you had an argument/misunderstanding with your spouse? 1. Yes 2. No 26.If yes, how did you resolve it? 3. 27.In the last 12 months have you seen people in your community taking action to prevent violence against women/girls or children? 1. Yes 2. No 28.Have you seen any SASA! Materials? (e.g., poster, mural, t-shirt, comics, film? etc) 1. Yes 2. No 29.Do you know anyone from your community who talks about SASA!? 1. Yes 2. No 30.Do you feel confident in talking with other community members about the importance of involving women in peace building? 1. Yes 2. No 31. Every activity that men do, even women can do Agree b) disagree c) sometimes d) not sure 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 32.In our communities, it is allowed for women to have equal say with men in peace negotiation a) Agree b) Disagree c) not sure d) Don’t know 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 33. In our communities, it is allowed for women to have equal say with men in peace negotiation a) Agree b) Disagree c) not sure d) Don’t know 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 34.It is important that we don’t empower women because they will stop respecting their husbands a) Agree b) Disagree c) not sure d) Don’t know 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 35.It is important that we don’t empower women because they will stop respecting their husbands 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree SECTION THREE – strengthened capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja 36.Have you heard about the SCSC? Yes /No 1. YES 2. No 37.Are you satisfied with the way and how often you interact with SCSC? Yes /No If yes A) satisfied b) a little satisfied c) very satisfied 1. Very satisfied 2. Satisfied 3. A little satisfied 4. Not satisfied at all 46 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 38.Have there been any activities to discuss resources between you and your neighbors in the last 6 months? Yes /No 1. Yes 2. No 39.Which of these key resources do you share in your area with your neighbors 1. Water Points 2. Communal grazing land 3. Cross Boarder Markets 4. Joint settlement 40.For the resources that you share, do you know whether there were written-down formal agreements? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not know 41.In the last 12 months , have there been any conflicts in your area between clans 1. Yes 2. No 3. Do not remember 42.If yes to question above, how did your community respond? 1. Followed/fought with enemy 2. Reported the conflict 43. When people raid cattle and kill others, it is obvious that they have abused other people’s human rights. 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 5. Not sure 44.Whenever there is a raid in your area, it is better to report directly to DISO since he is in charge 1. Strongly Agree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Strongly Disagree 5. Not sure 47 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 2g) STRUCTURED OBSERVATION PROTOCOL Structured observation took advantage of the presence of the Evaluation Team at project sites to observe structures, patters, and behaviors in the community. Structured refers to the systematic methods of observing used in viewing communities and individuals to ensure that both valid and reliable data are collected across members of the Evaluation Team. Structured Observation focused on a subset of the five key evaluation questions from the SOW, and the variables and relationships embedded in them. 1. How has the involvement of women in peacebuilding activities in Karamoja changed social perception of women’s roles and gender relations? Is there physical evidence visible of the projects’ engagement with women? Is there physical evidence visible about the involvement of women in peacebuilding activities? Is there physical evidence for changed social roles of women and gender relations in the community that can be seen? 2. To what extent did the projects strengthen the capacity of local peace actors, to respond, prevent and manage conflict, as well as promote reconciliation in Karamoja? Does there seem to be evidence of peacebuilding structures physically present in the community? Is there physical evidence of recent conflict in the community? Is there physical evidence of the capacity strengthening activities of the Projects? Is there physical evidence of the capacity of local peace actors to respond to conflict, such as early warning and early response posters and meetings? Is there physical evidence of the capacity of local peace actors to prevent conflict such as the connections between the community and police, military, or security forces in the community? Is there physical evidence for local peace actors’ capacity to manage conflict, such as peace intervention preparation? Is there physical evidence of local peace actors’ capacity to promote reconciliation in the community? 3. Is there evidence that specific elements of the two activities are sustainable beyond the program period? Is there evidence that connections built or encouraged by the projects continue that can be seen? Are project-provided materials still physically present in communities? 48 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ANNEX 3: BIBLIOGRAPHY Adan, Mohamud, and Ruto Pkalya .2006. “A Snapshot Analysis of the Concept Peace Committee in Relation to Peacebuilding Initiatives in Kenya.” Practical Action. http://practicalaction.org/concept-peace-committee Adan and Ruto. 2006. “The Concept Peace Committee: A Snapshot Analysis of the Concept Peace Committee in Relation to Peacebuilding Initiatives in Kenya. Practical Action. http://practicalaction.org/docs/region_east_africa/peace_committtee_analysis.pdf Avery, Sean. 2014. “Water, Development, and Irrigation in Karamoja, Uganda.” DanChurchAid. Azuba, Rose. 2014. “Mid-Term Evaluation of Akimorikin.” Moroto: IRC. USAID Reports, Kampala Uganda Barkan, Joel. D. 2011. “Uganda: Assessing Risks to Stability.” Center for Strategic and International Studies. http://csis.org/files/publication/110623_Barkan_Uganda_Web.pdf Bevan, James. 2008. ‘Crisis in Karamoja: Armed Violence and the Failure of Disarmament in Uganda’s Most Deprived Region’. An Occasional Paper of the Small Arms Survey. Geneva: Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. Carlson k., Proctor k., Stites e., & Akabwai. “Tradition in Transition: Customary Authority in Karamoja, Uganda.” Feinstein International Center . October 2012. Center for Conflict Resolution (CECORE). 2011. Preventing Conflict in Karamoja: Early Warning, Security and Development. Nairobi. http://cecore.or.ug/wp￾content/downloads/Preventing%20Conflict%20in%20Karamoja.pdf Czuba, Karol. 2011. Governing the Karimojong: Tradition, Modernity and Power in Contemporary Karamoja. BRAC. http://www.academia.edu/1438900/Governing_the_Karimojong_Tradition_Modernity_and_Pow er_in_Contemporary_Karamoja Danish Demining Group (DDG) and Danish Refugee Council. 2012. “Impact Monitoring Report, Armed Violence Reduction: Improving Safety in Karamoja Impact assessment - October 2012. Copenhagen: DDG. https://drc.dk/about￾drc/publications/reports/?eID=dam_frontend_push&docID=14190 Deschacht, Tine. 2013. The impact of VSF-Belgium’s interventions on conflict in Karamoja A research on conflict and peace. A study by Tine Deschacht.” Vétérinaires Sans Frontières (VSF)- Field office, Moroto. http://www.celep.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/2013-VSF-B-conflict-in￾Karamoja.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2014. “FAO/GIEWS Livestock and Market Assessment to Karamajog Region of Uganda.” FAO. Gelsdorf, Kirsten, Daniel Maxwell and Dyan Mazurana. August 2012. “Livelihoods, basic services and social protection in Northern Uganda and Karamoja.” Overseas Development Institute. http://www.odi.org/publications/6755-livelihoods-basic-services-social-protection-northern￾uganda-karamoja GoU. 2009. “Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Plan (KIDDP).” Kampala: GoU. Human Rights Watch (HRW). 2014. “’How Can We Survive Here.’ The Impact of Mining on Human Rights in Karamoja.” Kampala: HRW. HRW. 2007. “’Get the Gun!’: Human Rights Violations by Uganda’s National Army in Law Enforcement Operations in Karamoja Region.” Volume 19, No. 13 (A), September. Institute for Security Studies. 2009. Cattle Rustling: A Leadership Crisis. 21 September 2009 http://www.issafrica.org/iss-today/cattle-rustling-a-leadership-crisis International Rescue Committee (IRC). Akimorikin documents IRC. Women Building Peace documents IRC. March 2014. Women Building Peace (WBP): Endline Survey Report.” Moroto: IRC. 49 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja IRC. December 2011. “SASA! Baseline Survey Report 2011: Moroto and Napak Districts, Karamoja, Uganda. Moroto: IRC. IRC. November 2011. “Gender and Conflict Analysis in Moroto and Napak Districts, Karamoja Sub￾Region.” Moroto: IRC. IRC. 2010. “Empowering Civil Society for Conflict Prevention and Resolution, Cooperative Agreement 617-A-00-06-00010-00, Final report, For the period October 1, 2006 to May 31, 2010.” Washington: USAID. http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACS726.pdf Karamoja Action Research Team. 2014. “Strength, Creativitity, and Livelihoods of Karimojong Youth.” Institute of Development Studies. Karamoja Action Research Team and Scott-Villiers, P. 2012. “Ekoi and Etem in Karamoja - A Study of Decision-making in a Post-conflict Society.” Institute of Development Studies. http://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/123456789/3198/Ekoi%20and%20Etem%20i n%20Karamoja%20sm.pdf;jsessionid=61DB27A2140D6F1039C828B2AB96D96F?sequence=1 Kingma, Kees, Frank Muhereza, Ryan Murray, Matthias Nowak, and Lilu Thapa. 2012. “Security Provision and Small Arms in Karamoja: A Survey of Perceptions.” Copenhagen: Danish Demining Group. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/C-Special-reports/SAS-SR17- Karamoja.pdf Krätli, Saverio, and Jeremy Swift. 1999. “Understanding and Managing Pastoral Conflict in Kenya: A Literature Review.” Sussex: IDS. http://www.eldis.org/fulltext/pastconf.pdf Lochhead, David, and Rose Azuba, Rose. 2010. “Evaluation of the ‘Building Sustainable Peace and Development Project in Karamoja.’” Kampala: UNDP. http://www.undp.org/content/dam/undp/documents/projects/UGA/00041294_Karamoja%20Final %20Project%20Evaluation%20Report.doc Menkhaus, Ken. 2008. “The rise of a mediated state in northern Kenya: the Wajir story and its implications for state-building.” Afrika focus, Volume 21, No. 2. http://www.wajir.org/rapporten/Ken%20Menkhaus%20- %20rapport%20over%20opbouw%20vrede%20in%20Wajir.pdf Mercy Corps. 2013. The Conflict Management System in Karamoja: An assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Washington: Mercy Corps. Midling, Michael, Bukuluki, Paul, Ipsos, Ltd. 2014. Ex-post performance evaluation of USAID assistance to northern Uganda: 2006-2011. International Business and Technical Consultants, Inc. (IBTCI). http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pa00k45n.pdf Ministry for Karamoja Affairs. 2011. “Karamoja Integrated Development Programme.” GoU. Muhereza, Frank Emmanuel. 2000. “Drivers of Conflict in Karamoja: An Analysis of Factors Fuelling the Continuing Conflict.” Center for Basic Research/Oxfam. Oloka-Onyango, Joe, Gariyo Zie, and Frank Muhereza. 1993. “Pastoralism, Crisis, and Transformation in Karamoja.” International Institute for Environment and Development/Dryland Networks. Pkalya, Ruto, Mohamud Adan, and Isabella Masinde. 2003. Conflict in Northern Kenya: A Focus on the Internally Displaced Conflict Victims in Northern Kenya. Nairobi: Intermediate Technology Development Group-East Africa (ITDG-EA). http://practicalaction.org/docs/region_east_africa/conflict_in_northern_kenya.pdf Powell, Joe. 2010. “Karamoja: A literature review.” London: Saferworld. http://www.saferworld.org.uk/Karamoja%20A%20literature%20review.pdf Ruto, Pkalya Mohamud Adan Isabella Masinde. 2004. “Indigenous Democracy: Traditional Conflict Resolution Mechanisms - Pokot, Turkana, Samburu and Marakwet. ITDG-EA. http://practicalaction.org/docs/region_east_africa/indigenous_democracy.pdf 50 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja Safeworld ,2010 ‘Karamoja Conflict and Security Assessment (2010’ ) Saferworld. 2012. “Tracking key conflict and security dynamics in Karamoja – an update.” London: Saferworld. http://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/Uganda%20PPP%20report.pdf Saferworld. 2010. “Karamoja conflict and security assessment.” London: Saferworld. http://www.saferworld.org.uk/downloads/pubdocs/Karamoja%20conflict%20and%20security%20a ssessment.pdf Schilling, Janpeter, et. al. 2015. “On arms and adaptation: Climate change and pastoral conflict in Northern Kenya.” University of Hamburg, Research Group Climate Change and Security Working Paper CLISEC-15. http://clisec.zmaw.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fks/publications/working￾papers/Working_paper_CLISEC-15.pdf Schilling, Janpeter. 2012. “Raiding the Future – Impacts of Violent Livestock Theft on Development and an Evaluation of Conflict Mitigation Approaches in Northwestern Kenya.” Washington: United States Institute of Peace. http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/files/case-study￾competition/20130322-Raiding-the-Future.pdf Small Arms Survey (SAS). 2007. “Small Arms Issue Brief: Responses to pastoral wars: A review of violence reduction efforts in Sudan, Uganda, and Kenya.” Geneva: SAS. http://mercury.ethz.ch/serviceengine/Files/ISN/55162/ipublicationdocument_singledocument/d85 27099-8bfe-426c-8dc9-499e4a1e50a8/en/SIB_8.pdf Stites Elizabeth, Darlington Akabwai, Dyan Mazurana and Priscillar Ateyo. 2007. “Angering Akujů: Survival and Suffering in Karamoja - A Report on Livelihoods and Human Security in the Karamoja Region of Uganda. Feinstein International Center. Tshimba, David-Ngendo. 2013. “‘Our’ Cows Do Matter: Arguing for Human and Livestock Security among Pastoralist Communities in the Karamoja Cluster of the Greater Horn of Africa.” IHL Paper Series, Vol.1 No.1 Sept. https://www.academia.edu/6862916/Our_Cows_Do_Matter_Arguing_for_Human_and_Livestoc k_Security_among_Pastoralist_Communities_in_the_Karamoja_Cluster_of_the_Greater_Horn _of_Africa_Introduction United Nations Development Programme. 2012. “Human Security: A Thematic Guidance Note for Regional and National Human Development Report Teams. UNDP. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/human_security_guidance_note_r-nhdrs.pdf USAID. 2011. “People to People Peacebuilding: A Program Guide.” Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation. http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/CMMP2PGuidelines2010-01- 19.pdf 51 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ANNEX 4: SUB-COUNTY SELECTION CRITERIA 52 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja District Criteria for District Selection Total No. of S/Cs S/Cs where program was implemented No. of S/Cs for field work Criteria for S/C selection Moroto The District had S/Cs where both Akimorikin and WBP were implemented. Has both strong groups and weak groups as well as record of conflicting communities. District provided learning for both WBP and Akimorikin and lessons concerning conflicts on National borders 5 4 3 1. Tapac S/C: Implemented both WBP and Akimorikin and situated at the border where inter clan conflicts are frequent. The S/C strong on implementation of both programs. S/C used for baseline, Mid-term and Endline survey for WBP 2. Rupa S/C: Implemented both Akimorikin and WBP. Record strong on WBP but less for Akimorikin. Used for testing tools. Borders 2 other districts (Kotido and Kaabong) and Kenya. Venue for a number of PC dialogues. S/C used for baseline, Mid-term and Endline survey for WBP and for baseline and MTR for Akimorikin. 3. Nadunget S/C: implemented both Akimorikin and WBP, however records show that implementation of WBP was weaker compared to Akimorikin. S/C was used for baseline, MTR and Endline survey for WBP. Not used for Akimorikin baseline and MTR. Border district with lessons for conflict management with Nakapiripirit and Napak districts. Site for several PC dialogues. Napak District also had 5 sub counties where both programs were implemented. District provides learning for both WBP and Akimorikin and additionally for other non Karamoja district border conflicts 7 5 2 4. Iriri S/C: Implemented both WBP and Akimorikin. Strong on both Akimorikin and WBP. Borders not only Nakapiripirit S/Cs but also shares conflicting communities in Teso district of Katakwi and Amuria District. S/C used for baseline and Midterm review of Akimorikin 5. Ngoleriet S/C: record of strong implementation on WBP, less on Akimorikin project. S/C used for baseline, MTR and Endline Survey for WBP. Shares S/C border with Moroto, and Kotido’s Panyangara and Nakpelimoru sub-counties Kotido District has 5 sub counties of which 3 implemented Akimorikin. Provides learning for Non Karamoja district (Pader and Kitgum ) border conflicts and key neighbouring warrior clans (Jie and Matheniko) 5 3 3 6. Kacheri S/C: Only implemented Akimorikin. Is a strong conflict S/C. Many peace dialogues held. Was strong on Akimorikin. Believed to be lagging behind on embracing and integration of gender concerns. WBP not implemented in S/C, hence good pointer for comparative learning. Borders Kaabong district where there was neither WBP nor Akimorikin. Used for baseline survey but not MTR survey for Akimorikin. 7. Nakapelimoru SC: Akimorikin implementation only. Was used for MTR. Has strong conflict dynamics and borders 2 key warrior groups (Matheniko and Turkana). 8. Kotido SC selected as a sub-county where neither IRC project was operational. However has projects supported by other development partners. A quasi-control district to provide learning from non WBP and Akimorikin 53 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja beneficiaries, especially in terms of the operations of the formal institutions. Napapiripirit The district had strong operations of Akimorikin. It has border concerns - both national and district. The famous Nabilatuk and Moruita conventions were developed in the District. Borders Kenya, and hence has issues with Turkana, and 5 other non￾Karamoja districts of Uganda. 7 5 2 9. Namalu S/C: implemented Akimorikin. Unique as: i) an agro-pastoral region with activities beyond the livestock keeping, ii) border districts to 3 non Karamoja Districts and Kenya. 10. Moruita SC: implemented Akimorikin, selected because of its unique roles in peace processes 54 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja ANNEX 5: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE EVALUATION Organization/Institution Name or numbers IRC 1. Denis Rex Kotol, Tehnical Coordinator Peacebuilding (PB) (M) 2. Israel Opolot, PB manager (M) 3. Denis Otto Rugumayo, Field Coordinator (M) 4. Agnes Achilla, PB Officer (F) 5. Kevin Angom, PB Officer Kotido (F) 6. Raphael Dean Lotukei, PB Officer Nakapiripirit (M) 7. Simon Akoi, PB Officer Kotido (M) Implementing/Support Partners 8. Sylvia Atugonza, Coordinator, Riamiriam (F) 9. Omoding Richard, Riamiriam (M) 10. Odelok Thomas, Coordinator, KAWUO (M) 11. Lokee Andrew, OCODI (M) SASA! activists 1. Female activist, Moroto 2. Male Activists, Moroto 3. Female Activists, Napak 4. Male Activists Napaka Community members/ Peace Committee Members SASA! Activists, Peace Committee and Community Members, Iriiri 1. Logit Max, Peace Committee (M) 2. Lokut Thomas, SASA!/Peace Committee 3. Lolem Loyce, SASA! (F) 4. Longoli Samuel, SASA! (M) 5. Angolere Joshua, community member, (M) 6. Lonong Muhammad, SASA! (M) 7. Aliau Michael, Community Member, (M) 8. Lomongin Paska, Peace Committee (F) 9. Kuyon Ellen, Peace Committee (F) 10. Lotukei Alice, Peace Committee (F) 11. Adiaka Madella, SASA! Activist (F) 12. Abura Zakary, Peace Committee (M) Community Members, Namalu, Nakapiripirit District 1. Lomongin Johann (M) 2. Lowal Kelemeit (M) 3. Longok Moses Tiagali (M) 4. Opuwa Florence Akol (F) 5. Lotee Amina (F) 6. Ojao Betty (F) 1) Members/leaders of District Security Committees 2) Members/leaders of Sub-County Security Committees SCSC members, Iriri Sub –county, Napak District 1. Olango Dickson OC UPDF (M) 2. Logit Michael , Police Officer, Iriiri Police Station (M) 3. Lobolei Michael, Member SCSC (M) 4. Lomongin Peter, LC III Chairperson (M) 55 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 5. Okengo Francis, GISO (M) 6. Lorit Paulina, Member SCSC (F) SCSC Members, Kacheri Sub-County, Kotido District 1. Amuceno Innocent, P/C (M) 2. Aiay dominic, DISO, (M) 3. Ngatuny Kalisto Nagiramuny (M) 4. Loyang Linna (F) 5. Louta Emmanuel (M) 6. Lepera David (M) 7. Lochu John Bosco, District Councillor (M) 8. Akudo Jacod, Peace Committee (M) 9. Napayok Hellen (F) 10. Naron Anna (F) 11. Capt. W.K Bataga, UPDF (M) 12. Loroma Christine (F) 3) Clan leaders 4) Kraal leaders 5) Sub-county officials Sub-county Chiefs Gombolola (Sub-county) Security Officers (GISO) Secretary for Defense Parish Councils Councilors Ugandan Police Force leaders 1) District officials Resident District Commissioners (RDC) Nahaman Ojwe, RDC, Napak District (M) Moroto Kotido Nakapiripirit District Authorities 1. John Robert Jaka, Sub/County Chairperson, RUPA (M) 2. Chairperson, LCV, Napak District (M) 3. Lokol Stephen Kifunyji, Secretary for Security, Kotido District (M) 4. Wachara Godfrey, DISO, Kotido District (M) Chief Administrative Officer of Districts (CAO) Moroto District Internal Security Officers (DISO) District Police Commanders (DPC) 5. Nelson George, Sooma, DPC Napak District (M) SASA! Activists, Peace Committee and Community Members, Iriri 1. Logit Max, Peace Committee (M) 2. Lokut Thomas, SASA!/Peace Committee 3. Lolem Loyce, SASA! (F) 4. Longoli Samuel, SASA! (M) 5. Angolere Joshua, community member, (M) 6. Lonong Muhammad, SASA! (M) 7. Aliau Michael, Community Member, (M) 8. Lomongin Paska, Peace Committee (F) 9. Kuyon Ellen, Peace Committee (F) 56 Final Evaluation Report: Performance Evaluation of USAID/Uganda’s Conflict Management and Mitigation Activities in Karamoja 10. Lotukei Alice, Peace Committee (F) 11. Adiaka Madella, SASA! Activist (F) 12. Abura Zakary, Peace Committee (M)