Evaluation Report
December 2017
Peaceful Empowerment in Arid 
Lands (PEARL)
Evaluation report of Mercy Corps’ Peaceful Empowerment of Arid 
Lands (PEARL) Program in Turkana and West Pokot counties
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
In 2015, Mercy Corps initiated the Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands (PEARL) program in 
Turkana and West Pokot counties. The program aimed at increasing stability in North-Western 
Kenya using a people to people approach to conflict resolution. This would be achieved by 
supporting Pokot and Turkana communities, government and the private sector to peacefully 
manage change and increase prosperity. 
The PEARL program had three objectives:
The first one was to strengthen local mechanisms, including Peace Committees and Early 
Warning and Early Response (EWER) systems, in Pokot and Turkana communities to manage 
land, natural resources and security. Results anticipated for this objective included:
• Capacity development and linkages among Pokot and Turkana local mechanisms to 
facilitate and enforcement of community agreements around natural resource areas of 
shared interest
• Strengthening of early warning/early response mechanism
• Participation of informed and empowered citizens in county affairs
The second PEARL objective was to foster relationships between Turkana and Pokot 
communities by working together on natural resources management and economic projects. 
Results for the achievement of this included:
• Turkana and Pokot communities understanding mutual benefits of cooperation
• Turkana and Pokot communities and government and private sector stakeholders 
developing plans for managing resources
• Implementation of peace dividend projects to consolidate agreements from dialogues
The third PEARL objective was to increase trust between government, private sector and local 
communities over the allocation of land and employment practices. For this objective, the 
expected results were:
• Devolved government structures and extractive industries transparently involve 
community in decision making processes
• Extractive industry addresses community grievances
• County government skills strengthened to advocate national government over revenue 
sharing
• Training programs for local youth and other supply chains developed in partnership 
with the private sector
The PEARL program period ends on November 19, 2017, and an end-line evaluation was 
conducted in September.
The objectives of the end-line evaluation were to:
i. Establish and measure PEARL’s contribution to the capacity of local mechanisms for 
resolving land and other natural resource disputes
ii. Examine the extent of inter-communal cooperation between Turkana and Pokot 
communities, with an eye on PEARL’s contribution
2
iii. Analyse the extent of trust and cooperation among government, private sector and local 
communities, with a view to measuring PEARL’s contribution to these processes
iv. Assess the capacity of local implementing partners, with a view to ascertaining PEARL’s 
contribution to their capacity development
A mixed methods approach was utilized where both quantitative and qualitative data was 
gathered. A household survey of 397 households was conducted and 29 key informant 
interviews and four focus group discussions in Turkana and West Pokot.
Conclusions from Findings
On strengthening local mechanisms:
• The PEARL program’s approach of strengthening pre-existing structures while 
establishing new, lower level complimentary structures ensures sustainability of the 
peace architecture. However, newly formed structures like village peace committees, 
and the recently established West Pokot county peace directorate need more support to 
grow in institutional strength.
• The more formal, state-supported early warning mechanisms have not gained wide 
utilization by communities. Success of early warning in Turkana and West Pokot is 
therefore dependent on keen hybridization of the formal with the traditional early 
warning systems.
• In partnership with the local community elders, PEARL developed the intercountry 
compensation framework. This Compensation Framework builds on traditional 
practices used by Turkana and Pokot leaders to manage conflict, which Mercy Corps 
worked with the two communities to formalize through a year-long process of bottom￾up consultations under the auspices of County Government support and in cooperation 
with civil society partners. Its objectives included: Reduce the violent conflicts between 
the Pokot and Turkana Communities; Deter inter-communal livestock and/or property 
theft, including when expedited by extractive industries;1 Improve the effectiveness and 
duration of natural resources sharing between communities; and Promote justice and 
reconciliation.
• Mercy Corps through PEARL in partnership with the County Government of West Pokot 
and other peace stakeholders within the County, developed the West Pokot County 
Government Peacebuilding Strategy Paper. This document seeks to strengthen the 
internal conflict management, coordination and enhance mutual co-existence with its 
neighbours’. It further sought to recognize the County government’s increased 
involvement in peace building activities, and ongoing pursuit to develop a peace 
building, security policy and strategy, while having strong partnerships with the civil 
society in building peace, sharing information and effectively responding to and mitigate 
conflict. West Pokot County is a key player in addressing the perennial conflicts that pit 
the Pokot against the Turkana. The draft is the outcome of a series of meetings spanning 
over one year organized by the West Pokot County Government and Mercy Corps. 
 
1 This can be either a direct effort on behalf of the private sector to enable conflict to improve their access to land 
with natural resources, or by indirectly increasing the value of land
3
On fostering relationships between Turkana and Pokot:
• The multidimensionality of the conflict dynamics in West Pokot and Turkana counties 
complicates progress, since different cycles affect the trends. The electoral cycle, 
weather patterns, and cultural practices (such as quest for dowry), all play a part in 
influencing trends in conflict. And these pressures take long to address. Thus despite the 
small shortfall, the PEARL program has made a significant gain.
• The question of land and boundary demarcations is an outstanding perennial cause of 
conflict. To attempt to address this, PEARL Peace committees co-mediated land and 
natural resource disputes between Pokot and Turkana communities. Through trainings, 
PEARL emphasized developing and sharpening the peace committees’ skills in co￾mediating land and natural resource disputes between Pokot and Turkana communities 
using a Mercy Corps’ Negotiation, Mediation and Peacebuilding Skills Manual. In the end, 
PEARL trained 258 peace actors.
• PEARL provided technical and material support for land use planning and 
agreement. This was done through inter-county exchanges where Pokot and 
Turkana counties signed a resolution on peaceful coexistence. The fora also gave 
birth to an inter-county officials working committee which was mandated to 
develop a compensation framework. The framework borrows heavily from 
informal kraal-level agreements on land use and compensation which were 
propounded by community elders and peace committees during community 
meetings. The framework also has sections on land planning and use such as 
access to pasture corridors and how to handle destruction of farmlands. The 
ultimate outcome envisaged is to legislate the inter-community compensation 
framework, which is expected to happen after PEARL ends.
• PEARL program has a high level of penetration of its target areas. The use of a 
grassroots peacebuilding model that involves methods like local community meetings, 
many times held under trees (rather than secluded and exclusive hotels) have helped 
enhance the program’s reach.
On increasing trust and cooperation among government, private sector and local communities:
• Parallel to this Endline survey, PEARL equally undertook a survey to document lessons 
learnt and best practice in community-extractive industry grievance mechanism. This 
document relates to PEARL’s third objective of increasing trust between government, 
private sector and local communities. The document speaks to four areas of lessons 
learned, each of which the document covers: Improving communities’ access to 
information using Community Liaisons to ensure they are informed of developments 
from both the County Government and extractive industries; Building community 
advocacy and negotiation capacities to support them in recognizing their legal rights 
and securing fair agreements when dealing with the County Government and extractive 
industries; Coupling of a Compensation Framework with a Grievance Mechanism that 
provides one unified process and standard for the identification and resolution of 
concerns; and Ensuring the implementation of the Community Land Bill (2016) in its 
totality to provide the proper legal protection to communities.
• The PEARL program has influenced extractive industries to be more sensitive to 
community issues, but community expectations are still limited to foundational needs 
(such as menial jobs and water supply).
• There are slow gains made in addressing community concerns about government 
responsiveness. It maybe a result of poor communication between government and 
4
community, or bureaucratic red tape in effecting change, or it may be too soon to 
conclude on progress made so far.
• Growth in the trust of the county government’s natural resource management role is a 
lot more significant compared to people’s trust in national government and the private 
sector. This indicates that the grievance resolution mechanism alone cannot help build 
trust, and that multiple aspects of community expectations of the private sector need to 
be considered. It also underscores the significant need for community engagement in 
national-level implementation of legal provisions on public participation in policy 
dialogues on resource extraction and revenue sharing.
• Minimal to absent media coverage of the PEARL program indicates a weak or non￾existent media relations strategy.
• While there is some positive improvement in perceptions of extractive industries’ 
responsiveness to community concerns, the predominant feeling is still negative. Thus, 
PEARL program has contributed to increased private sector-community interactions 
that are influencing the turn in perceptions. But this initiative needs time in order to 
fully transform the situation.
• The workforce development initiative for the most part addresses immediate term, low￾level job needs. It has however helped beneficiaries in seeking opportunities not only 
with extractive industries, but also outside their counties of residence (e.g. driving jobs 
in Kitale town, Trans Nzoia County).
• The PEARL program, through its grassroots peacebuilding approaches such as inter￾community dialogues and sports events, has reached significant proportions of the 
Pokot and Turkana communities. Both qualitative and quantitative findings indicate a 
positive influence of this initiative on inter-community trust, despite the violence. The 
persisting violence only underscores the importance of sustaining the work to 
continually address recurrent and emergent conflicts.
On implementing partners’ capacity:
• Whereas local capacities have been created and/or strengthened, a key capacity gap for 
local partners is in the area of designing programs for complex conflicts. The complexity 
of local conflicts over issues of national interest, requires agility to address local issues 
alongside national, policy oriented problems.
Recommendations
On strengthening local mechanisms:
• Offer further support or link newly formed structures with other existing peace 
programs in Turkana and West Pokot counties.
• Invest in sensitizing the public on formal early warning systems.
• Strengthen conflict early warning models that are hybrids of formal and traditional 
mechanisms. This may entail preservation of and education on traditional early warning 
knowledge and skills
• A key challenge with local stakeholders was in maintaining a reliable record of conflict 
incidents, alerts, and responses. Further capacity building is needed on this.
• County Governments should endorse the inter-county Compensation Framework 
created through an inclusive and transparent process. Rapid increase in economic 
activity in Turkana and West Pokot since devolution and the discovery of oil, combined 
with unsystematic conflict resolution efforts where agreements’ terms and 
compensations offered vastly vary for the same type of dispute, ultimately mean that 
some communities are left feeling cheated after their negotiations. A Compensation 
5
Framework, created in an inclusive and transparent manner with broad community
involvement will enable collective ownership of the process and its outputs. In parallel,
endorsement and enforcement by County Government will provide that standard of 
legitimacy for all actors to uphold. Together, the Compensation Framework would 
create legitimate values to anchor negotiations, and thereby ensure that no community 
is swindled out of their assets.
On fostering relationships between Turkana and Pokot:
• There is need to focus on land, the root cause of many of North-West Kenya’s conflicts. 
Land is one of the most valuable resources. Its dramatically rising value underpins why 
and how violence is changing in Turkana. To support communities and businesses to 
navigate this changing landscape, the County Government needs to train officials on the 
2016 Community Land Bill, the prerequisite for its implementation. Officials should then 
disseminate the information to communities. This work with government officials and 
communities should be in parallel because implementation of the Community Land Bill 
has both a supply and demand aspect – communities need to be well informed so that 
they can demand accurate implementation of the bill, while government officials need to 
be well informed so that they can carry the bill out accurately. Separately, the County 
Government should prioritize completing the land map and registrar to ensure that 
communities understand their collective assets and what they need to maintain their 
livelihoods. NGOs are able to assist in this if government capacity is expected to remain 
insufficient.
• Further the work on collaborative resource management. Given the fairly recent 
discovery of oil, and persisting intercommunity tensions over resources, it is still too 
early to phase out the initiative.
• Need to sustain gains, through empowerment of PEARL-created peacebuilding 
infrastructure through for long-term peacebuilding. Empowerment of the structures 
includes further institutional strengthening and resource mobilization: early warning 
data management capacity remains basic, capacity to coordinate responses needs 
further strengthening; and the context is difficult (in the form of tough terrain, recurrent 
conflict, and minimal police presence) and expensive. But counties are steadily 
improving in development terms given the gains of devolution, and therefore real 
transformation shall be a short to medium term fete (of one to three years). Long-term 
peacebuilding would involve a minimum five-year engagement.
On increasing trust and cooperation among government, private sector and local communities:
• Proactive dissemination of information can prevent grievances from manifesting in 
violence. Unrealistic expectations of what Turkana’s oil wealth may mean for individual 
and community lives are fomenting grievances against the government and extractive 
industries. Communities have yet to be informed in a systematic manner about what 
realistic expectations they should have. There is significant scope for the County 
Government and extractive industries, with the support of NGOs, to bridge this divide, 
and thereby prevent grievances from escalating. For example, while County Government 
officials in Lodwar are aware that Tullow Oil will reduce its manpower as it moves from 
the exploration to discovery phase, many of the communities where these labourers are 
hired from remain unaware of the change. If not handled carefully, these people losing 
their jobs without time and support to find alternative livelihoods could result in a 
dramatic increase in either banditry, or Turkana-Pokot cattle raiding, as people resort to 
more volatile yet lucrative alternatives to secure their incomes.
6
• More community sensitization is needed to raise local awareness about the wide array 
of economic, environmental, and social issues they can raise with extractive industries.
• Extractive industries, in their corporate social responsibility programs, need to be more 
responsive to what communities prioritise over and above what the industries think the 
communities need.
• Predominant perceptions of government non-responsiveness to community resource 
concerns underscore the need for sustained government-community engagement.
• Sustain government-private sector-community dialogues and problem solving 
mechanisms. Also, empower local advocacy groups, through trainings on resource 
governance and resource mobilization, to lobby for and monitor private sector 
corporate social responsibility initiatives.
• In future, develop a comprehensive communication strategy that runs through the 
entire cycle of any given program, and includes media relations.
• More engagement is needed with extractive industries including Tullow in the area on 
development of corporate social responsibility programs that address present 
community vulnerabilities (such as scarcity of water and pasture) alongside long-term 
skills development needs (e.g. scholarships).
• Link workforce development needs with higher level specialised human resource 
development initiatives, such as through relevant university programs.
• There is a need to integrate more mass communication tactics (such as arts-based 
peacebuilding tactics) to widen the community reach. 
• There is a need to have a communication strategy accompanying the program strategy, 
which should specify necessary public information campaigns and the key messages 
throughout the program cycle.
On implementing partners’ capacity:
• Support implementing partners’ capacity on public policy analysis and advocacy.
7
CONTENTS
Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 0
LIST OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................................................. 8
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................................... 8
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................................................. 9
1.1 Contextual Background ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Main Actors in Conflicts .................................................................................................................................... 10
Dynamics ................................................................................................................................................................. 11
1.2 Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands..................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Evaluation Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Methodology........................................................................................................................................................ 14
2. Findings....................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Objective1: Strenghten local mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 18
Objective 2: Foster relationships between turkana and pokot ............................................................. 22
Objective 3: Increase trust and cooperation among government, private sector and local 
communities ............................................................................................................................................................... 24
Objective 4: Implementing Partners’ Capacity............................................................................................. 29
3. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 32
Objective1: Strenghten local mechanisms ..................................................................................................... 32
Objective 2: Foster relationships between turkana and pokot ............................................................. 33
Objective 3: Increase trust and cooperation among government, private sector and local 
communities ............................................................................................................................................................... 33
Objective 4: Implementing Partners’ Capacity............................................................................................. 35
Bibliography.................................................................................................................................................................. 36
ANNEX 1: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................... 38
ANNEX 2: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW/FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE........................... 61
8
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1: Urban, peri-urban & rural sample population............................................................................... 15
Figure 2: gender distribution ................................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3: Age distribution of sample population.............................................................................................. 16
Figure 4: perceptions on comparative incomes................................................................................................ 16
Figure 5: participation of county officials in peace-building efforts ........................................................ 20
Figure 6: Do you use any mechanism for giving early warning alerts on potential violent 
conflicts before they occur? ...................................................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7: In the last year or two, have you attended any forum/meeting on resource sharing and 
management? .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 8: Trust in national and county governments and private sector?............................................. 26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Household sample ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Sampling frame............................................................................................................................................. 14
Table 3: How effective are the county officials in local peace building efforts?.................................. 20
Table 4: Mechanisms of early warning used...................................................................................................... 21
Table 5: How effectivE is the early warning system in preventing conflicts?...................................... 22
Table 6: Number of people who recognize the benefits of cooperation to manage resources ..... 22
Table 7: To what extent did the program succeed in contributing to peace in this area? .............. 24
Table 8: Do you have any concerns about the management of valued resources such as oil?...... 25
Table 9: How responsive has the national government been to your concerns? ............................... 25
Table 10: Whom do you trust the most to best manage oil as a resource? ........................................... 25
Table 11: Responsiveness of extractive industries ......................................................................................... 27
Table 12: In the last year or two have you received any training from Mercy Corps’ PEARL 
program? (N=379)........................................................................................................................................................ 28
Table 13: Have you attended any events related to building trust and understanding between 
rival communities?........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Table 14: Did they help build your trust in and understanding of your neighbouring 
communities? .................................................................................................................................................................. 29
Table 15: Who do you report incidents of conflict with the hope of having them resolved? ........ 30
Table 16: How effective have the persons, offices or organizations been in responding to 
incidents of conflict?..................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 17: In your opinion, how knowledgeable and skillful have the persons, offices or 
organizations been in the way they responded to incidents of conflict? ............................................... 31
Table 18: Do the persons, offices, or organizations you report incidents of conflict help resolve 
them? .................................................................................................................................................................................. 31
9
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUND 
The North-Western counties of Turkana and West Pokot are hotspots of intercommunity 
violence. Turkana County shares borders with Marsabit to the East, Samburu to the South-East, 
West Pokot and Baringo to the South, Republic of Uganda to the West, the Republic of South 
Sudan to the North-West and the Republic of Ethiopia to the North. Because of this geopolitical 
reality, conflict dynamics in Turkana County are both transnationally and domestically defined. 
The Turkana community are predominant in the county. It occupies a landmass of 
approximately 77,000km2. According to the Kenya Population and Housing Census (KPHC) 
2009 results, the Turkana County population stood at 855,399 and was projected to increase to 
1,036,589 in 2012 and 1,427,808 in 2017. In 2009 Turkana had a total of 123,191 households.
It is semi-arid land, with pastoralism having been the predominant economic activity in the 
county for years till the discovery of oil in 2012. This development, coupled with the onset of 
devolution effectuated with the 2013 elections in line with the Constitution of Kenya 2010, 
raised the risk of intense boundary disputes with neighbouring West Pokot.
West Pokot County also borders Baringo to the East, Elgeyo Marakwet and Trans Nzoia to the 
South and the Republic of Uganda to the West. This also means that its conflict dynamics are 
both locally and transnationally influenced. The county covers an area of 9,169.4km2. West 
Pokot’s County population in 2009 was 512,690 persons, with the population expected to grow 
to 683,808 by 2017. In 2009 West Pokot had 92,777 households. The Pokot community are the 
majority in the County.
Communities in Turkana and West Pokot have had historical conflicts over pasture, water and 
livestock rustling. Importantly, the communities have had boundary and resource based 
disputes. These disputes have been driven by the communities’ interests in controlling valuable 
resources –such as the KENGEN power generation plant in Turkwell and the oil-rich areas of 
Ngamia.2
A study of the major causes of conflict among the pastoralists highlights the reasons as cattle 
rustling, proliferation of illicit arms, inadequate policing and state security arrangements, 
diminishing role of traditional governance systems, competition over control and access to 
natural resources such as pasture and water, land issues, political incitements, ethnocentrism, 
increasing levels of poverty and idleness among the youth. 3
These factors are however symptoms of a much larger Structural Change Model of conflict.4 The 
model suggests that any refraining from an escalated response is perceived as weakness, and 
groups fear that failing to respond will invite further encroachment and aggression. This 
situation within the conflict has essentially embedded negative reciprocity as a norm, greatly 
 
2 See Wepundi, M., 2012, Political Conflict and Vulnerabilities: Firearms and Electoral Violence in Kenya, p.6 3 Abonyo L. Cehrono, Chebunet K. Phillip and Lopeyok A. Joseph, ‘Cultural beliefs as a source of ethnic 
conflicts: A study of the Turkana and Pokot pastoralists in Kenya.’ Journal of Global Peace and Conflict
[online journal] 1/1 (2014), http://jgpcnet.com/journals/jgpc/Vol_1_No_1_June_2013/1.pdf, accessed 28 
November 2017
4 Triche Ryan, ‘Pastoral conflict in Kenya: Transforming mimetic violence to mimetic blessings between 
Turkana and Pokot communities,’ Africa Journal of Conflict Resolution [online journal] 14/2 (2014), 
https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajcr/article/view/113364/103081,accessed 28 November 2017
10
impeding peace efforts as violence begets violence. Both communities have undergone 
psychological changes as well. Blame and anger has become a typical community mobiliser for 
an aggressive response. The Pokot and Turkana become divided around emotional responses to 
the raids that they see as a direct attack to their economic well-being, their security and 
ultimately their community. Fear also plays a role in the escalation of the conflict, when one 
community increases their armament, nearby communities do the same and increases the 
capacity of their own weapons. The initial party sees this act of defence as an act of aggression, 
and thus the security dilemma is born. Each community identifies the actions of the other as 
stemming from some innate, negative identity trait of that party. These perceptions are what 
have shifted the conflict from individual levels to communal levels. 
MAIN ACTORS IN CONFLICTS 
National government: In Turkana, when the government is not perceived as favouring one 
community over the other, they are largely seen as disinterested in them. One of the reasons 
for this is the amount of time it takes to respond to attacks, in some cases claiming lack of 
information and vast distances. In the recent past, the government has been in the spotlight for 
failing to collect dead bodies, victims of the violence, allowing them to decompose in the open.5
They are also seen as reactionary taking action after incidences of violence have occurred and 
even then, do little to address the root causes of the conflict preferring to focus on State 
security.6 
Regarding the on-going oil extraction, the President declined to assent to the Petroleum 
Exploration and Development and Production Bill 2016 that spell out a resource sharing 
formula. This has pitted the national government against the county government7 and the host 
community. In a memorandum to the National Assembly and the Senate, he reduced the 
revenue due to the local communities from 10% to 5 % adding that the amount should not 
exceed a quarter of the amount allocated to the county government by parliament. This has 
angered local leaders who were pushing for a 20% share reducing national government’s 
portion from 85% to 70%.
Tullow Oil Company: The Company that was first in the area has had a shaky relationship with 
the local leaders and their communities, at times even being termed as arrogant and self￾serving. They have been accused of excluding Turkanas from employment and business 
opportunities leading to demonstrations at company sites in October 2013. The Company has 
managed to resolve disputes with the host community by signing Memorandums of 
Understanding (MoU) with the Ministry of Energy agreeing to certain undertakings like opening 
three Community Resource Centres in Lodwar, Lokichar and Lokori, establishing formal 
grievance resolution mechanisms, doubling its social investment budget to USD 2 million, and 
revisiting its local content procedures. In the past, Tullow negotiated with the then Turkana 
 
5 Mabatuk Vincent, ‘State silent as bodies rot after deadly Pokot- Turkana clashes’, Standard Media,
November 28, 2016
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000224980/state-silent-as-bodies-rot-after-deadly-pokot￾turkana-clashes accessed 28 November 2017 6 Ombati Cyrus, ‘Disarmament exercise kicks off in Turkana, East Pokot after deadly attack’, Standard 
Digital, May 6, 2015
https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000161299/disarmament-exercise-kicks-off-in-turkana￾east-pokot-after-deadly-attacks, accessed 28 November 2017 7 Senelwa Patrick, ‘Row brewing over how oil revenue from Turkana basin will be shared’, The East 
African ‘Business’, January 3, 2017
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/business/Row-brewing-over-how-Turkana-oil-revenue-will-be￾shared/2560-3505470-sqvlpd/index.html, accessed 28 November 2017
11
County Council of using the Provincial Administration in order to silence the communities and 
gain access to the land. The communities were told by their leaders that they would have ‘many 
benefits’ from the explorations, benefits they are yet to see. Because the land is communal and 
held in trust by the County Government (back then the Turkana County Council), it was easy for 
the leaders to give out the land without the consent of the community. The community 
therefore feel cheated by Tullow and their leaders.8
World Bank Group: This is just one of the new international actors, offering capacity building 
for the government. The other is the United Kingdom’s Department for International 
Development (DfID). The World Bank’s began playing a role in the extractive sector in 2012 
through its Extractive Industry Technical Advisory Facility (EL-TAF). Through this entity, it 
offers technical assistance to the government with regards to developing of gas terms of 
exploration, production contracts, identification of gaps in the current petroleum regulatory 
framework and negotiation of deals meant to maximise government future earnings.
Local leaders: The role of local government and politicians in relation to conflicts resolution 
between the two communities has not been effective. Similarly, other stakeholders such as 
religious organizations and NGOs have not also been effective in assisting them in conflicts 
resolution. This can be attributed to the fact that the county government has not effectively 
coordinated their efforts. 
Pokot and Turkana communities: The incidences of violent conflict between the two 
communities are very likely to occur along the contested boundary. Both communities have a 
negative social perception of each other. While the Pokot are agro-pastoralists and occupy 
somewhat fertile land, the Turkana are predominantly pastoralists. For the Turkana 
community, hunger and drought are the reasons for engaging in livestock raiding. Among the 
Pokot, payment of dowry and accumulation of wealth are the strongest motives. Conflict 
between the two is likely to escalate during the rainy season when the communities are jostle 
for pasture and watering holes for their livestock. This normally escalates when the lush 
pastures begin to become scarce forcing the communities9 to come into close contact with each 
other or one goes deeper into the territory of the other. The Pokot side is rich in pasture, water 
and animals, while those on the Turkana side relied on food aid, especially when they lose most 
of their animals during prolonged periods of drought. The most recently reported attack 
occurred in June 2017,10 where Pokot bandits attacked Lokori in Turkana South. 
DYNAMICS 
In various ways the fortunes of the Turkana could be seen as changing with the exploration of 
oil and the discovery of the aquifer in Lotikipi basin. Turkana also happens to be the site for the 
largest wind farm in Africa. It is not clear how the oil will benefit the local people. What is 
evident is that its discovery has restricted free movement of pastoralists in search of water and 
 
8 Runci Alessandro, ‘Resource governance dynamics in extractive frontiers: the case of the “new” oil in 
Turkana County, Kenya.’ MSC Thesis (Utrecht University, 2015) [online] 
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/337348 , accessed 30 November 2017 9 Devine R. Patrick, ‘Persistent conflict between the Pokot and Turkana: Causes and policy implications.’ 
PhD Thesis (University of Nairobi, 2016) [online repository] 
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/97476, accessed 29 November 2017 10 Kangogo Joseph, ‘Six killed, scored injured in fresh Pokot-Turkana attack’, The Star, ‘News’, June 11, 
2017
https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/06/11/6-killed-scores-injured-in-fresh-pokot-turkana￾attack_c1578388, accessed 30 November 2017
12
pasture even though the restriction is also due to competition with the Karamojong and Pokot 
communities. One fear of the locals is that the oil installation that is blocking paths to grazing 
land will cause the diminishing of pasture thereby a great reduction of livestock further 
contributing to food insecurity.11 
Further it is of concern that cartels (involved in the national market for meat) that now control 
cattle raids in the region could easily evolve and become oil-driven. Already, there are reports 
of an emerging black market for crude oil, where Tullow employees gain access to the oil 
reserves and sell the oil to illegal oil refiners from Uganda and Somalia based in Lokichar.12 
Those who see the exploration as a boom to the area, where in a few years the government will 
be reaping billions of dollars, suggest that it will lead to infrastructure development, business 
opportunities and jobs. In reality, the exploration has led to jobs, tenders and provision of 
equipment and services to investors. Some casual labour and manual jobs have gone to 
community members; however, the oil industry is highly mechanized and does not promise 
many jobs in itself. There are also reported cases of displacement of community members to 
make way for drilling, this likely increased as multiple test wells were drilled in the process of 
identifying the size or the oil reserve in the basin. Those displaced have not been compensated. 
Given that most of the Turkana is communal land owned by trustees on behalf of the 
community, the question becomes who then should be compensated. Political divisions are 
evident in Turkana, some arising since devolution. In the recent past, MP for Turkana South 
openly told the County Governor not to step in his constituency. Although traditionally the 
community has been unified, the discovery of oil has divided the north and south each claiming 
that the resources belong to them.13 
In terms of pollution and environmental degradation, communities living in the area are 
complaining of a pungent smell from tailings dumpsites and thick black smoke emanating from 
Tullow’s drilling. They further add that the improper management of toxic waste causes 
livestock deaths during the rainy season when the chemicals seep into the preciously few water 
sources. Tullow has denied this arguing it stores mud residue from drill sites in a manner 
approved by National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA). It should be noted that 
NEMA lacks a broad policy framework for a robust environmental legislation. As mentioned 
earlier, there are reported incidences of violent confrontations/ protests between the local 
community and the oil company since 2013 where the company is accused of hiring employees 
from outside the county in positions that do not require special skills expertise. The most recent 
led to Tullow suspending its trucking of oil to the Port of Mombasa after staff were prevented 
from accessing drilling sites, and after workers from a separate company were attacked while 
upgrading a road leading to the oil fields.14 
 
11 Agade, M. Kennedy, ‘Challenges of the Kenya Police Reserve: The case of Turkana County.’, Africa 
Studies Review [online journal], 58/1(2015), https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2015.10 accessed 29 November 
2017
12 Vincent Achuka and Moses Michira, ‘Kenya’s oil hits black market ahead of exports’, Standard Digital, 
‘Local News’ September, 2017 https://www.sde.co.ke/article/2001256010/kenya-s-oil-hits-black￾market-ahead-of-exports, accessed 30 November 2017 13 Agade, M. Kennedy, ‘Ungoverned space’ and the oil find in Turkana Kenya.’ , The Round Table [online 
journal], 103/5 (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2014.966497, accessed 29 November 2017 14 Sophia Mbugua, ‘Oil rich yet on the edge in Turkana’, IRIN, ‘Analysis’ 6 November 2017 
http://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/11/06/oil-rich-yet-edge-turkana, accessed 29 November 2017
13
1.2 PEACEFUL EMPOWERMENT IN ARID LANDS 
In 2015, Mercy Corps initiated the Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands (PEARL) program in 
Turkana and West Pokot counties. The program aimed at increasing stability in North-Western 
Kenya using a people to people approach to conflict resolution. This would be achieved by 
supporting Pokot and Turkana communities, government and the private sector to peacefully 
manage change and increase prosperity. 
The PEARL program had three objectives:
The first one was to strengthen local mechanisms, including Peace Committees and Early 
Warning and Early Response (EWER) systems, in Pokot and Turkana communities to manage 
land, natural resources and security. Results anticipated for this objective included: 
• Capacity development and linkages among Pokot and Turkana local mechanisms to 
facilitate and enforcement of community agreements around natural resource areas of 
shared interest
• Strengthening of early warning/early response mechanism
• Participation of informed and empowered citizens in county affairs
The second PEARL objective was to foster relationships between Turkana and Pokot 
communities by working together on natural resources management and economic projects. 
Results for the achievement of this included:
• Turkana and Pokot communities understanding mutual benefits of cooperation
• Turkana and Pokot communities and government and private sector stakeholders 
developing plans for managing resources
• Implementation of peace dividend projects to consolidate agreements from dialogues
The third PEARL objective was to increase trust between government, private sector and local 
communities over the allocation of land and employment practices. For this objective, the 
expected results were:
• Devolved government structures and extractive industries transparently involve 
community in decision making processes
• Extractive industry addresses community grievances
• County government skills strengthened to advocate national government over revenue 
sharing
• Training programs for local youth and other supply chains developed in partnership 
with the private sector
The PEARL program period ends on November 19, 2017, and an end-line evaluation was 
conducted in September.
1.3 EVALUATION OBJECTIVES 
The objectives of the end-line evaluation were to:
v. Establish and measure PEARL’s contribution to the capacity of local mechanisms for 
resolving land and other natural resource disputes
vi. Examine the extent of inter-communal cooperation between Turkana and Pokot 
communities, with an eye on PEARL’s contribution
14
vii. Analyse the extent of trust and cooperation among government, private sector and local 
communities, with a view to measuring PEARL’s contribution to these processes
viii. Assess the capacity of local implementing partners, with a view to ascertaining PEARL’s 
contribution to their capacity development
1.4 METHODOLOGY
A mixed methods approach was utilized where both quantitative and qualitative data 
gathered thus:
i. Household Survey
For a margin of error of five per cent and a confidence level of 95 per cent, the 
evaluation aimed at covering a simple random sample of 420 from a total population of 
216,968 households.15 A sampling frame of was developed to guide data collection in 
target areas. Once in each target area, pairs of enumerators were to agree on a 
landmark, and move in opposite directions as they conducted survey. But prior to that, 
they would introduce themselves to chiefs, and seek the help of local contacts (such as 
chiefs’ headmen) in accessing households. Enumerators were to cover every fifth 
household per target area. 
The survey questions sought to gather views on contextual dynamics, perceptions on 
interveners (including peace structures, national and county governments, and private 
sector) and perceptions on responses to conflict. The level of analysis was the 
household. The computation of the distribution is illustrated below:
TABLE 1: HOUSEHOLD SAMPLE
TABLE 2: SAMPLING FRAME
County Sub-County Ward/Sub-Location Household Sample
Turkana Turkana Central Kerio Delta 40
Lodwar Township 40
Turkana South Lobokat 40
Lokichar 40
Loima Kotaruk/Lobei 40
Turkwel 39
West Pokot Kapenguria (West Pokot) Kapenguria 31
Sook 30
Sigor (Pokot Central) Sekerr 30
Masool 30
Kacheliba (Pokot North) Kiwawa 30
Alale 30
Total Households Sampled 420
 
15 The exact sample size is 384, with the extra 36 added to cover for the possibility of spoilt 
questionnaires.
County Total Households Proportion (%) Sample
Turkana 123,191 56.8 239
West Pokot 93,777 43.2 181
Total 216,968 100 420
15
However, due to insecurity, with a number of livestock raids occurring in some target 
areas of the survey, the field team was not able to cover all the 420 households.16 The 
team managed to cover 397 households, which was within the same margin of error as 
designed.
Household Respondents’ Profile
The sample population was predominantly rural (88.9%), reflecting the low 
urbanization rate in the area. Only 2.3% of the respondents were in urban areas (Figure
1 below). 
FIGURE 1: URBAN, PERI-URBAN & RURAL SAMPLE POPULATION
Slightly more than half (52%) of the sample population were male (Figure 2 below). 
FIGURE 2: GENDER DISTRIBUTION
 
16 In West Pokot’s Kasei and Endough, enumerators found residents heard reports of just concluded goat 
raids and had to cut short their day’s work there.
Urban, 2.3
Peri￾Urban, 
8.8
Other, 88.9 Rural, 88.9
Female
48% Male
52%
16
The respondent selection protocol was to first approach the household head for 
introduction and consent. Before seeking out an adult respondent (18 and above years) 
from among household members. Enumerators were requested to alternate between 
male and female respondents during questionnaire administration. But where a male 
household head insisted on being interviewed despite the enumerators’ intention to 
select a female respondent, they would proceed with the interview of the household 
head. 
Over half of the respondents (54.2%) were between the age of 18 and 39 years. While 
respondents of 60 years and above constituted only 4.3% of the sample (Figure 3 
below).
FIGURE 3: AGE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE POPULATION
On relative well-being of households, respondents were asked to subjectively compare 
their income to others in their area. Many respondents thought they were slightly better 
off than most households, with over a quarter feeling worse off than most.
FIGURE 4: PERCEPTIONS ON COMPARATIVE INCOMES
12.3%
4.3%
5.5%
7.3%
7.6%
8.8%
9.3%
12.3%
13.1%
19.4%
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Don’t know
60 and above
50-54
55-59
45-49
40-44
18-24
30-34
35-39
25-29
Age Distribution
2.5
4.0
15.9
16.4
25.9
35.3
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Refuse to answer
Considerably a lot better off…
Considerably a lot worse than…
Do not know
Slightly worse off than most…
Slightly better off than most…
Relative Well-being
Relative Well-being
17
ii. Qualitative Data
The study team conducted a total of 29 key informant interviews with local opinion 
leaders (chiefs, members of peace committees, peace monitors, local civil society 
representatives, women, youth, Tullow Oil Company representatives, implementing 
partners and Mercy Corps program staff in the West Pokot and Turkana field offices). 
Questions with key informants covered contextual dynamics, peace interventions, 
knowledge and perspectives on the PEARL program and its outcomes. 
Additionally, two focus group discussions (FGDs) were held per county – four in total. 
The minimum number of participants per FGD was eight, and in total, there were 38
participants in the four mixed gender FGDs conducted. A total of 10 of the 38 
participants were female, with men being the majority (28). The FGDs included two for 
reformed warriors (one per county) and two for local peace structures (one per 
county). Questions with key informants covered contextual dynamics, peace 
interventions, knowledge and perspectives on the PEARL program and its outcomes.
iii. Literature review
A review of relevant PEARL program documents was conducted including but not 
limited to the program proposal, quarterly donor program reports, draft baseline 
survey report, raw baseline data, monitoring system, and other project support 
information. There was a review of pre-existing contextual analysis reports done 
around or during the program period, with a view to analysing the situational dynamics.
iv. Data Analysis
Quantitative data was analysed by use of SPSS, while a relational framework – basically 
a matrix tracking questions and respective responses per respondent per target area – 
was developed to analyse qualitative data. Descriptive statistics and charts were 
produced, and results compared with baseline statistics for conclusions on contextual 
changes.
The image below shows the scope of the areas covered, informed by GPS monitoring of 
enumerator movements in Turkana and West Pokot counties.
PLATE 1: EVALUATION SURVEY GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE
18
2. FINDINGS
OBJECTIVE1: STRENGHTEN LOCAL MECHANISMS
i. Develop Capacity and Linkages among Pokot and Turkana Local Mechanisms 
Findings: Peace actors, among them peace committees, elders, county administrators, and 
national administrators (such as chiefs) have benefited from PEARL training. In 2015, 120 peace 
actors were trained,17 another 108 or more in 2016,18 and at least 69 trained in 2017.19 The 
PEARL program’s contribution to capacity development of Pokot and Turkana local peace 
structures is significant.
As part of Kenya’s peacebuilding architecture, there have been Local Peace Committees in 
Turkana and West Pokot counties. Previously known as District Peace Committees, but now 
known as sub-County Peace Committees, each of six Turkana and four West Pokot counties’ 
sub-counties has had the peace committees. Both the counties have also had County Peace 
Forums, which generally draw representation from the respective counties’ sub-County Peace 
Committees. Mercy Corps has worked with these pre-existing structures and strengthened them 
through training, facilitation of activities, and provision of two motorbikes to ease movement in 
a difficult terrain.20 
Approximately 60 village peace committees were formed, their members trained and some 
activities supported, including inter-county initiatives. 21 This achievement significantly 
contributes to a key gap in the national peacebuilding architecture design. While it was always 
the intention to have cascading peace structures from the national to the village level, sub￾county peace committees are often times the lowest structures established. By forming the 60 
village committees, capacity has been enhanced locally and a structural limitation in national 
peacebuilding architecture filled, in key hotspots of conflict.
In all four FGDs and 19 of 29 key informant interviews in Turkana and West Pokot counties, 
respondents affirmed having received PEARL-supported trainings. The training content was 
varied, including peacebuilding, conflict early warning and early response, mediation, farming 
practices, and entrepreneurship. The evaluation found that PEARL program pursued an 
integrated peacebuilding and development-training program. The development component – 
broadly conceptualized to include training in entrepreneurship and farming – was to spur peace 
dividends. By training participants on issues like entrepreneurship and farming practices, 
business skills were developed and an appreciation for peace grew as a precondition for 
business growth and development. In this case business opportunities became low hanging 
fruits of relative peace, which have provided an impetus for working toward greater level – and 
more long lasting – peace. 
Reformed warriors that were involved in some form of business showed less inclination 
towards violent resolution of conflict. It is from conflict early warning and early response
training that most reformed warriors developed a conscious mind to support arbitration efforts 
 
17 Mercy Corps, 2015, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 2nd Quarterly Report, October 
– December 2015, p.11
18 Mercy Corps, 2016, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 4th Quarterly Report, April – 
June 2016, p.3
19 Mercy Corps, 2017, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 8th Quarterly Report, April – 
June 2016, p.6
20 KII in Turkwell on 5th October 2017 21 KII in Turkwell on 5th October 2017
19
and initiatives to recover stolen animals as part of early response action. But they instead 
preferred collaboration with other peace actors to resolve conflicts.22 Some also confirmed 
having forged cross-county partnerships for small business activities.23
In the programme period, Turkana reformed warriors were involved in negotiated recovery of 
300 goats and 2 camels from Lokwamusi; 32 camels from Katile/Lokori; 350 cows belonging to 
the Pokot at Nauwaregai; 7 cows belonging to the Pokot at Nakwamoru; 14 cows belonging to 
the Pokot at Katilu; and in June 2017 recovery of yet another 764 cows belonging to the Pokot; 
and the rescue and handing over of a 10 year Pokot boy held ransom following a shooting in 
Kainuk.24
The Pokot reformed warriors on their part participated in recovering 600 cattle belonging to 
Turkana. They returned goats stolen from Masol; fined a fellow Pokot 30 cows for killing a 
Turkana villager; and returned 400 goats to Kainule.25 
However, challenges still abound, as separate Turkana and Pokot accounts of their 
peacebuilding and conflict roles sometimes contradict. For example, while the Turkana 
reformed warriors separately acknowledged returning so many livestock to the Pokot, their 
Pokot counterparts only acknowledged receiving 140 cows from the Pokot. There is still a sense 
that the other community isn’t doing enough to recover and return stolen livestock.26 This boils 
down to the frequency of theft, and perhaps interveners are stretched thin on the ground in 
their recovery efforts.
As a result of increase local peacebuilding as a result of capacity building, Kaptir and Lokaper 
secondary schools have been reopened and now admit students from both counties. There are 
also shared projects with the Pokot, including water pans at Rogo, Lokwar, Nariamau, Kaipyot 
and Locheremi. Some farming has also been taking place at Ariamai settlement scheme. Further, 
two motorbikes were purchased for use by the reformed warriors in enhancing transport for 
quicker information sharing.27
The PEARL program also worked with youth and marginalized individuals. One of the peace 
dividend projects – irrigation farming in Takaywa – involves women who have started with 
tomato farming.28 The program has also worked with youth, including reformed warriors and 
the Pokot Youth Bunge, an implementing partner. 
And as a result of Mercy Corps’ engagement with counties, the West Pokot county government 
established a peace directorate to match Turkana’s pre-existing one. The two peace directorates 
have been coordinating in PEARL-related peace activities.29 
County officials also benefited from PEARL-supported trainings. These include trainings on 
interest-based negotiation, mediation, peacebuilding skills, and governance (enhancing 
governance by strengthening legal and political institutions). The trainings improved officials’ 
conflict analysis and resolution skills, with one confirming that he “can identify the type of 
 
22 Based on focus group discussions with reformed warriors in Turkana and West Pokot 23 Based on Focus group discussions with reformed warriors in Turkana and West Pokot. Also a West 
Pokot business community leader attributed growth of his business to the trainings he received and the 
relative peace.
24 Focus Group Discussion in Kalemworok on 1st October 2017
25 Focus Group Discussion in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017 26 Focus Group Discussion in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017 27 Focus Group Discussion in Kalemworok on 1st October 2017 28 Based on an observatory visit of Pokot women in Takaywa on 3rd October 20017 29 KII in Kapenguria on 5th October 2017
20
conflict and develop solutions through a proper problem solving process”30 The same official 
confirmed participating in recovery and return of livestock stolen from the Turkana, which 
included 86 goats and 50 cows.31
A proxy indicator of the peacebuilding competency of the officials was to find out from 
household respondents what they thought about the effectiveness of county officials in local 
peacebuilding. The household respondents largely perceive county officials as being effective in 
peacebuilding (83%). This proportion has increased from the 73% found in the baseline survey.
FIGURE 5: PARTICIPATION OF COUNTY OFFICIALS IN PEACE-BUILDING EFFORTS
TABLE 3: HOW EFFECTIVE ARE THE COUNTY OFFICIALS IN LOCAL PEACE BUILDING EFFORTS?
How effective are the county officials in local peace building efforts? Total
Very effective Fairly effective Not effective Do not 
know
Refuse to 
answer
County:
West 
Pokot 34 34.30% 51 51.50% 9 9.10% 5 5.10% 0 0.00% 99
Turkana 29 25.00% 68 58.60% 16 13.80% 2 1.70% 1 0.90% 116
Total 63 29.00% 119 55.00% 25 12.00% 7 3.00% 1 1.00% 215
ii. Strengthening of Early Warning/Early Response Mechanism
Findings: Over two thirds of survey respondents use early warning mechanisms for giving 
conflict alerts (Figure 6).
 
30 KII in Sigor on 4th October 2017 31 KII in Sigor on 4th October 2017
Yes, 215, 54%
No, 141, 36%
Don't know, 41, 
10%
Do county officials participate in efforts to build peace between 
you and rival communities? 
21
FIGURE 6: DO YOU USE ANY MECHANISM FOR GIVING EARLY WARNING ALERTS ON POTENTIAL 
VIOLENT CONFLICTS BEFORE THEY OCCUR?
The evaluation survey found that a majority of household respondents still use traditional early 
warning systems – two thirds (66%) of respondents use traditional methods (Table 4 below). 
Among traditional methods used are reading entrails of slaughtered livestock (goats or cattle) 
to foretell impending attacks from rival communities. The communities also interpret dreams 
(to foretell attacks), and use spies planted among rival neighbouring communities.
However, there is some (11% of households) knowledge of the Office of the President’s National 
Steering Committee (NSC) early warning system, as well as that of the Conflict Early Warning 
and Response Mechanism (CEWARN). CEWARN’s Kenya warning system largely utilizes NSC’s 
pre-existing system, but to a large extent this association between the two is not locally known. 
TABLE 4: MECHANISM OF EARLY WARNING USED
Mechanism in Use County Disaggregation Total
West Pokot Turkana
Count Proportion 
(%)
Count Proportion 
(%)
Count Proportion 
(%)
Traditional alerts 
system
41 78.8% 95 93.1% 136 66%
National Steering 
Committee
1 1.9% 22 21.6% 23 11%
CEWARN 32 61.5% 7 6.9% 39 19%
Other (Specify) 2 3.8% 6 5.9% 8 4%
Total 206 100%
The PEARL program targeted averting 15 incidents of violence through EWER system. In 
Turkana County, between six and 17 cases were averted, as found through key informants. In 
West Pokot County, 18 disputes that could have turned violent were pre-emptively resolved. 
There was also one inter-county government resolution forum.32 This large variation points to a 
key issue for local stakeholders: there is lack of accessibility of systematically collected early 
warning data. Considering that informants in peace committees actually confirmed maintaining 
a record of such data, other interlocutors made estimations only based on what they knew 
rather than any other source. A comparison of Turkana and West Pokot data from informants 
helps. The higher estimate of 17 cases in Turkana is more comparable to the West Pokot’s 19. 
The early warning systems are largely considered effective – 98.1% believe they are effective. 
 
32 Key informant interview in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017
Yes
69%
No
26%
Don't know
4%
Refuse to 
answer
1%
22
TABLE 5: HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE EARLY WARNING SYSTEM IN PREVENTING CONFLICTS?
Very effective Fairly effective Not effective Do not know Total
County
West 
Pokot 37 71.20% 13 25.00% 1 1.90% 1 1.90% 52
Turkana 60 58.80% 41 40.20% 1 1.00% 0 0.00% 102
Total 97 63.00% 54 35.10% 2 1.30% 1 0.60% 154
OBJECTIVE 2: FOSTER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TURKANA AND POKOT
i. Turkana and Pokot communities understand benefits of mutual cooperation
Finding: Over half of the evaluation survey respondents (54%), agreed that collaborative 
resource management was useful. As compared against the baseline finding where 17.4% then 
agreed with the statement, “We can share the resources as a nation,” there is very significant 
improvement among household respondents’ perceptions on collaborative resource 
management. The PEARL program is seen to have contributed to violence reduction between 
the Pokot and Turkana communities33 and given that many violent disputes are over natural 
resources; this reduction is related to increasing willingness to cooperate. However, the PEARL 
program target was to have +40% improvement in the extent of inter-communal cooperation. 
But it achieved a +36.6% change in perceptions, falling just (3.4%) below the target (Table 6 
below). 
TABLE 6: NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO RECOGNIZE THE BENEFITS OF COOPERATION TO MANAGE 
RESOURCES
On natural resource management, which one 
of these statements do you agree with?
County:
West Pokot Turkana
Count Column N % Count Column N %
Collaborative resource management is useful 132 71.7% 83 39.0%
It is better when we manage our own resources 46 25.0% 115 54.0%
I do not care how resources are managed 3 1.6% 11 5.2%
Refuse to answer 3 1.6% 4 1.9%
Total 184 100.0% 213 100.0%
ii. Number of people attending USG-assisted facilitated events geared towards 
strengthening the understanding and mitigating conflict between groups
Finding: The PEARL program’s target was to have 525 people attending USG-assisted facilitated 
events geared towards strengthening understanding and mitigating conflict between groups. 
The evaluation survey found that 160 household respondents (51%, N=315) confirmed 
involvement in the PEARL program activities; and 179 (47%, N=379) had received training 
from the program. About 28% of those household respondents mentioned that they had 
attended a forum on resource sharing and management. 
Mercy Corps monitoring data indicates training of hundreds of peace actors. In 2015 120 peace 
actors were trained on interest-based negotiation, mediation and peacebuilding skills. In 2016 
 
33 All 29 key informants in Turkana and West Pokot counties felt PEARL had contributed to violence 
reduction.
23
108 peace committee members were trained on negotiation, mediation and peacebuilding skills; 
41 reformed warriors were trained on business and life skills; and 71 people were trained on 
modalities of setting up and managing an early warning and early response system. In 2017, 69 
peace committee members were trained on GPS mapping and assessment of land carrying 
capacity and conditions.
FIGURE 7: IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO, HAVE YOU ATTENDED ANY FORUM/MEETING ON RESOURCE 
SHARING AND MANAGEMENT?
Most respondents see the program as successful in contributing to peace in Turkana and West 
Pokot. Overall, 38% of all household respondents felt that PEARL has been very successful, 
while 49% felt it was partially successful. Turkana respondents were more inclined to rate the 
program as being partially successful (54.5% of Turkana households) than very successful 
(49.2%). The reverse is true in West Pokot (49.2% felt PEARL was very successful and 41.1% 
indicated partial success). 
Key informants equally credited PEARL with contributing to violence reduction, observing that 
PEARL has helped reduce incidents and intensity of violence. “Previously, livestock raids were 
bigger, with tens of raiders. But now these cases have deescalated to cases of animal theft 
36
74
146
128
2 
11
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Count Count
West Pokot Turkana
In the last year or two, have you attended any 
forum/meeting on resource sharing and management?
Yes No Don't know Refuse to answer
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Count Count
West Pokot Turkana
Were you in any way involved in the program’s activities?
Yes No Don't know Refuse to answer
24
conducted by a group of less than 10.”34 There has been a downward trend in the scale of 
violence. “Attacks in the late 1990s involved a comparatively smaller group of 50 warriors, by 
2004, 20 to 10 warriors would mobilize for raids. But now, this has gone down to involving one 
or two raiders stealing livestock.”35 PEARL’s contribution is that it is filling the void left by 
minimal government security presence in a hotspot of conflict, and with its other peace 
dividend projects (like tomato farming), communities in conflict have disincentives for 
violence.36 Over half of household respondents (55%) were confident that the program success 
would be sustained.
TABLE 7: TO WHAT EXTENT DID THE PROGRAM SUCCEED IN CONTRIBUTING TO PEACE IN THIS AREA?
To what extent did the program succeed in contributing to peace in this area?
Very successful Partially successful Not successful Do not know
County: West 
Pokot
61 49.2% 51 41.1% 1 .8% 11 8.9%
Turkana 59 30.9% 104 54.5% 18 9.4% 10 5.2%
Total 120 38% 155 49% 19 6% 21 7%
OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASE TRUST AND COOPERATION AMONG GOVERNMENT, 
PRIVATE SECTOR AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
i. Number of people who trust government, extractive industry and communities 
Findings: In seeking to measure the change in trust of key extractive sector players among 
Pokot and Turkana communities, survey respondents were asked whether they had any 
concerns about the management of valued resources, including oil. The household survey found 
that concerns about the management of (extractive) resources have eased, down to 25% of the 
sample population compared to 53% of baseline survey respondents (a 28 percentage change). 
Qualitative findings give some explanation for this: through the PEARL program, key extractive 
industry stakeholders like KENGEN and Tullow introduced a grievance mechanism. Community 
members have been provided with opportunities to raise their grievances, but as informants 
observed, in most cases the complaints were about employment, and access to natural 
resources (mainly water supply).37 
Focus group discussion findings were divergent, with participants complaining about “lies to 
the community”38 and “running down of KVDA facilities, with KVDA staff relocating to Kitale.”
The lies participants talked of related to promises of jobs and support for their livelihoods 
(water supply for their livestock and irrigation farming). The Turkana FGD participants were 
torn. Some felt that communities are yet to reap any benefits from extractive industries.39 The 
second group in Turkana felt people were gradually becoming more sensitized about existing
resources and how they could peacefully lobby for inclusiveness in resource sharing forums. 
The cited the discovery of gold and more grazing pastures in Nariongorui. It made the County 
 
34 Focus Group Discussion in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017
35 Key informant interview in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017 36 Key informant interview in Turkwell on 3rd October 2017 37 Key informant interviews in Nairobi on 10 October 2017, and in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017 38 Focus group discussions in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017 39 Focus group discussion in Nawoyaregae on 2nd October 2017
25
government of Turkana come up with a resource sharing plan in order to prevent intra￾community conflicts within the clans living in that area.40
TABLE 8: DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT OF VALUED RESOURCES SUCH AS 
OIL?
Do you have any concerns about the management of valued resources such as oil?
Yes No Don't know Refuse to answer
County West Pokot 47 25.5% 112 60.9% 23 12.5% 2 1.1%
Turkana 52 24.4% 132 62.0% 25 11.7% 4 1.9%
Total 99 25% 244 61% 48 12% 6 2%
Responsiveness of national government
Findings: Despite the improvement in perceptions about community concerns on resource
management in the two years of the program, there is a relatively unchanged trend in 
perceptions about government responsiveness to community concerns on resource 
management. Where 41% of baseline respondents considered the government responsive, 44% 
of evaluation survey respondents felt the same. Communities’ confidence in the national 
government’s responsiveness is therefore by and large unchanged. A contributor to this is 
perceived national disconnection from communities and county government actors. Based on 
focus group discussions, there is minimal national government-community interaction on 
resource governance issues, and deference to members of parliament for legislation and policy 
prescriptions on the same.41
TABLE 9: HOW RESPONSIVE HAS THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT BEEN TO YOUR CONCERNS?
How responsive has the national government been to your concerns?
Very responsive Fairly responsive Not responsive
County West Pokot 10 21.3% 10 21.3% 27 57.4%
Turkana 16 30.8% 8 15.4% 28 53.8%
Total 26 26% 18 18% 55 56%
Comparative levels of trust
Findings: On comparative level of trust (between baseline and evaluation data), there is a 
persisting trust in county government over and above trust in the national government. Tullow 
Oil Company has lost trust in the last two years. Further, 
TABLE 10: WHOM DO YOU TRUST THE MOST TO BEST MANAGE OIL AS A RESOURCE?
Whom do you trust the most to best manage oil as a resource for the county and country?
National government 
(Relevant ministry)
County 
government
Tullow Other 
(Specify)
Refuse to 
answer
County West Pokot 39 21.2% 123 66.8% 11 6.0% 6 3.3% 5 2.7%
Turkana 64 30.0% 133 62.4% 5 2.3% 5 2.3% 6 2.8%
Total 103 26% 256 64% 16 4% 11 3% 11 3%
 
40 Focus group discussion in Kalemworok on 1st October 2017 41 Based on focus group discussions in Turkana and West Pokot on 1st and 2nd October 2017
26
Retrospective questions were asked to household respondents about change in trust of national
and county government and private sector to manage natural resources. The findings show that 
West Pokot household respondents’ trust in national government most significantly increased 
in the last two years, with 37% of them holding this view. Turkana household respondents were 
more of the belief that the extent of their trust in national government had remained the same 
over the years (46% of Turkana respondents). Overall, more people (36.3% of total sample) felt 
that their trust had remained the same rather than increased (27.5%) over the last two years.
However, more household respondents in both counties expressed increased trust in the county 
governments on resource management issues. It is reflective of the importance of devolution in 
bring county residents in close proximity with their county governments. PEARL’s contribution 
has been through training of county government officials and policy engagement forums with 
them on resource management mechanisms and revenue sharing criteria.
As for the private sector, trust building progress seems steady. Not many feel that their trust in 
the private sector has decreased (only 9.8% and 11.3% of West Pokot and Turkana respondents 
respectively). But a significantly bigger proportion of West Pokot respondents (50%) expressed 
increased trust in the private sector than that of Turkana respondents (21.6%).
FIGURE 8: TRUST IN NATIONAL & COUNTY GOVERNMENTS & PRIVATE SECTOR?
ii. Number of media stories disseminated with USG support to facilitate the advancement 
of reconciliation or peace processes – Data source: Program records
Findings: A media content analysis of Mercy Corps’ related media stories between 2015 and 
2017 found that 109 stories on Mercy Corps were reported in 2015, none in 2016, and only 13 
15% 25% 37% 23% 1% 11% 21% 48% 19% 1% 10% 11% 50% 29% 0%
16%
46%
19%
16%
3%
8%
40%
43%
6% 3%
11%
42%
22% 22%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Decreased
The same
Increased
Don’t Know
Refuse
Decreased
The same
Increased
Don’t Know
Refuse
Decreased
The same
Increased
Don’t Know
Refuse
On the management of natural
resources in this area, to what extent
has your trust in the national
government changed in the last two
years?
On the management of natural
resources in this area, to what extent
has your trust in the county government
changed in the last two years?
On the management of natural
resources in this area, to what extent
has your trust in the private sector
changed in the last two years?
Trust In National & County Governments & Private Sector
County County
27
in 2017. Almost all of the 2015 media stories were about adolescent girls’ role in improving 
food security, and none were on the PEARL program. The 2017 media stories were more 
diverse, with climate change, job advertisements (for the GIRL program), cash transfer 
programs, sustainable energy and a research report covered. On 31st March 2017, there were 
stories on the attack on Mercy Corps staff in Turkwell. Based on KIIs and FGDs, that attacked 
triggered PEARL-facilitated local peacebuilding efforts that culminated in a traditional and 
binding peace pact. The process involved slaughter of an animal and declaration of curses on 
anyone flouting the agreement. Informants confirmed a significant reduction in incidents of 
road banditry.42 
iii. Responsiveness of extractive industries
Findings: The proportion of those who felt that extractive industries weren’t responsive to 
their concerns reduced from 35.8% in the 2015 baseline to 32.3% in the endline survey. The 
proportion of respondents who believe the extractive industries are either very or somewhat 
responsive (a total 66.7% in the evaluation, compared to 50.2% in the baseline) increased. A 
key informant noted that Mercy Corps has facilitated grievance meetings with Tullow Oil 
Company. The company is said to have committed to sustainable waste disposal and 
management practices; supports conservancies, and has promised to support students pursuing 
relevant local university programs.43 However, in FGDs participants complained about access to 
jobs in Tullow – on the West Pokot side, the feeling was that the Turkana community members 
were opposed to the employment of Pokots. They would attack Pokots employed in Tullow.44
Communities are also interested in having water reservoirs, and these have not been developed 
for them.45
TABLE 11: RESPONSIVENESS OF EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES
Very 
responsive
Fairly 
responsive
Not 
responsive
Refuse to 
answer Total
West 
Pokot 12 25.50% 16 34.00% 19 40.40% 0 0.00% 47
Turkana 19 36.50% 19 36.50% 13 25.00% 1 1.90% 52
Total 31 31.30% 35 35.40% 32 32.30% 1 1.00% 99
iv. Workforce development
Findings: There is still a massive skills gap in the Pokot and Turkana communities, and this 
means that most jobs community members seek and get are casual.46 Literacy levels in Turkana 
and West Pokot remain low, with the latter’s illiteracy levels estimated at 60%47 and the 
former’s literacy rate being 46%.48 Generally, the skills Tullow Oil, KENGEN, and Kerio Valley 
Development Authority (KVDA) need for higher-level technical jobs are limited or lacking in 
Turkana and West Pokot.
Nonetheless, 47.2% of the household respondents confirmed having received some kind of 
training through the PEARL program.49 From among those that claimed to have undergone 
 
42 Key informant interviews and Focus Group Discussions in Turkwell between 1st and 4th October 2017 43 Key informant interview in Sigor on 4th October 2017 44 Key informant interviews and FGDs in Turkwell and Sigor between 1st and 5th October 2017
45 Key informant interviews and FGDs in Turkwell and Sigor between 1st and 5th October 2017 46 Key informant interview in Turkwell on 2nd October 2017 47 County Government of West Pokot, 2014, West Pokot Annual Development Plan 2015/2016, p.13 48 Turkana County Government, n.d., County Integrated Development Plan: 2013 – 2017, p.31 49 There is a tendency of community members to regard any kind of NGO-supported forum as training.
28
some training, 44% felt they acquired new skills, and roughly a quarter (23.2%) said they 
received new or better employment as a result. Based on Mercy Corps’ progress reports, 
trainings that have been conducted include business and life skills training; trainings on 
interest, mediation and peacebuilding skills; early warning training; and training on GPS 
mapping and assessment of land carrying capacity and conditions. 
A case in point is Pokot reformed warriors, who through PEARL program intervention 
underwent peace, development, entrepreneurship and fodder production training. As a result of 
this, they have small business partnerships with Turkana community members. The 
partnerships relate to local collaborations to access markets in neighbouring communities, as 
well as supplying them. Given heightened identity consciousness of communities, such business 
collaborations are meant to circumvent challenges relating to identity – a Turkana collaborator 
would easily help in selling to a fellow Turkana, for example. Others are producing fodder on 
300 acres of land.50 The PEARL program has also supported youth to learn driving, with a view 
to getting driving jobs locally.51
TABLE 12: IN THE LAST YEAR OR TWO HAVE YOU RECEIVED ANY TRAINING FROM MERCY CORPS’ 
PEARL PROGRAM? (N=379)
Category Yes No Don't know Refuse to 
answer
County West Pokot 57 107 1 1
Turkana 122 82 8 1
Total 179 189 9 2
v. Public information campaigns 
Findings: The evaluation found a reduction in the proportion of people confirming 
participation in any peacebuilding events. While the proportion from the baseline survey was 
55%, in the evaluation survey only 45% did participate in such forums. This is especially 
notable in West Pokot County, where the proportion decreased from 57% in 2015 to 36% in 
2017. But in Turkana, there is no significant change (54% to 53%), indicating potential inertia. 
It must be noted however that 2017 being an election year, there were competing events 
targeting the same communities.52 Mercy Corps’ progress reports indicate that the PEARL 
program organized students’ peace club forums; inter-community dialogues; and joint Pokot￾Turkana sports events. The number of attendees are mostly not indicated, but there is one 
community dialogue that brought together 200 participants 53 and in another one 300 
attended,54 with the biggest dialogue meeting bringing together 1590 people.55 In one sports 
event, the estimation was that there were 6000 direct and indirect participants.56
 
50 Focus group discussion on 2nd October 2017 in Turkwell.
51 Focus group discussion on 2nd October 2017 in Turkwell.
52 Mercy Corps’ 2nd Quarterly Report, October – December 2015, p. 10 acknowledged the likelihood of 
2017 political campaigns affecting peace work.
53 Mercy Corps, 2016, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 6th Quarterly Report, October – 
December, p.9
54 Ibid., p.8
55 Mercy Corps, 2016, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 3rd Quarterly Report, January – 
March, p.26
56 Ibid., p. iv
29
TABLE 13: HAVE YOU ATTENDED ANY EVENTS RELATED TO BUILDING TRUST AND UNDERSTANDING 
BETWEEN RIVAL COMMUNITIES?
However, despite reduced proportions of people confirming participation in peacebuilding 
events, more people perceive the events as contributing to inter-community trust and 
understanding. Baseline data showed 53% and 58% of communities holding this view in 2015 
in Turkana and West Pokot counties respectively. However, in the final evaluation, 89% of 
Turkana respondents and 97% of those from West Pokot felt the events helped build trust and 
understanding of neighbouring communities.
TABLE 14: DID THEY HELP BUILD YOUR TRUST IN AND UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR NEIGHBOURING 
COMMUNITIES?
Did they help build your trust in and understanding of 
your neighbouring communities?
Yes No Don't know
Count Row N % Count Row N % Count Row N %
County West Pokot 64 97.0% 2 3.0% 0 0.0%
Turkana 101 89.4% 8 7.1% 4 3.5%
Total 165 92% 10 6% 4 2%
In terms of county officials’ participation in peacebuilding efforts, a smaller proportion of 
respondents (54%) confirmed observing their participation. Over half of Turkana respondents 
(56%) and over one third of those in West Pokot (35%) saw county officials participating. In the 
2015 baseline, 77% of respondents said county officials participated in peacebuilding efforts. 
Yet the perception on the effectiveness of the county officials in peacebuilding has grown more 
significantly (up from 73% in 2015 to 83%). Most of the household respondents largely want 
more county officials’ participation in peacebuilding efforts. 
OBJECTIVE 4: IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS’ CAPACITY
Findings: The PEARL Program had two implementing partners – TUPADO and West Pokot 
Youth Bunge. The two were beneficiaries of trainings on project management and 
peacebuilding. Mercy Corps also accompanied them by involving them in policy as well as peace 
Have you attended any events related to building trust and understanding 
between rival communities?
Yes No Do not Know
Refuse to 
answer
County: West Pokot 66 35.9% 118 64.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Turkana 113 53.1% 93 43.7% 6 2.8% 1 .5%
Respondent’s 
Gender
Female 79 41.8% 109 57.7% 1 .5% 0 0.0%
Male 100 48.1% 102 49.0% 5 2.4% 1 .5%
Age
 
 
 
 
18-24 years 37 43.0% 48 55.8% 1 1.2% 0 0.0%
25-34 years 61 48.4% 63 50.0% 2 1.6% 0 0.0%
35-44 years 44 50.6% 42 48.3% 0 0.0% 1 1.1%
45-54 years 14 26.9% 37 71.2% 1 1.9% 0 0.0%
55-64 years 18 45.0% 21 52.5% 1 2.5% 0 0.0%
65 years and above 5 83.3% 0 0.0% 1 16.7% 0 0.0%
Total 179 45% 211 53% 6 1.5% 1 0.5%
30
dialogue forums. The PEARL program also set up 60 village peace committees, and facilitated 
the registration of 40 reformed warrior self-help groups. 57
Eight of 18 key informants confirmed having benefited from PEARL program’s training and 
capacity building sessions. The capacity building was useful in improving beneficiaries’ 
peacebuilding skills, entrepreneurship, and farming skills. However, the complexity of conflicts 
as well the terrain in Turkana and West Pokot, is a continuous challenge that the implementing 
partners will keep facing.
To ask households to evaluate the capacity of interveners, an indirect approach was used: First, 
respondents were asked about whom they reported incidents to with the hope of having them 
resolved. Local chiefs and elders are the foremost interveners of resort (Table 15). With local 
civil society organizations and peace committees in the second tier of interveners of resort.
TABLE 15: WHO DO YOU REPORT INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT WITH THE HOPE OF HAVING THEM 
RESOLVED?
Intervener (%) Proportion of responses
Total
N = 668 
West Pokot
N = 291
Turkana
N = 377
Local chief 31% 74.6% 80.6%
Kenya police/Administration police 12% 28.7% 31.3%
County or sub-county commissioner 6% 13.9% 16.0%
District peace committee 10% 3.3% 44.4%
Local elders 27% 76.2% 61.1%
Local CSO/NGO (Please give name) 10% 36.9% 17.4%
Other (Specify) 3% 4.9% 11.1%
Secondly, the respondents were asked to give their opinion on the effectiveness of the 
interveners in general. The evaluation found that 84.6% of household respondents who 
reported incidents of conflict viewed interveners as responsive. Perceptions on interveners’ 
effectiveness were positive – with 97.8% viewing them as effective.
TABLE 16: HOW EFFECTIVE HAVE THE PERSONS, OFFICES OR ORGANIZATIONS BEEN IN RESPONDING 
TO INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT?
Perception on 
Effectiveness 
(n=225)
Proportion of 
Responses (%)
Turkana (%)
n=119
West Pokot (%)
n=106
Very effective 49.8 47.1 52.8
Fairly effective 48 51.3 44.3
Not effective 1.8 0.8 2.8
Do not know 0.4 0.8
The same respondents also predominantly (97.3%) felt that interveners were knowledgeable. 
On the whole therefore, the local population appears confident about the capacity and 
performance of person, offices or organisations intervening in conflict.
 
57 Key informant interview in Turkwell on 5th October 2011
31
TABLE 17: IN YOUR OPINION, HOW KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKILLFUL HAVE THE PERSONS, OFFICES OR 
ORGANIZATIONS BEEN IN THE WAY THEY RESPONDED TO INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT?
Perception on 
Knowledge of 
Interveners (n=225)
Proportion of 
Responses (%)
Turkana (%)
n=119
West Pokot (%)
n=106
Very knowledgeable 58.3 50.4 57.5
Fairly knowledgeable 43.6 47.1 39.6
Not knowledgeable 0.9 0.8 0.9
Do not know 1.8 1.7 1.9
Compared to the baseline findings, there is some increase in the proportion of those who think 
positively about the effectiveness (+3.5% improvement) and level of knowledge of responders 
(+7.4% change).
However, there is a slightly negative trend when measuring perceptions on interveners’ 
capacities. The level of belief in their capacity dropped from 88% in 2015, to 85% in 2017. 
TABLE 18: DO THE PERSONS, OFFICES, OR ORGANIZATIONS YOU REPORT INCIDENTS OF CONFLICT 
HELP RESOLVE THEM?
Response County: 
West Pokot (n=122) Turkana (n=144) Total (n=266)
Yes 86.90% 82.60% 84.60%
No 12.30% 12.50% 12.40%
Don’t Know 0.80% 4.90% 3.00%
Total 45.90% 54.10%
32
3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PEARL program has largely helped build peace in West Pokot and Turkana. The incidence 
of violence has reduced, based on findings, and most respondents felt the need for extended 
PEARL engagement in the two counties. 
Several conclusions and recommendations can be made per program objective:
OBJECTIVE1: STRENGHTEN LOCAL MECHANISMS
i. Develop Capacity and Linkages among Pokot and Turkana Local Mechanisms
Conclusion: The PEARL program’s approach of strengthening pre-existing structures while 
establishing new, lower level complimentary structures ensures sustainability of the peace 
architecture. However, newly formed structures like village peace committees, and the recently 
established West Pokot county peace directorate need more support to grow in institutional 
strength.
Recommendation: Offer further support or link newly formed structures with other existing 
peace programs in Turkana and West Pokot counties.
ii. Strengthening of Early Warning/Early Response Mechanism
Conclusion: The more formal, state-supported early warning mechanisms have not gained wide 
utilization by communities. Success of early warning in Turkana and West Pokot is therefore 
dependent on keen hybridization of the formal with the traditional early warning systems.
Recommendations:
• Invest in sensitizing the public on formal early warning systems.
• Strengthen conflict early warning models that are hybrids of formal and traditional 
mechanisms. This may entail preservation of and education on traditional early 
warning knowledge and skills
• A key challenge with local stakeholders was in maintaining a reliable record of conflict 
incidents, alerts, and responses. Further capacity building is needed on this.
33
OBJECTIVE 2: FOSTER RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TURKANA AND POKOT
i. Turkana and Pokot communities understand benefits of mutual cooperation
Conclusion: The multidimensionality of the conflict dynamics in West Pokot and Turkana 
counties complicates progress, since different cycles affect the trends. The electoral cycle, 
weather patterns, and cultural forces (such as quest for dowry), all play a part in influencing 
trends in conflict. And these pressures take long to address. Thus despite the small shortfall, the 
PEARL program has made a significant gain.
Recommendations: Further the work on collaborative resource management. Given the fairly 
recent discovery of oil, and persisting intercommunity tensions over resources, it is still too 
early to phase out the initiative.
ii. Number of people attending USG-assisted facilitated events geared towards 
strengthening the understanding and mitigating conflict between groups
Conclusion: PEARL program has a high level of penetration of its target areas. The use of a 
grassroots peacebuilding model that involves methods like local community meetings, many 
times held under trees (rather than secluded and exclusive hotels) have helped enhance the 
program’s reach. 
Recommendation: Need to sustain gains, through empowerment of PEARL-created 
peacebuilding infrastructure through for long-term peacebuilding. Empowerment of the 
structures includes further institutional strengthening and resource mobilization: early warning 
data management capacity remains basic, capacity to coordinate responses needs further 
strengthening; and the context is difficult (in the form of tough terrain, recurrent conflict, and 
minimal police presence) and expensive. But counties are steadily improving in development 
terms given the gains of devolution, and therefore real transformation shall be a short to 
medium term fete (of one to three years). Long-term peacebuilding would involve a minimum 
five-year engagement.
OBJECTIVE 3: INCREASE TRUST AND COOPERATION AMONG GOVERNMENT, 
PRIVATE SECTOR AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES
i. Number of people who trust government, extractive industry and communities 
Conclusion: The PEARL program has influenced extractive industries to be more sensitive to 
community issues, but community expectations are still limited to foundational needs (such as 
menial jobs and water supply). 
Recommendation: 
• More community sensitization is needed to raise local awareness about the wide array 
of economic, environmental, and social issues they can raise with extractive industries.
34
• Extractive industries, in their corporate social responsibility programs, need to be more 
responsive to what communities prioritise over and above what the industries think the 
communities need.
Responsiveness of national government
Conclusion: There are slow gains made in addressing community concerns about government 
responsiveness. It maybe a result of poor communication between government and community, 
or bureaucratic red tape in effecting change, or it may be too soon to conclude on progress made 
so far.
Recommendation: Predominant perceptions of government non-responsiveness to community 
resource concerns underscore the need for sustained government-community engagement.
Comparative levels of trust
Conclusion: Growth in the trust of the county government’s natural resource management role 
is a lot more significant compared to people’s trust in national government and the private 
sector. This indicates that the grievance resolution mechanism alone cannot help build trust, 2 
that multiple aspects of community expectations of the private sector need to be considered. It 
also underscores the significant need for community engagement in national-level 
implementation of legal provisions on public participation in policy dialogues on resource 
extraction and revenue sharing. 
Recommendation: Sustain government-private sector-community dialogues and problem 
solving mechanisms. Also, empower local advocacy groups, through trainings on resource 
governance and resource mobilization, to lobby for and monitor private sector corporate social 
responsibility initiatives.
ii. Number of media stories disseminated with USG support to facilitate the advancement 
of reconciliation or peace processes – Data source: Program records
Conclusion: Minimal to absent media coverage of the PEARL program indicates a weak or non￾existent media relations strategy.
Recommendation: In future, develop a comprehensive communication strategy that runs 
through the entire cycle of any given program, and includes media relations.
iii. Responsiveness of extractive industries
Conclusion: While there is some positive improvement in perceptions of extractive industries’ 
responsiveness to community concerns, the predominant feeling is still negative. Thus, PEARL 
program has contributed to increased private sector-community interactions that are 
influencing the turn in perceptions. But this initiative needs time in order to fully transform the 
situation.
35
Recommendations: More engagement is needed with extractive industries including Tullow in 
the area on development of corporate social responsibility programs that address present 
community vulnerabilities (such as scarcity of water and pasture) alongside long-term skills 
development needs (e.g. scholarships). 
iv. Workforce development
Conclusion: The workforce development initiative for the most part addresses immediate term, 
low-level job needs. It has however helped beneficiaries in seeking opportunities not only with 
extractive industries, but also outside their counties of residence (e.g. driving jobs in Kitale 
town, Trans Nzoia County).
Recommendation: Link workforce development needs with higher level specialised human 
resource development initiatives, such as through relevant university programs.
v. Public information campaigns 
Conclusion: The PEARL program, through its grassroots peacebuilding approaches such as 
inter-community dialogues and sports events, has reached significant proportions of the Pokot 
and Turkana communities. Both qualitative and quantitative findings indicate a positive 
influence of this initiative on inter-community trust, despite the violence. The persisting 
violence only underscores the importance of sustaining the work to continually address 
recurrent and emergent conflicts.
Recommendations: 
• There is a need to integrate more mass communication tactics (such as arts-based 
peacebuilding tactics) to widen the community reach. 
• There is a need to have a communication strategy accompanying the program strategy, 
which should specify necessary public information campaigns and the key messages 
throughout the program cycle.
OBJECTIVE 4: IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS’ CAPACITY
Conclusion: Whereas local capacities have been created and/or strengthened, a key capacity 
gap for local partners is in the area of designing programs for complex conflicts. The complexity 
of local conflicts over issues of national interest, requires agility to address local issues 
alongside national, policy oriented problems.
Recommendation: Support implementing partners’ capacity on public policy analysis and 
advocacy.
36
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abonyo L. Cehrono, Chebunet K. Phillip and Lopeyok A. Joseph, ‘Cultural beliefs as a source of ethnic 
conflicts: A study of the Turkana and Pokot pastoralists in Kenya.’ Journal of Global Peace and 
Conflict [online journal] 1/1 (2014), http://jgpcnet.com/journals/jgpc/Vol_1_No_1_June_2013/1.pdf, 
accessed 28 November 2017
Agade, M. Kennedy, ‘Challenges of the Kenya Police Reserve: The case of Turkana County.’, 
Africa Studies Review [online journal], 58/1(2015), https://doi.org/10.1017/asr.2015.10
accessed 29 November 2017
Agade, M. Kennedy, ‘Ungoverned space’ and the oil find in Turkana Kenya.’ , The Round Table
[online journal], 103/5 (2014) http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00358533.2014.966497, accessed 29 
November 2017
County Government of West Pokot, 2014, West Pokot Annual Development Plan 2015/2016,
Kapenguria: County Government of West Pokot
Devine R. Patrick, ‘Persistent conflict between the Pokot and Turkana: Causes and policy 
implications.’ PhD Thesis (University of Nairobi, 2016) [online repository] 
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/97476, accessed 29 November 2017
Kangogo Joseph, ‘ Six killed, scored injured in fresh Pokot-Turkana attack’, The Star, ‘News’, June 11, 
2017 https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/06/11/6-killed-scores-injured-in-fresh-pokot-turkana￾attack_c1578388, accessed 30 November 2017
Mabatuk Vincent, ‘State silent as bodies rot after deadly Pokot- Turkana clashes’, Standard Media,
November 28, 2016 https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000224980/state-silent-as-bodies￾rot-after-deadly-pokot-turkana-clashes accessed 28 November 2017
Mercy Corps, 2015, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 2nd Quarterly Report, 
October – December 2015, Unpublished
Mercy Corps, 2016, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 4th Quarterly Report, April – 
June 2016, Unpublished
Mercy Corps, 2016, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 6th Quarterly Report, 
October – December, Unpublished
Mercy Corps, 2016, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 3rd Quarterly Report, 
January – March, Unpublished
Mercy Corps, 2017, USAID Kenya (Peaceful Empowerment in Arid Lands), 8th Quarterly Report, April – 
June 2016, Unpublished
Ombati Cyrus, ‘ Disarmament exercise kicks off in Turkana, East Pokot after deadly attack’, Standard 
Digital, May 6, 2015, https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000161299/disarmament-exercise￾kicks-off-in-turkana-east-pokot-after-deadly-attacks, accessed 28 November 2017
37
Runci Alessandro, ‘Resource governance dynamics in extractive frontiers: the case of the “new” oil in 
Turkana County, Kenya.’ MSC Thesis (Utrecht University, 2015) [online] 
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/337348 , accessed 30 November 2017
Senelwa Patrick, ‘Row brewing over how oil revenue from Turkana basin will be shared’, The East 
African ‘Business’, January 3, 2017 http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/business/Row-brewing-over￾how-Turkana-oil-revenue-will-be-shared/2560-3505470-sqvlpd/index.html, accessed 28 November 
2017
Sophia Mbugua, ‘Oil rich yet on the edge in Turkana’, IRIN, ‘Analysis’ 6 November 2017 
http://www.irinnews.org/analysis/2017/11/06/oil-rich-yet-edge-turkana, accessed 29 
November 2017
Triche Ryan, ‘Pastoral conflict in Kenya: Transforming mimetic violence to mimetic blessings 
between Turkana and Pokot communities.’ , Africa Journal of Conflict Resolution [online journal] 
14/2 (2014), https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajcr/article/view/113364/103081,accessed 28 
November 2017
Turkana County Government, n.d., County Integrated Development Plan: 2013 – 2017, Lodwar: 
Turkana County Government
Vincent Achuka and Moses Michira, ‘Kenya’s oil hits black market ahead of exports’, Standard 
Digital, ‘Local News’ September, 2017, https://www.sde.co.ke/article/2001256010/kenya-s￾oil-hits-black-market-ahead-of-exports, accessed 30 November 2017
Wepundi, M., 2012, Political Conflict and Vulnerabilities: Firearms and Electoral Violence in Kenya,
Geneva: Small Arms Survey
38
ANNEX 1: HOUSEHOLD SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Introduction: Mercy Corps has commissioned an end-line survey of Turkana and West Pokot 
following the implementation of its peace project in the two counties. This study aims to 
understand how the peace and conflict situation has changed in these areas, the mechanisms for 
conflict resolution, and the level of cooperation among communities. Your time will be highly 
appreciated.
**************************************READ CONSENT FORM
**************************************
` SECTION A
A1 (a) HAS RESPONDENT BEEN READ THE CONSENT FORM AND HAS AGREED TO PARTICIPATE? 
YES 1()
NO 2()
A2 (b) If NO, kindly ask why? If respondent does not want to give a reason thank him/her and go to next house
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
A3 QUESTIONNAIRE SERIAL NUMBER (_____. _____._____._____)
A4 RESULT OF INTERVIEW Completed 1()
 Partially completed 2()
 Refused 3()
A5 INTERVIEWER’S I.D. (Three Initials or Numbers): |___|___|___|
A6 DATE INTERVIEW: (Day) |___||___| 
A6 (a) MONTH (circle one): SEPTEMBER 1() 
 OCTOBER 2()
(b) YEAR: | 2 || 0 || 1 || 7 | 
39
A7 START TIME (24 HOUR): |___ ___: ___ ___|
A8 END TIME (24 HOUR): |___ ___: ___ ___|
Official Use: CHECKED BY SUPERVISOR: Name: ------------------------
Signature: ------------------------
Date: ------------------------
40
SECTION B: PARTICIPATION CHECK
 N° Questions and Filters CODING CATEGORIES Skip to Notes
B1
IF YOU SOUGHT TO RECRUIT 
A FEMALE PARTICIPANT, 
were you able to do this?
DID NOT SEEK TO RECRUIT A WOMAN 0()
YES 1( )
SKIP
C1
NO 2( ) 
CONTINUE
to B2
B2
Why were you unable to 
recruit a female respondent?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
THERE WAS NO ADULT FEMALE AVAILABLE 
1()
MALE MEMBER REFUSED TO ALLOW 
FEMALES
TO PARTICIPATE 2()
ALL ADULT FEMALES REFUSED TO 
PARTICIPATE 3()
MY LAST INTERVIEW WAS WITH A FEMALE 
RESPONDENT 4()
OTHER 96()
--------------------------------------------
SECTION C: IDENTIFICATION
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip to Notes
C1 County
C2 Sub-County
C3 Location
C4 Village/area of interview
C5 Is it urban or rural area? 
URBAN 1 ()
PERI-URBAN 2 ()
RURAL 3 ( )
C6 Size of area
SMALL (LESS THAN 200 HOUSEHOLDS) 1()
 MEDIUM (201-400 HOUSEHOLDS) 2()
LARGE (MORE THAN 401 HOUSEHOLDS) 3( )
C8 Area landmark
SCHOOL 1()
MOSQUE/CHURCH 2()
POLICE STATION 3()
HOSPITAL 4()
SPORTS FIELD 5()
COMMERCIAL AREA 6()
MARKET 7()
COMMUNITY CENTRE 8()
MILITARY RESIDENTIAL AREA 9()
OTHER (SPECIFY) 96()
------------------------------------------------------
41
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip to Notes
C9
Questionnaire completed on 
the ... 
FIRST VISIT TO THAT HOUSEHOLD 
1()
SECOND (RETURN) VISIT TO THAT 
HOUSEHOLD 
2( )
42
SECTION D: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INTERVIEWER: “I would first like to ask you some background information questions”
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
D1 Gender of respondent: 
FEMALE 1()
MALE 2( )
D2 How old are you?
NUMBER (SPECIFY) 1()
------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
D3 
The predominant ETHNIC 
IDENTITY of the people in 
this area is…
ETHNICITY (SPECIFY) 1()
DO NOT KNOW 88( )
D4 The predominant CLAN of 
the people in this area is …
CLAN OR VILLAGE (SPECIFY) 1()
DO NOT KNOW 88( )
43
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
D5 What is your MAIN 
occupation?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
WORKING (LABOURER) 1()
PASTORALIST 2()
FARMER 3()
FISHERMAN 4()
BUSINESSMAN/-WOMAN 5()
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE (INCL. MILITARY & POLICE) 
6() 
EMPLOYEE WITH LNGO, INGO, UN 7()
HOUSEWIFE 8()
STUDENT 9()
RETIRED/DISABLED 10() 
UNEMPLOYED 11()
 
OTHER (SPECIFY) 96()
------------------------------------------------------
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
44
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
D6 
Comparing your household 
income with the neighbour’s, 
do you consider your 
situation to be 
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
CONSIDERABLY/A LOT BETTER OFF THAN MOST 
HOUSEHOLDS 
1()
SLIGHTLY BETTER OFF THAN MOST HOUSEHOLDS 
2()
 
SLIGHTLY WORSE OFF THAN MOST HOUSEHOLDS 
3()
CONSIDERABLY/A LOT WORSE OFF THAN MOST 
HOUSEHOLDS
 4()
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
45
SECTION E: PERCEPTION OF CONFLICT SITUATION
INTERVIEWER: “Thank you for that information. I would now like to ask you a few questions about your 
perceptions of the conflict situation in this area”
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E1
Are there any kinds of 
conflict in your area that 
have been of concern to 
you and your 
household? 
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1()
NO 2()
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
E9
46
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E2 Which types conflict 
have you witnessed?
TICK ALL THAT APPLY
INTER-CLAN 1()
INTRA-CLAN 2()
LAND CONFLICT 3()
CONFLICT OVER PASTURE & WATER 4()
INTER-ETHNIC 5()
POLITICAL POWER STRUGGLES 6()
STATE FAILURE 7()
BOUNDARY/BORDER RELATED 8()
ELECTION RELATED 9()
RELIGIOUS 10()
POLITICAL MILITIA-RELATED (AL SHABAAB, OLF, ONLF) 11()
VIOLENT CRIME 12()
LIVESTOCK RAIDING (LINKED TO CLAN/ETHNIC, NATURAL
RESOURCES, CRIME) 13()
TERRORIST THREATS 14()
OTHER _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________ 15()
47
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E3
What are the causes of 
these conflict(s)? 
INTERVIEWER NOTE: 
Please relate this 
question with E2 in 
order to get the 
respondents’ views on 
causes of each conflict 
s/he listed in E2 
TICK ALL THAT APPLY
CLIMATE CHANGE (E.G. DESERTIFICATION) 1() 
OWNERSHIP OR COMPETITION OVER SCARCE OF RESOURCES 
(WATER, PASTURE, SALT, ETC.) 2()
IDENTITY POLITICS 3()
STATE FAILURE OR ABSENT GOVERNMENT 4()
AVAILABILITY OF SMALL ARMS 5()
IMPUNITY OVER PERCEIVED INJUSTICES 6()
POVERTY 7()
GOVERNANCE FAILURE 8()
DO NOT KNOW 88( )
E4
How regularly do you 
experience or witness 
the conflicts?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
DAILY 1 ()
WEEKLY 2 ()
FORTNIGHTLY 3 ()
MONTHLY 4 ()
EVERY TWO MONTHS 5 ()
QUARTERLY 6 ()
EVERY 4 TO 6 MONTHS 7 ()
OCCASIONALLY (7 MONTHS OR LONGER) 8 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ( )
E5
When did the last 
incident of conflict 
occur?
PLEASE NOTE APPROXIMATE DATE
_____________________________________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________ 
DO NOT REMEMBER 88 ( )
48
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E6
How did you and your 
household initially 
respond to the conflict 
incident?
ONE RESPONSE
FLED 1 ()
FOUGHT BACK 2 ()
ALERTED LOCAL AUTHORITY (CHIEF, KPR) 3 ()
ALERTED POLICE 4 ()
ALERTED ELDERS 5 ()
ALERTED DPC MEMBER 6 ()
FORMED VILLAGE VIGILANTE/MILITIA 7 ()
OTHER (SPECIFY)_______________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________ 8 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( ) 
E7
Was there any response 
by your local community 
later on? 
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1()
NO 2()
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
E8
What was the response 
by your local 
community?
TICK ALL THAT APPLY
FLED 1 ()
YOUTH MILITIA 2 ()
ELDERS’ DIALOGUE EFFORT 3 ()
COMMUNITY DEMONSTRATION 4 ()
COMMUNITY RELOCATION 5 ()
OTHER (SPECIFY)_______________________________________ 
_____________________________________________________________ 8 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
49
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E9
How are inter￾community relations in 
this area?
ONE RESPONSE
COOPERATIVE AND CORDIAL 1()
SOMETIMES TENSE, OTHER TIMES CORDIAL 2()
TENSE AND HOSTILE 3()
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
E10
How have inter￾community relations 
changed in the last two 
years? 
ONE RESPONSE
IMPROVED1()
STILL THE SAME 2()
WORSE 3( )
PEACE STRUCTURES
E11
Do you look up to any 
person, office or 
organization to help 
resolve conflicts in your 
area?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E25
E12
Who do you report 
incidents of conflict with 
the hope of having them 
resolved?
TICK ALL THAT APPLY
LOCAL CHIEF 1 ()
KENYA POLICE/ADMINISTRATION POLICE 2 ()
COUNTY OR SUBCOUNTY COMMISSIONER 3 ()
DISTRICT PEACE COMMITTEE 4 ()
LOCAL ELDERS 5 ()
LOCAL CSO/NGO (GIVE NAME) ______________________________ 6 ()
OTHER (SPECIFY) __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________ 7()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
50
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E13
Do the persons, offices, 
or organizations you 
report incidents of 
conflict help resolve 
them?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E24
E14
How effective have the 
persons, offices or 
organizations been in 
responding to incidents 
of conflict?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY EFFECTIVE 1 ()
FAIRLY EFFECTIVE 2 ()
NOT EFFECTIVE 3 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E15
In your opinion, how 
knowledgeable and 
skilful have the persons, 
offices or organizations 
been in the way they 
responded to incidents 
of conflict?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKILLFUL 1 ()
FAIRLY KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKILLFUL 2 ()
NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE AND SKILLFUL 3 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E16
Do you use any 
mechanism for giving 
early warning alerts on 
potential violent 
conflicts before they 
occur? 
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E28
51
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E17
What is the mechanism 
of conflict early warning 
that you use?
TICK ALL THAT APPLY
TRADITIONAL ALERTS SYSTEM 1 ()
NATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE 2 ()
CEWARN 3 ()
OTHER (SPECIFY) __________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________ 4 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E18
How effective is the 
conflict early warning 
system in preventing 
conflicts?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY EFFECTIVE 1 ()
FAIRLY EFFECTIVE 2 ()
NOT EFFECTIVE 3 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
INTERVIEWER NOTE: Would you be willing to share or collaboratively manage resources 
(water, pasture, oil, gold, etc.) with the following communities:
Please indicate 
appropriate response 
in respective cells
YES (1) NO (2) REFUSE TO ANSWER 
(99)
E19 Pokot
E20 Turkana
E21 Karamojong
E22 Seabee
E23 Samburu
E24 Borane
E25 Gabbro
52
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E26
Have you heard about 
Mercy Corps’ Peaceful 
Empowerment in Arid 
Lands (PEARL) program 
in this area?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E34
E27 What were some of the 
program activities?
OPEN ENDED
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
E28
Were you in any way 
involved in the 
program’s activities?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E31
E29
Was the beneficiary 
selection process clear 
and inclusive?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
53
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E29.1 Were people of different 
age groups involved?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E29.2
Were people of different 
ethnic identities 
involved?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ()
E29.3 Were people of different 
genders involved?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ()
E30
Please briefly describe 
how you were selected 
in the program?
OPEN ENDED
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
54
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E31
To what extent did the 
program succeed in 
contributing to peace in 
this area?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY SUCCESSFUL 1()
PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL 2()
NOT SUCCESSFUL 3()
DO NOT KNOW 88()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
E32
In your own words, 
please list some of the 
successes.
OPEN ENDED
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
E33
Do you feel the program 
successes will last 
beyond the program?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E34
In the last year or two 
have you received any 
training from Mercy 
Corps’ PEARL program?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F1
55
N° Questions and 
Filters
Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
E35
Did the training help you 
gain any new skills?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
E36
Did the training help 
improve your work or 
interactions with 
others?]
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ()
E36
Have you received new 
or better employment as 
a result of any of the 
trainings you got?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ()
SECTION F: PERCEPTIONS ON STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
F1 
Have you attended any 
events related to building 
trust and understanding 
between rival 
communities? 
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F3
56
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
F2
Did they help build your 
trust in and 
understanding of your 
neighbouring
communities?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F3
In your own words, what 
needs to be done for there 
to be understanding and 
trust between 
neighbouring
communities in this area?
OPEN ENDED
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
F4 
Do county officials 
participate in efforts to 
build peace between you 
and rival communities?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F6
F5 
How effective are the 
county officials in local 
peace building efforts?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY EFFECTIVE 1 ()
FAIRLY EFFECTIVE 2 ()
NOT EFFECTIVE 3 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
57
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
F6 
Would you like to see 
more participation of 
county officials in local 
peace building efforts?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F8
F7
In your own words, how 
would like to see county 
officials involved in local 
peace building efforts?
OPEN ENDED
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
EXTRACTIVES
F8
Whom do you trust the 
most to best manage oil 
as a resource for the 
county and country?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT (RELEVANT MINISTRY) 1 ()
COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2 ()
TULLOW 3 ()
OTHER (SPECIFY) ___________________________________
___________________________________________________________________ 4 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F8.1
On the management of 
natural resources in this 
area, to what extent has 
your trust in the national 
government changed in 
the last two years?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
DECREASED 1 ()
THE SAME 2 ()
INCREASED 3()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
58
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
F8.2
On the management of 
natural resources in this 
area, to what extent has 
your trust in the county 
government changed in 
the last two years?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
DECREASED 1 ()
THE SAME 2 ()
INCREASED 3()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F8.3
On the management of 
natural resources in this 
area, to what extent has 
your trust in the private 
sector changed in the last 
two years?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
DECREASED 1 ()
THE SAME 2 ()
INCREASED 3()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F8.4
Are you willing to share 
natural resources of this 
area with neighbouring
communities?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ()
F9
Do you have any concerns 
about the management of 
valued resources such as 
oil?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F13
59
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
F10
What concerns do you 
have about the 
management of the said 
resources?
OPEN ENDED
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
F11
How responsive has the 
national government 
been to your concerns?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY RESPONSIVE 1 ()
FAIRLY RESPONSIVE 2 ()
NOT RESPONSIVE 3 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F12
How responsive have 
extractive industries (i.e. 
oil prospecting company) 
been to your concerns?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
VERY RESPONSIVE 1 ()
FAIRLY RESPONSIVE 2 ()
NOT RESPONSIVE 3 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
F13
Which one of these 
statements most 
accurately reflects your 
view of oil and minerals 
found in your area?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
THESE RESOURCES WILL CAUSE CONFLICTS 1 ()
THESE RESOURCES WILL DEVELOP OUR COUNTY 2 ()
THESE RESOURCES WILL HELP OTHERS MORE THAN US 3 ()
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WILL BENEFIT MORE 4 ()
WE CAN SHARE THE BENEFITS AS A NATION 5 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( ) 
60
N° Questions and Filters Coding Categories Skip 
to
Notes
F14
On natural resource 
management, which one 
of these statements do 
you agree with?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
COLLABORATIVE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS USEFUL 1()
IT IS BETTER WHEN WE MANAGE OUR OWN RESOURCES 2()
I DON’T CARE HOW RESOURCES ARE MANAGED 3()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99( )
F15
In the last year or two, 
have you attended any 
forum/meeting on 
resource sharing and 
management?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ( )
End
F16
Did the meeting bring 
together the community, 
private sector, county 
government and national 
government?
ONE RESPONSE ONLY
YES 1 ()
NO 2 ()
DO NOT KNOW 88 ()
REFUSE TO ANSWER 99 ()
End Interview
Thank You!!!
61
ANNEX 2: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEW/FOCUS GROUP 
DISCUSSION GUIDE
Introduction: Mercy Corps has commissioned an end-line survey of the Peaceful 
Empowerment in Arid Lands (PEARL) program implemented in Turkana and West 
Pokot. The focus of our interview/FGD shall be on capacity of local mechanism for 
resolving land and natural resource disputes; extent of inter-communal cooperation; 
and the extent of collaboration among government, private sector and local 
communities.
No Question Response
CONTEXTUAL
1 What have been the local land 
and natural resource disputes in 
this area in the recent past?
2 Which actors have been 
involved in the resolution of the 
local land and natural resource 
disputes?
• How many were solved 
by the County Peace 
Forum
• How many by local Peace 
Committees
• How many incidents 
prevented through early 
warning
62
3 How well were the disputes 
addressed? What are the 
unaddressed issues?
• Do the workers work 
together? How well? Or 
why not?
PEARL PROGRAM
4 Do you know the PEARL 
Program’s goals and objectives?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to 6)
5 What are the PEARL Program 
goals and objectives?
6 Were you involved in PEARL 
Program’s activities?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to)
7 Was the beneficiary or partner 
selection process clear and 
inclusive?
1. Yes
2. No
8 Have you benefited from any 
training and capacity building 
sessions by the PEARL program 
in the last year or two?
1. Yes
2. No (Skip to 11)
9 What specific training and 
capacity building sessions did 
you attend?
10 What have been the benefits of 
63
the training and capacity 
building sessions?
• Conflict mitigation
• Resource management
• Career/Skills
11 What new groups or initiatives 
have been created as a result of 
the PEARL program?
• How many people have 
been reached?
• Early warning structures
• Peace structures
12 How have the initiatives under 
the PEARL program helped 
improve responsiveness of 
extractive industries to 
community needs?
13 How have the initiatives under 
the PEARL program helped 
improve national government 
revenue sharing policy?
• Progress
• Challenges
14 What have been the PEARL 
program’s contributions and 
successes? 
• How do we sustain the 
successes? 
64
15 What have been PEARL 
program’s unintended impacts?
16 What are some of the lessons 
learnt from the PEARL 
program?