Building Bridges to Peace Final Evaluation Report June 2011 This assessment is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of Cooperative Agreement No. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 2 617-A-00-09-00008-00. The contents are the responsibility of Mercy Corps and the Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Program and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Acronyms 8 1. Background 9 1.1 Program Description 9 1.2 Mercy Corps Theories of Change 9 1.3 Purpose of the Evaluation 10 2. Methodology 12 2.1 Evaluation Design 12 2.2 Sampling 12 2.3 Data Collection Tools 15 2.4 Data Analysis and Management 16 2.5 Training and Supervision 16 2.6 Challenges and Limitations 16 3. Key Findings and Analysis 18 3.1 Demographics of Respondents 18 3.2 Current State of Conflict 18 3.2.1 Frequency and Perceptions of Violence 18 3.2.2 Types of Violence 22 3.2.3 Freedom of Movement 25 3.2.4 Resource Access and Insecurity 27 3.2.5 Livelihoods 30 3.3 Relationships and Interactions 32 3.3.1 Quality of Relationships 32 3.3.2 Social Interactions 35 3.3.3 Economic Interactions 38 3.3.4 Willingness to Interact 40 3.3.5 Dispute Resolution 41 4. Conclusion 43 5. BBP Final Evaluation Survey 45 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The USAID/CMM-funded Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) program sought to address the key causes of conflict in and around northern Karamoja by engaging communities in inter-group dialogues and joint livelihoods projects that build mutual interest and promote reconciliation. Its main objectives were to strengthen local mechanisms for conflict mitigation, support reconciliation through dialogues and trust-building measures, and build cooperation and address key causes of violence through joint livelihoods projects. This final assessment seeks to provide a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the current conditions in the Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) program sites, and, most importantly, of changes made since the program’s start date in May 2009. The main objectives of this evaluation are to assess changes in key indicators from the mid-term assessment and to explore what, if any, impact the cultural dialogues/exchanges and the joint livelihoods projects had on not only the level of violence, but also the relationships and interactions between the conflicting communities. The following key findings are based on data collected from household surveys and participatory assessment tools. Current State of Conflict Compared to the midterm assessment, twenty-six percent fewer respondents reported at least one violent incident in the past three months in their particular village (56%, 155).1 Each respondent reported an average of 2.6 incidents occurring in the last three months, while the average at the midterm was slightly more than 6 incidents. All focus groups asked about the number of conflict incidents reported a decrease compared to two years ago (nine out of nine groups). Analysis of the survey data showed that those who reported that a peace dialogue had occurred within the last year were more likely to report fewer conflict incidents, (r=-.19336; p=.001).2 Taking a closer look at the focus group discussions, seven out of nine groups mentioned either the cultural dialogues or the joint livelihoods projects of BBP as a reason for the decrease. Across all districts in the target group, those reporting that their village was “Somewhat peaceful” increased from 21.6 % to 67.2 % compared to the midterm, 1 All survey results reported are for the target group only, until stated otherwise. 2 Correlation between household survey questions 5.2b & 7.4a. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 4 while those reporting that their village was “Very violent” decreased from 29.5 % to 0 %. A respondent's location in BBP implementing areas was found to be directly correlated with perceptions of lower levels of violence in their village (X2=27.6, N= 413, p=.000). All conflict types, except ambushes, have decreased over the life of the program. Household thefts and beatings decreased the most significantly, with a 72 % and 75% decrease from the midterm to endline assessment, respectively. Killings also decreased substantially with 44.7 % respondents reporting killings in their village at the midterm assessment compared to only 20.9 % in the study. The study also revealed an 11.3 % decrease in reported cattle raids, arguably the violence type most characteristic of the conflict in Karamoja, with smaller raids (fewer than 10 animals) becoming much more prevalent over the course of BBP than larger raids. Upon analysis of the focus group discussions (FGDs), it appears that the main reasons for this transformation are the increase in UPDF patrols and detaches located throughout the conflict areas. Of people surveyed in the target group, only 39 % mentioned that there were areas that they avoided going to during the day, compared to 63 % at the midterm assessment and 91 % at the baseline assessment. Further complementing the survey results, all nine focus groups cited that the number of insecure areas or “no￾go” areas had decreased over the past two years. Data from the FGDs also appear to indicate that Mercy Corps’ BBP program had an impact on the decrease in insecure areas. The nine FGD groups most frequently mentioned BBP’s cultural dialogues and joint livelihoods projects explicitly as a the reason why they are now able to move more freely This study found a 22 % reduction in people citing that there were resources they wanted or needed to use but were unable to access (84 % of respondents at the midterm compared to 65.7 % at the endline). Furthermore, those who indicated no increase in resource access emphasized the presence of isolated wrongdoers or “wild” ones, highlighting the impact on security of those individuals who still retain guns in an environment in which most Karamojong have been disarmed. Resource sharing between conflicting communities increased from the midterm to endline assessment. While at the midterm, only 41 % of respondents reported sharing resources with the conflicting conmmunty, 72 % of respondents at the endline assessment reporting sharing resources. Statistical analyses reveal that respondents in the control group share resources less compared to the target group (X2=33.9846, N= 413, p=0.000). That is, those respondents in BBP implementing areas were more likely to report sharing resources than those respondents in the control group. Again, looking at the numbers provides a clearer picture of the difference. Of the respondents in the target group, 72 % reported sharing resources June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 5 compared to only 43 % in the control group. Data from the FGDs appear to coroborate this intial finding. Amongst the respondents in both Kaabong and Kotido district, the cultural dialogues and joint livelihood projects were consistently mentioned (five out of six groups) as the reason for increased agreement over resources. For instance, the women of Sidok explain “some [people] agree to farm and live together,” and ultimately, “disarmament is not enough. Mercy Corps’ peace program set the foundation for peace.” Compared with the 46 % of respondents in the target group, only 29 % (40) of respondents in the control group reported that their livelihoods opportunities had increased over the past two years. Also, while 46 % of respondents in the target group reported a decrease in opportunities, 61 % (83) reported so in the control group, with 10 % (13) reporting that opportunities had stayed the same. Relationships and Interactions between Conflicting Communities Significant gains were made in the quality of relationships, particularly in terms of trust levels and perceptions of relationships between the conflicting communities. The survey shows an increase in trust between conflicting communities from the baseline to endline assessment. Compared with 42.7 % at the midterm assessment, only 7.2 % of respondents reported “Never” trusting the conflicting community in the endline assessment. There was a 52 % increase of respondents reporting that they “Sometimes” trust the conflicting community from the midterm to the endline assessment (56.3 % respondents, 156). Analysis of the statistical and FGD data illustrates a significant increase in trust between BBP targeted communities. Statistical tests reveal a slightly higher mean level of trust in the target group than the control group (3.2 and 2.9, respectively, with 1 signifying “Never” trusting the conflicting community, and 5 signifying “Always” trusting them (t=2.5403, (df=411), N=413, p=.00114). Additionally, target communities were more comfortable with a brother or sister marrying and starting a business with a member of the conflicting community as well as letting them watch their animals than respondents in the control group. Compared to only 24 % at the midterm assessment, 57.4 % of respondents reported personally interacting socially with someone from the conflicting community. Corroborating the survey results, nine out of nine focus groups in the Scored Relationship Mapping discussion explicitly cited that social interactions had increased over the past two years. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 6 Compared with 34 % in the midterm assessment, 57.4 % of survey respondents also reported personal economic interactions with the conflicting community. Responses from the FGDs again substantiated the survey results. Eight out of nine focus groups reported that economic interactions had increased over the last two years. In terms of benefits of interaction, all nine focus groups believe there is a benefit to interacting with the conflicting community (compared with only seven groups during the midterm assessment), and all groups reported that the benefits had increased, or had improved over the last two years. The two benefits that increased the most were intermarriages (cited by two groups at the midterm compared to seven at the endline), and free movement (cited by three groups at the midterm compared to nine at the endline). Almost all respondents (98.6 %) reported that they would be willing to interact with the conflicting community in the future. The number of respondents reporting that they “Never” or “Rarely” were satisfied with dispute resolutions dropped to zero, from 14.1 % and 24.5 %, respectively. Survey results also reveal a greater likelihood of peaceful outcomes to disputes, indicating improvements in dispute resolution mechanisms. Respondents citing that disputes were “Never” or “Rarely” resolved peacefully dropped to nearly zero. Similarly, those reporting that disputes were “Always” resolved peacefully increased by 32 % (from 20.5 % to 27.1 %). This result corroborates the findings of this study that not only has violence decreased, but also the level of trust and cooperation has increased. Despite lacking explicit qualitative data on dispute resolution mechanisms, the Scored Relationship Mapping tool did explore topics on peace agreements. Moreover, peace agreements (informal or formal) were often tied to discussion about the cultural dialogues/exchanges. Upon analysis of the FGDs, it appears that one of the positive side effects of the cultural dialogues/exchanges was subsequent peace agreements, or peace “understandings” between the two communities. Conclusion With the strong Ugandan People’s Defense Force (UPDF) presence in Karamoja, working to disarm the Karamojong and to establish the rule of law across the subregion, it is difficult to attribute specific improvements in security, access to resources, and perceptions of conflicting groups to BBP alone. This evaluation measured dramatic improvements in security across the sub-region, much of which must be due to efforts that began well before the start of BBP. Nevertheless, analysis using a control group of communities that did not benefit from BBP assistance shows strong correlations between participation in the BBP program and improved June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 7 access to resources, perceptions of security, trust between previously conflicting communities, and inter-communal ties, such as intermarriages, above changes that occurred in control groups. We can reliably conclude that BBP-facilitated community dialogues and BBP’s joint livelihoods programs contributed significantly to overall security improvements among target communities in Karamoja. This is not to assert that BBP could have achieved these results in the absence of a strong UPDF presence. On the contrary, the results of this final evaluation show that programs like BBP are the necessary accompaniment to disarmament and rule-of￾law campaigns, providing a kind of soft support to help communities re-establish ties while military and government agents focus on security-specific interventions. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 8 ACRONYMS BBP Building Bridges to Peace CBO Community Based Organization CRM Conflict and Resource Mapping FGD Focus Group Discussion KAPDA Kaabong Peace for Development Agency KAPEPS Karamoja Peace and Environmental Protection Services NGO Non-Governmental Organization PPF Pader Peace Forum SCRM Scored Community Relationship Mapping UPDF Ugandan People’s Defense Force USAID United States Agency for International Development LDU Local Defense Forces June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 9 1. BACKGROUND 1.1. Program Description The Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) program began in May 2009 as a 22-month, USAID-funded grant designed to address key causes of conflict in and around northern Karamoja by engaging communities in intercommunity dialogues and joint livelihoods projects that build mutual interest and promote reconciliation. BBP was implemented in the Kotido and Kaabong districts of Karamoja and the Pader (later Agago, after government redistricting) district of the Acholi sub-region in partnership with three local organizations, Karamoja Peace and Environmental Protection Services (KAPEPS), Kaabong Peace for Development Agency (KAPDA), and Pader Peace Forum (PPF). Karamoja, which is Uganda’s poorest region as defined by human development indicators, is plagued by inter-ethnic and inter￾community conflict stemming from decades of underdevelopment, long and recurrent droughts, and social and economic isolation. To successfully address the key causes of conflict for peaceful coexistence and development, BBP sought to: 1. strengthen local mechanisms for conflict mitigation and reconciliation; 2. support reconciliation through dialogue, trust-building measures, and joint monitoring in target sites; and 3. build cooperation and address key causes of violence through joint livelihoods projects. To achieve these objectives, BBP collaborated closely with key stakeholders, local implementing partners, and community-based organizations from each target site. Key activities included conflict management and livelihoods building, training of influential community leaders, participatory and intercommunity conflict mapping, dialogues and trust-building exercises to prepare communities for joint initiatives, quarterly government and civil society consultations to improve institutional support for local peace-building efforts and facilitate information exchange, conflict incident monitoring and response, and participatory design and implementation of joint livelihoods interventions. 1.2. Mercy Corps’ Theories of Change The objectives and activities of BBP were founded on the following three principal theories of change: June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 10 1. If we build local capacity to resolve disputes jointly across lines of division, then we will see a reduction in disputes because people will gain tools, skills, and relationships needed to resolve disputes peacefully. 2. If we bring people together across lines of division, then we will promote reconciliation because people will come to trust and understand each other. 3. If we build economic relationships across lines of division, then we will see greater stability because people will see tangible, concrete economic benefits from cooperation and they will place a higher value on cooperation than conflict with former adversaries. 1.3. Purpose of the Final Evaluation This final assessment sought to provide a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the current conditions in the Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) program sites, and, most importantly, of changes made since the program’s start date in May 2009. The main objectives of this evaluation were to assess changes in key indicators from the mid-term assessment and to explore what, if any, impact the cultural dialogues/exchanges and the joint livelihoods projects had on not only the level of violence, but also the relationships and interactions between the conflicting communities. The results of the assessment will be used to inform future peace programming by Mercy Corps in Karamoja and similar contexts in the Horn and East Africa regions and included in a final report to the funding organization, USAID. The key research questions for the final evaluation were as follows: 1.What is the current state of conflict in the community? a. Has the frequency of conflict incidents changed over the life of the program? b. Has the perception of the level of violence changed over the life of the program? c. How has the program impacted the frequency of conflict incidents? 2. What is the nature of the relationships and interactions between conflicting communities? a. Have the relationships between the conflicting communities improved, deteriorated, or stayed the same over the life of the program? b. Has the quality and quantity of interactions between conflicting communities increased, decreased, or stayed the same over the life of the program? c. How has the program impacted the relationships and interactions between the conflicting communities? June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 11 3. Have local conflict resolution mechanisms improved over the life of the program? 4. How have the joint livelihoods projects impacted the conflicting communities? a. How has the relationship between the communities changed over the life of the program? b. How has the program impacted livelihoods? This report outlines the findings of the endline assessment and aggregates monitoring data gathered to date. The BBP final evaluation was conducted internally under the supervision of Mercy Corps Peacebuilding Intern Catlan Reardon. Mercy Corps chose an internal evaluation out of cost consideration, time constraints, capacity building of local monitoring and evaluation staff, and in an effort to fully internalize learning from the assessment. The final report benefited from comments and edits from Mercy Corps headquarters and Uganda-based staff. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 12 2. METHODOLOGY 2.1. Evaluation Design The final evaluation was conducted in all nine sub-counties where the program was implemented. Data were collected through in-depth surveys and focus group discussions, which utilized two participatory assessment (PA) tools. The survey was conducted in two target parishes per sub-county, whilst the participatory assessment was conducted in one target parish per sub-county. A mixed method research design was chosen, using a post-test comparison with non-equivalent groups. This design was selected due to the lack of substantive control data from either the baseline or midterm assessment. Control groups selected during the midterm were deemed to have a very high risk of spillover effects from the program as they were located well within the geographic scope of the program. Given this high risk, it was decided that choosing new control groups and using a simple post￾test comparison would be more ideal than using the more robust pre-test post-test comparison method with weak control groups. 2.2. Sampling Survey Surveys were conducted using a structured questionnaire with a representative, random sample of 413 households from both the target and non-target parishes. Cluster sampling was employed to randomly select three villages within each target parish. From each randomly selected village, eight households were randomly selected, from which at least five households were interviewed. Random sampling was conducted from household lists acquired from the LC 1 of each village (Kaabong and Agago District) and the 2010 U.N. World Food Programme database (Kotido District). In total, 277 households were selected from BBP targeted areas, whilst 136 households were selected from the control parishes. Households from control sites were also selected through cluster sampling. In Kotido District, we randomly selected three parishes from within a list of sub￾counties where BBP had not been implemented. Once the parishes were sampled, we selected households using the same method detailed above, resulting in approximately 45 sampled households for the control group. In Kaabong District, we excluded certain sub-counties that were not considered to be comparable to the target population. That is, the communities in these sub-counties are primarily agriculturalists as opposed to cattle-herders, and face a distinct conflict. In this way, only those parishes that are similarly conflict-affected and contain a similar population were included in the random selection, allowing for the most comparable control group. In Agago District, all non BBP targeted sub-counties, June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 13 aside from Omiya Pachwa were determined to be too distinct from our target population to be included in the random selection of the control sites. This determination was made from consultations from local staff, and secondary research. Instead, we chose to select control parishes from two target sub-counties, and one non-target sub-county in terms of geographical location. That is, we selected those parishes farthest away from the border between Agago District, and Kotido District, thus, minimizing the risk of spillover effects. Once these parishes were selected, three villages were randomly selected in the same manner described above. Table 1. Comparison Chart of Control & Target Groups Characteristic Target Group Control Group Age (Mean Years) 42 42.2 Sex (%) Female 42.2% 47.1% Male 57.8% 53.0% Ethnicity (%) Jie 32.5% 32.4% Dodoth 33.9% 33.8% Acholi 33.2% 33.8% Livelihood Patterns (Agro)- pastoralists (Agro)- pastoralists Conflict Dynamic Cattle rustling Cattle rustling Despite not having pre-test data on the control groups, information acquired from local staff and secondary sources indicate that the individuals located in the control group have not undergone any severe changes on the above observable characteristics over the last two years. Thus, this study is making the assumption that data on indicators for the control group have also not undergone significant changes over the life of the program. Participatory Assessment Eighteen focus group discussions (FGDs) using two participatory assessment tools were conducted in nine different sites. Participants included at least seven and no more than ten community members, organized into separate groups of elders, women, and youth. The LC1 (the local leader of the smallest administrative unit) of each village or community leaders assisted in mobilization of discussion participants upon arrival, though, none were actively involved in any of the discussions. In each district, each tool was administered to each targeted demographic group. Table 2. Location & Demographic Group Breakdown of Tools Used District Sub-County Participatory Assessment Tool June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 14 SCRM CRM Kaabong Loyoro Women Youth Sidok Elders Women Lolelia Youth Elders Kotido Rengen Elders Youth Nakapelimoru Women Elders Kacheri Youth Women Agago Adilang Women Elders Paimol Youth Women Lapono Elders Youth The household survey and participatory assessment sites are detailed below: Table 3. Survey and Participatory Sites District Sub-County Parish Type # of Surveys # of FGDs Rengen 1. Lokadeli target 15 2 2. Kotiang target 15 Nakapelimoru 1. Lokorok target 15 2 2. Losilang target 15 Kacheri 1. Kacheri target 15 2 (Lolelia) 2. Losachuka target 15 Panyangara 1. Rikatae control 15 (control) 2. Kamoru control 15 Kotido Kotido SC (control) 3. Lokitelaebu control 15 Sidok 1. Longaro target 15 2 2. Kasimeri target 15 Loyoro 1.Toroi target 15 2 2. Lokanayona target 15 Lolelia 1. Lolelia target 15 2 2. Lotetelit target 20 Kalapata (control) 1. Kalapata control 16 2. Nariamaoi control 15 Kaabong Kathile (control) 3. Kathile control 15 Lapono 1. Amyel target 18 2 2.Kakete target 14 Adilang 1. Labwa target 15 2 2. Lalal target 15 Paimol 1. Mutto target 15 2 2. Pacabol target 15 Agago Lapono 1. Lapono Muk control 15 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 15 (Control) Adilang (Control) 2. Orina control 15 Omiya Pachwa (Control) 3. Lujim control 15 Total: 413 18 2.3. Data Collection Tools Survey The final evaluation survey included questions from the midterm survey (some of which were refined), and encompassed themes of livelihoods and resource access, security, trust, and quality/quantity of interactions between the conflicting communities. The survey was conducted as an individual interview with a representative of a randomly selected household. Participatory Assessment The participatory assessment explored similar research questions as the survey, generating data that complemented the survey, and provided rich explanatory details to further back up the survey results, including understanding the contribution of BBP efforts towards the changes identified. The participatory assessment included two tools, which are as follows: Table 4: Participatory Assessment Tools Used in the BBP Evaluation Tool Objective Scored Community Relationship Mapping ⇒ To describe the relationships between conflicting communities. ⇒ To assess how the relationships between conflicting communities have changed over the life of the program. ⇒ To assess the impact of the program on the quantity and quality of interactions, both social and economic. Conflict & Resource Mapping ⇒ To identify any changes in access to resources that may have occurred over the life of the program. ⇒ To explore any changes in the relationship between resources and conflict that may have occurred over the life of the program. ⇒ To assess any impact of the program on conflict, access to resources, and economic well-being. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 16 2.4. Data Analysis and Management Data were collected from March 1st to March 31st, 2011 in Kaabong, Kotido, and Agago Districts. For the Participatory Assessments, discussion notes were reviewed with both the note-taker and facilitator the same day of the discussion. These notes were then coded, and analyzed manually. In April 2011, survey data was entered in Microsoft Excel. Most cleaning was done in Excel before it was exported to STATA 9 for further cleaning and analysis. Tables and charts were produced through Microsoft Excel 2007. Basic tests were conducted to obtain percentages and figures. Chi square tests were run to explore if there were any significant associations between key variables. 2.5. Training and Supervision Survey Team In each district, three enumerators were trained on how to administer the household questionnaires, and supervised by Mercy Corps’ Kotido-based M&E Officer during the data collection. All survey team personnel were local to the area, thus, minimizing any bias or tension that may have occurred from using enumerators from different districts. Consequently, nine enumerators were trained and utilized for this exercise. As all had worked with Mercy Corps in some capacity prior to this exercise, selection criteria were based on previous skills assessments and recommendations from local staff. Participatory Assessment Team Twelve facilitators were trained on how to facilitate and document the focus group discussions and supervised by Catlan Reardon, Peace-building Intern for Mercy Corps during data collection. Four local facilitators were trained in each district, in an attempt to minimize bias. Similar to the enumerators, selection was based on past skills assessments and recommendations from local staff. Field Testing All of the data collection tools used for this evaluation underwent extensive piloting and testing as part of Mercy Corps’ Assessment and Evaluation of Poverty and Conflict (EAPC) research project. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 17 2.6. Challenges and Limitations Cultural and Language Barriers The questionnaire and participatory tools used during this study were written in English. Throughout the training, Mercy Corps staff, enumerators, and facilitators reviewed each question and agreed on a translation before pre-testing the tools. During fieldwork, enumerators and facilitators were required to translate the survey or discussion notes into English. This method was used given resource constraints and may have led to some concepts or ideas being misinterpreted. Attempting to minimize language difficulties and distrust between ethnic groups, enumerators and facilitators who were native to the respective district were selected. Concepts such as trust, livelihoods, opportunities, dispute resolutions posed the toughest challenge, and perhaps were not translated with complete consistency. Capacity of Enumerators The capacity of enumerators and facilitators varied in this study. Only individuals with experience in surveying and focus group discussions were contracted, most having experience on the actual tools used. Intensive training was also undertaken for both the enumerators and facilitators. However, the ability of enumerators to fully understand concepts captured in the survey posed some difficulties during the study. Likewise, the ease in leading and motivating a discussion varied among facilitators, and some had difficulty in probing, and thus, some details may have not been captured, or missed throughout the discussions. Design of the Evaluation It is important to note that the post-test only design contains some weaknesses. The lack of pre-test data from control groups renders the results somewhat limited in scope. The possibility of assignment bias engenders some threats to the validity of the results as one cannot fully know all the differences that exist between the control group and target group and, thus, how they may have affected the outcome. Additionally, the baseline assessment was much more limited than either the midterm or final assessment, and did not capture data on many relevant indicators. Therefore, in these instances, a comparison could only be made between indicators measured from the midterm and final assessment. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 18 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 19 3. KEY FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 3.1. Demographics of Respondents Out of 413 respondents, the percentage of male respondents (56.2%) was higher than women. The mean age was 42 years old, slightly higher than the mean age at the midterm (38 years old). All three major ethnic groups were represented, which also corresponded roughly to the target districts of the program; the Jie in Kotido, the Dodoth in Kaabong, and the Acholi in Agago. Table 5 provides information on key demographic characteristics of all survey respondents. Table 5. Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents Characteristic Total Survey Respondents Age (Mean Years) 42.1 Ethnicity (%) Jie 32.5% (134) Dodoth 33.9% (140) Acholi 33.4% (138) Other .24% (1) Sex (%) Female 43.8% (181) Male 56.2% (232) Focus group discussions were comprised of 7-10 people, separated in groups of elders, women, and male youth. Each group included only members of one ethnic group. 3.2. Current State of Conflict Over the past two years, the conflict in Karamoja has changed substantially, with some striking positive improvements as well as some surprising transformations. The extent to which these changes can be attributed to Mercy Corps’ BBP program will be systematically assessed and analyzed below. 3.2.1. Frequency and Perceptions of Violence Frequency of Violence Overall, the data results reveal that the frequency of conflict incidents has decreased between the midterm and endline assessment. Compared to the midterm assessment, 26 % fewer respondents reported at least one violent incident in the past three months in their particular village (56%, 155).3 3 All survey results reported are for the target group only, until stated otherwise. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 20 Each respondent reported an average of 2.6 incidents occurring in the last three months, while the average at the midterm was slightly more than 6 incidents. Figure 1. From household survey, Q5.2b As shown in Figure 1, the average number of reported conflict incidents has decreased across all districts in which BBP was implemented, with Agago revealing the biggest reduction with a 75 % decrease in reported conflict incidents. Kaabong comes close with a 67 % decrease, while Kotido trails with a 38 % decrease. Qualitative data from the focus groups also illustrate a decrease in violence over the life of the program. All focus groups asked about the number of conflict incidents reported a decrease compared to two years ago (nine out of nine groups). Results from both the survey and FGDs uncover a much more positive picture of the frequency of violence compared with the midterm assessment. Importantly, though, how much of this decrease can we attribute to Mercy Corps’ BBP program? For that answer, analyses of statistical and focus group data were conducted. Analysis of the survey data showed that those who reported that a peace dialogue had occurred within the last year were more likely to report fewer conflict incidents, (r=-.19336; p=.001).4 Taking a closer look at the focus group discussions, seven out of nine groups mentioned either the cultural dialogues or the joint livelihoods 4 Correlation between household survey questions 5.2b & 7.4a. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 21 projects of BBP as a reason for the decrease. A table with the most frequently cited reasons can be found below. Table 6: Why have conflict incidents decreased over the past two years? Reasons for Decrease in Conflict Incidents # of Groups BBP's Cultural Dialogues & Joint Livelihoods Projects 7 Disarmament 7 UPDF Patrols/Detaches 6 Interactions (Social & Economic) 5 Trust/Cooperation 3 From Conflict and Resource Mapping Tool Of the two groups who did not explicitly mention BBP, one (the youth of Loyoro sub￾county) mentioned less competition. On closer inspection, they did cite the BBP peace program as a reason for less tension over resources with Nakapelimoru, as the cultural dialogues had increased communication over resource management coupled with the joint projects which engendered a new, shared resource, and thus less competition. This indicates the that Mercy Corps’ BBP program may have contributed to less tension over resources, and in turn less competition, which consequently led to less conflict incidents. The other group, the elders of Nakapelimoru, instead cited increased trust, cooperation, and interaction between Loyoro as a reason for the decrease in conflict incidents. Looking at the discussion as a whole, they consistently cited the cultural dialogues organized through the BBP program as the source of increased trust, and interaction with the people of Loyoro. After cross checking this data with the Scored Community Relationship mapping tool5, the women of Nakapelimoru similarly answered that the BBP program, specifically the joint settlement with the people of Loyoro, resulted in more interaction and trust, and consequently less conflict incidents. Based on the statistically significant correlation along with the strong qualitative results from the FGDs, it appears that that the BBP program, specifically the cultural dialogues, may have had a positive impact on decreasing the levels of violence in target areas. At the very least, the statistical results imply that peace dialogues are associated with fewer conflict incidents. Importantly, however, the study was not able to control for other factors that may also have had an impact on the frequency of conflict incidents such as the government’s program of disarmament, or the presence of the UPDF. Therefore, the study does not purport to find a conclusive causal link between peace dialogues and the decrease in conflict incidents in Karamoja. Indeed, the frequency with which both the governments’ disarmament 5 The SCRM tool explicitly asks questions regarding changes in social and economic interaction between the conflicting communities. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 22 program, the UPDF patrols, and detaches were mentioned support the conclusion that these factors have had a significant impact as well. Many recent reports have also emphasized the significant impact that the increased UPDF presence and disarmament has had on the frequency of violence in Karamoja. That said, while not statistically conclusive, the overall perception that BBP is facilitating a decrease in conflict incidents is, arguably, an important, and noteworthy indicator of its impact. Perceptions of Violence Figure 2. From household survey Q.5.1 As evident from the graphs above, the perceptions of the level of violence in ones’ village decreased from the midterm to endline assessment. Across all districts in the target group, those reporting that their village was “Somewhat peaceful” increased from 21.6 % to 67.2 % compared to the midterm, while those reporting that their village was “Very violent” decreased from 29.5 % to 0 %. The biggest decrease occurred in Kotido (the district with the most reported conflict incidents) with 53 % respondents characterizing their village as “Very violent” in the midterm assessment to 0 % in the final evaluation. This is a striking change, and one that highlights the need to look deeper into the data before making conclusions from raw numbers. That is, while Kotido may have the highest level of reported conflict incidents, the data also shows the biggest improvement in terms of the percieved level of violence. The graph below puts this more visually in perceptive as it is clear that those respondents reporting their village as “Somewhat peaceful” increased substantially, while at the same time both those perceiving their village as “Somewhat violent” and “Very violent” decreased. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 23 Figure 3. From household survey Q5.1 A respondents’ location in BBP implementing areas was found to be correlated to perceptions of lower levels of violence in that village, (χ2=27.6, N= 413, p=.000). More specifically, we find that 62.2 % of all households surveyed (both control and target groups) reported their village as “Somewhat peaceful”, versus 4.4 % reporting a “Violent” village. However, looking deeper into the numbers reveals striking disparities between the target and control groups. Among respondents in the control group only 52.2 % reported their village as “Somewhat peaceful” (compared to 67.2 % in BBP targeted areas), while 10.3 % perceive their village as “Violent” (compared to only 1.4 % in BBP targeted areas). Consequently, one can conclude that those respondents in BBP targeted areas perceive their villages as more peaceful than those respondents in the control group. 3.2.2. Types of Violence All conflict types, except ambushes, have decreased over the life of the program. Household thefts and beatings decreased the most significantly, with a 72 % and 75% decrease from the midterm to endline assessment, respectively. Killings also decreased substantially with 44.7 % respondents reporting killings in their village at the midterm assessment compared to only 20.9 % in this study. The study also revealed an 11.3 % decrease in reported cattle raids, arguably the violence type June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 24 most characteristic of the conflict in Karamoja. That is to say, the number of respondents reporting a cattle raid to have occurred in the last three months decreased from 54.9 % to 48.7 %. The study demonstrates that cattle raids are still the most cited violence type in the target population, and corroborates the conclusion of Mercy Corps’ midterm assessment that “conflict in and around Karamoja is still characterized primarily by cattle rustling…”6 Figure 4. From household survey Q5.2c Nevertheless, the survey and FGD results reveal an interesting shift in the conflict dynamic in Karamoja. That is, the nature of cattle raiding appears to be shifting away from large scale raids to much smaller, targeted raids. For example, only 16 % of respondents reported a large scale cattle raid in the last three months whilst 33 % reported a small scale raid (< 10 livestock stolen)7. It is important to note that data from the midterm assessment did not differentiate between a large scale raid and small scale cattle raid. Therefore, we cannot conclusively determine if this 6 “Midterm Assessment Report,” Building Bridges to Peace. Mercy Corps, P.16. August 2010. 7 In this study, a large scale raid is defined as any incident where 10 or more livestock. were stolen. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 25 phenomenon has always existed or has manifested itself over the life of the program. Nonetheless, qualitative data from the FGDs appear to support the conclusion that the conflict in Karamoja is indeed witnessing a transformation. Upon analysis of the FGDs, it appears that the main reason for this transformation is the increase in UPDF patrols, and detaches located throughout the conflict areas. The governments’ program of disarmament has also reduced the arsenal with which warriors can use to undertake a raid. A youth respondent from Lapono Sub-county, Agago District succinctly summarizes this fact: “They [Karamojong] cannot come with an empty hand, and kill.”8 Therefore, the slight increase in ambushes could be better understood taking the above explanation into account. That the conflict dynamic in Karamoja has shifted to smaller scale attacks renders an increase in ambushes – a targeted, small scaled attack – as more understandable. Importantly, however, in the vast majority of FGDs, respondents ascribed blame of continued incidents on isolated wrongdoers, or criminals of which ethnicity they often could not pinpoint. These themes were mentioned in all nine focus groups using the Conflict and Resource mapping tool in some capacity. Arguably, this implies that the reason for the shift in the conflict dynamic may not solely be the decrease in arms, but also the increase of those accepting peace, oftentimes attributed to the continued cultural dialogues and peace talks. Indeed, the consistency with which incidents are attributed to isolated wrongdoers and ‘wild’ ones renders this conclusion more reliable. Rather than simply a result of the UPDF and disarmament, the impetus for the transformation appears to be fourfold: first, the government’s disarmament program has reduced the number of arms available; second, the increase in UPDF patrols and detaches has lessened the ability of warriors to raid with complete impunity; third, the cultural dialogues/exchanges have imbued a sense of trust and familiarity of the “other” community; and fourth, the joint livelihood projects have given the disarmed and reformed youth something to “do,” in effect, or at least introduced them to new economic opportunities. As illustrated in more detail below, nine out of nine focus groups cited increased trust one of the biggest impacts of the cultural dialogues, followed with seven groups citing intermarriage, and five citing friendships. Table 7. Impact of Cultural Dialogues/Exchanges Biggest Impact of Cultural Dialogues # of Groups Trust 9 Intermarriage 7 8 Focus group discussion No. 15 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Youth. Aboko Village, Amyel Parish, Lapono Sub-county, Agago District. 29 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 26 Friendship 5 Interaction (Social or Economic) 4 From the Scored Relationship Mapping Tool Regarding the Joint Livelihood Projects, trust was also cited frequently (six out of nine groups), but other important results cited were diverting the attention of the youth to something more positive, less violence, and free movement. As shown in Table 8, trust was cited by six groups as one of the biggest impacts, with five groups citing diverting the youths’ attention, and less violence. Table 8. Impact of the Joint Livelihood Projects Biggest Impact of Joint Livelihood Projects # of Groups Trust 6 Divert Youths' Attention 5 Less Violence 5 Free Movement 4 Intermarriage 3 From the Scored Relationship Mapping Tool Therefore, when faced with a choice to take part in a much more risky cattle theft or violent attack, the fact that they now “know” their brothers in the conflicting community, along with the fact that there’s an alternative activity to do, they are more likely to now make the more positive choice. If true, the shift to smaller scale incidents engenders new and interesting implications for the communities in Karamoja and for future peace programming. 3.2.3 Freedom of Movement Across all communities surveyed, freedom of movement increased substantially over the past two years. Of people surveyed in the target group, only 39 % mentioned that there were areas that they avoided going to during the day, compared to 63 % at the midterm assessment and 91 % at the baseline assessment. Thus, over the life of Mercy Corps’ BBP program, there has been a 57 % reduction in those citing “no-go” areas during the day. On the other hand, free movement during the night did not increase substantially since the midterm (63 % at the midterm citing “no-go” areas at night, to 61 % at the endline). Further complementing the survey results, all nine focus groups cited that the number of insecure areas or “no￾go” areas had decreased over the past two years. Analysis of both the statistical and FGD data shed more light onto why these changes have occurred. Results from analysis of the survey data reveal a significant June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 27 association between location in BBP targeted areas, and more freedom of movement at night (χ2=13.18, N= 413, p=0.000), That association becomes much clearer after looking at the numbers. Among the control group respondents, 79 % reported avoiding areas at night compared to only 61 % among the target group. The conclusion that there is significantly more freedom of movement at night in BBP targeted areas than the control sites provides some evidence of the impact of the BBP project on this indicator. Figure 5. From household survey Q.5.3 & Q.5.4 Data from the FGDs also appear to indicate that Mercy Corps’ BBP program had an impact on the decrease of insecure areas. The nine FGD groups most frequently cited BBP’s cultural dialogues and joint livelihoods projects explicitly the reason why they are now able to move more freely. This is more than both the presence of the UPDF (cited by seven groups), and disarmament (cited by four groups). A woman in Kacheri sub county, Kotido District explains, "If it wasn't for these cultural dialogues, we wouldn't be here now - we would be in hiding."9 Each group cited at least two previously insecure areas that are now safe, reinforcing the conclusion that free movement has increased. While not yet engendering a conclusive causal link, there exists a consistent perception across all demographic groups that the BBP program has positively influenced the level of free movement. A table outlining the different reasons cited can be found below. Table 9. Freedom of Movement Reasons Cited for Decrease in No-Go Areas # of Groups BBP's Cultural Dialogues & Joint Livelihoods Projects 9 9 Focus group discussion No. 9 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Women. Namukur Village, Kacheri Parish, Kacheri Sub-county, Kotido District. 16 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 28 UPDF Patrols/Detaches 7 Disarmament 4 More Agreement 4 Trust 4 Interaction (Social or Economic) 3 Less Competition 1 Protected Kraals 1 Local Defense Forces 1 From the Conflict and Resource Mapping Tool Interestingly, during discussion on current “no-go” areas, the youth of Rengen sub￾county in Kotido district emphasized fear from the Dodoth of Lolelia as opposed to Sidok, with whom they collaborated on BBP’s joint livelihood projects. Threats from the Dodoth of Sidok are conspicuously absent in terms of insecure areas. As the BBP’s joint livelihood projects were implemented in previously known insecure areas between the Sidok and Rengen communities, this absence arguably speaks volumes for the efficacy of joint livelihoods projects impacting “no-go” areas.10 Turning to the FGDs, while only four groups out of nine explicitly cited isolated wrongdoers or criminality as a reason for present insecure areas, all nine groups cited these factors as reasons for violence or conflict that arguably define an insecure area, such as questions on conflict incidents and conflict over resources. One hypothesis is that there still exists a general fear of violence at night from unknown individuals, often attributed to those not willing to accept peace and who still possess arms. 3.2.4. Resource Access and Insecurity This study found a 22 % reduction in people citing that there were resources they wanted or needed to use but were unable to access (84 % of respondents at the midterm compared to 65.7 % at the endline). The qualitative data coorborates this decreasing trend. Seven out of nine groups reported that access to resources had increased over the life of the program, whilst two groups reported access had stayed the same. Still, nine out of nine groups mentioned at least one resource that remained inaccessible, and each group also cited conflict or insecurity as a cause. Table 10 below details resources cited as inaccessible in both the midterm and endline assessment in the focus group discussions. Table 10. Inaccessible Resources: # of Groups out of Nine 10 Focus group discussion No. 7 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Youth. Lokatap Village, Lokadeli Parish, Rengen Sub-county, Kotido District. 14 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 29 From the Conflict and Resource Mapping Tool A guiding premise during the midterm assessment centered on insecurity as an obstacle to access to resources. Ultimately, the study concluded that “the majority…are unable to access a given resource…because of conflict or insecurity.”11 In this study, survey results reveal slight changes in the impact of insecurity on resource access. In terms of market and water access, insecurity appears to be much less of an impediment than during the midterm assessment, with only 5.3 % and 13.5 % citing it as a reason, respectively. Results also reveal that insecurity plays the same or slightly more of an obstacle to access to grazing areas, and significantly more for access to farmland. Figure 6. From Household survey Q4.2b & Q4.2c 11 Midterm Assessment Report,” Building Bridges to Peace. Mercy Corps, P.19. August 2010. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 30 Qualitative data from the FGDs indicate that insecurity remains a factor in resource access, as nine out of nine groups mentioned either conflict or insecurity as an obstacle to accessing resources. FGD data also reveal that groups in each district tend to emphasize different reasons for inaccessible resources. More specifically, in Agago District, all groups still fear to access certain resources because of insecurity from Karamojong youth. On the other hand, most respondents in Kaabong district emphasized the presence of isolated wrongdoers who are still armed and competition, while respondents in Kotido emphasized fear of theives or unknown individuals, and primarily at night. Data from the FGDs uncover more information on the impetus for the changes described above. Of the seven groups reporting an increase in resource access, six groups mentioned the BBP program or Mercy Corps in some capacity as a reason (see Table 11, below). Again, those groups who mentioned no increase emphasized the presence of isolated wrongdoers or “wild” ones. For example, the women of Sidok sub-county in Kaabong district, explained that access had remained the same because the government had not improved existing boreholes, and insecurity from those “wild warriors [who] have refused to join the peace team group.”12 The second group, the elders from Lolelia sub-county cited insecurity not only from the Jie, but also the Nyangia,13 and reiterated that “some few Jie warriors are still having guns…” as why access and agreement over resources had stayed the same.14 Importantly, six groups also cited the UPDF patrols or detaches as a reason for improved resource access. A further breakdown of the most frequently cited reasons can be found below. Table 11. Why Resource Access has Increased? Reasons Cited for Increase in Resource Access # of Groups BBP's Cultural Dialogues & Joint Livelihoods Projects 6 UPDF Patrols/Detaches 6 Disarmament 3 Interaction (Social or Economic) 2 Less Competition 2 12 Focus group discussion No. 2 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Women. Tiiti Village, Longaro Parish, Sidok Sub-county, Kaabong District. 14 March 2011. 13 It appears that the collaboration between the Jie and Nyangia is a relatively new phenomena, or at the very least has increased over the past two years. One hypothesis may be that now that the Jie warriors have been weaken, from disarmament and the increased number of reformed youth, that those remaining have now teamed up with the Nyangia to undertake raids. If true, this also engenders new implications for peace programming, and may be an interesting avenue for future research. 14 Focus group discussion No. 3 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Elders. Riten Village, Lolelia Parish, Lolelia Sub-county, Kaabong District. 04 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 31 Protected Kraals 1 From the Conflict and Resource Mapping Tool The significant increase of respondents citing insecurity as an obstacle to accessing farmland may be due to differences in the survey format. That is, the reason may be because during the midterm assesment survey respondents were only allowed one choice, whilst during the endline, respondents were allowed multiple choices. Coupled with the fact that there is a strong correlation between those who cannot access grazing areas and farmland, it appears many respondents were double counted. Many respondents who chose grazing areas as an inaccessible resource may also have chosen farmlands, and while insecurity may only have played a role in accessing grazing areas, it also was counted as a reason for accessing farmlands as well or visa versa. For future research, a more refined question may be useful in order to ascertain a clearer picture of the role of insecurity on resource access. Resource sharing between conflicting communities increased from the midterm to endline assessment. While at the midterm, only 41 % of respondents reported sharing resources with the conflicting community, 72 % of respondents at the endline assessment reporting sharing resources. Thus, shared resources increased by 76 % over the life of the program. Backing up the survey results, nine out of nine focus groups also reported that they shared resources with the conflicting community, compared with only four groups who shared resources at the midterm assessment, and those were largely restricted to public goods such as health centers and roads. Instead, in this study, six out of nine groups shared grazing areas, five out of nine groups shared farmland and forestland. Moreover, seven out of nine groups reported both an increase in agreement over resources, and a decrease in tension over resources. Statistical results provide some support of the impact of Mercy Corps’ BBP program on this increase in resource sharing. The statistical analyses reveal that respondents in the control group share reources less compared to the target group (X2=33.9846, N= 413, p=0.000), That is, those respondents in BBP implementing areas were more likely to report sharing resources than those respondents in the control group. Again, looking at the numbers provides a clearer picture of the difference. Of the respondents in the target group, 72 % reported sharing resources compared to only 43 % in the control group. Data from the FGDs appear to coroborate this intial finding. Amongst the respondents in both Kaabong and Kotido district, the cultural dialogues and joint livelihood projects were consistently mentioned (five out of six groups) as the reason for increased agreement over resources. For instance, the women of Sidok explain “some [people] agree to farm and live together,” and ultimately, “disarmament is not enough. Mercy Corps’ peace program set the foundation for June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 32 peace.”15 Interestingly, those groups citing that conditions had deterioriated were all from Agago district. Upon analysis, it appears that there are several factors for these discrepancies. Firstly, the government ordinance restricting Karamojongs to graze on Acholi land in turn resulted in limited Karamojong access to their own land. Secondly, apart from the farmland between the two districts, distance appears to limit the resources they share. Thirdly, the BBP joint livelihood project established between these districts, the Kworeken market, has yet to be completed, thus the full impact of the project remains to be fully seen in Agago. Important to note, though, most focus groups in Agago expressed strong optimism and anticipation for the Koworeken market, and said that the experience of working together on the project had led to increased levels of trust between them and the Karamojong. 3.2.5. Livelihoods As discussed above, a fundamental theory guiding the BBP program was that building economic relationships between conflicting communities will engender more peaceful relations as communities see substantive economic benefits from cooperation as opposed to conflict. Consequently, this assessments sets out to discover not only if violence has reduced, but also if trust and interactions have increased. An equally important question is whether or not the BBP program impacted the actual livelihoods of the target communities. Has overall well-being increased? Was there any effect on household income or household consumption? Due to the constraints of the evaluation, the study focused solely on the perceived change of individual livelihoods opportunities. At first glance, the results do not appear very revealing as an equal percentage of respondents reported that their livelihoods opportunities had increased, and decreased over the life of the program (46 %; 128 citing an increase, 129 citing a decrease), and 7 % (20) reporting opportunities had stayed the same. However, looking at both the control and target group separately reveals more promising results. That is, compared with the 46 % of respondents in the target group, only 29 % (40) of respondents in the control group reported that their livelihoods opportunities had increased over the past two years. Also, while 46 % of respondents in the target group reported a decrease in opportunities, 61 % (83) reported so in the control group, with 10 % (13) reporting that opportunities had stayed the same. Thus, it appears that those respondents in the control group perceive that less livelihoods opportunities have arisen in the past two years compared to the target group (X2==10.6665 (N=413), p=.005). 15 Focus group discussion No. 2 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Women. Tiiti Village, Longaro Parish, Sidok Sub-county, Kaabong District. 14 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 33 If one infers that more livelihood opportunities are a prerequisite to greater economic wellbeing and higher incomes, these results imply that those respondents in BBP implementing areas have the potential to become better off than their counterparts in the control group. Assuming the only difference between these groups is the BBP program, the results suggest that joint livelihood projects can lead to more livelihoods opportunities (or at the least the perception of greater opportunity). Alternatively, the increase in perceived security and access to resources noted in the target group could also be a factor in the target group’s more optimistic assessment of livelihoods opportunities. Additionally, the relatively low percentages for perceived livelihood opportunities in the target group could be related to other factors outside of the control of the BBP program. The persistent drought and low rainfall in Karamoja is the most glaring of these factors, but there may be other independent factors which were not captured by the survey. Despite lacking comparison data on this question, these simple statistics reveal suggestive results in terms of the effect of the BBP program on livelihoods opportunities. More research is needed to discern exactly what level of impact the program had, but these results imply that the BBP program had a positive impact. 3.3 Relationships and Interactions 3.3.1. Quality of Relationships Mercy Corps’ BBP program sought to bring conflicting communities together in hopes of building deeper bridges of trust and cooperation between them. In theory, once this foundation of trust and cooperation is laid, true and sustainable reconciliation between conflicting communities becomes more realistic and feasible. Such is the focus of the cultural dialogues and exchanges. Consequently, another primary objective of this study is to explore the change in the quality of relationships between the target communities over the life of the program. In short, have relationships between the conflicting communities gotten better, worse, or stayed the same? And do conflicting communities trust each other more? Significant gains were made in the quality of relationships, particularly in terms of trust levels and perceptions of relationships between the conflicting communities. The survey shows an increase in trust between conflicting communities from the baseline to endline assessment. Compared with 42.7 % at the midterm assessment, only 7.2 % of respondents reported “Never” trusting the conflicting community in the endline assessment. This pattern holds for respondents answering that they “Sometimes” trust the conflicting community as well. That is, while there were equal percentages at the baseline and midterm (27.5 % & 27 %, respectively), there was a June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 34 52 % increase of respondents reporting that they “Sometimes” trust the conflicting community from the midterm to the endline assessment (56.3 % respondents, 156). Additionally, a 44.2 % increase in respondents reporting that they trust the conflicting community “Most of the time” or “Always” is also a very encouraging development. Figure 7. From household survey Q6.4 Results from the focus group discussions further support these survey results. Nine out of nine focus groups explicitly reported that their relationship with the conflicting community has gotten better over the past two years when directly asked. Looking at the relationship scores below, seven out of nine of the groups’ scores increased since the midterm, one stayed the same (Paimol), and one decreased (Adilang). Table 12. Scored Community Relationship Mapping Key Type of Relationship Relationship Score Very Bad Relationship -2 Bad Relationship -1 Neutral Relationship 0 Good Relationship 1 Very Good Relationship 2 Table 13. Community Relationship Scores June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 35 Conflicting Group A Score by Group A (Midterm) Score by Group A (Endline) Score by Group B (Midterm) Score by Group B (Endline) Conflicting Group B Lapono 0 1 n/a n/a Kacheri Paimol 1 1 n/a n/a Kacheri Adilang 0 -1 n/a n/a Kacheri Lolelia -1 0 -2 1 Kacheri Loyoro -2 0 -1 0 Nakapelimoru Sidok 0 0 -2 1 Rengen The survey also included various questions aimed at measuring levels of trust between communities indirectly by asking about the level of comfort with certain activities. Figure 8 indicates increased levels of comfort in all included activities from the midterm to endline assessment . Figure 8. From household survey Q6.5a-6.5d Initial survey results illustrate a significant increase in trust between BBP targeted communities. Analysis of the statistical and FGD data aids in ascertaining the extent to which this increase can be attributed to the BBP program. Specficially, statistical tests reveal a slightly higher mean level of trust in the target group than the control group (3.2 and 2.9, respectively, with 1 signifying “Never” trusting the conflicting community, and 5 signifying “Always” trusting them (t=2.5403, (df=411), N=413, June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 36 p=.00114). Additionally, target communities were more comfortable with a brother or sister marrying and starting a business with a member of the conflicting community as well as letting them watch their animals than respondents in the control group. Data from the Scored Relationship Mapping discussion also indicate that the BBP program may have engendered more trust between the conflicting communities. All nine groups mentioned BBP’s cultural dialogues or joint livelihoods projects as a factor in their improved relationships, with five explicitly citing joint settlement with the conflicting community. Table 14 outlines the factors groups mentioned that helped improve trust with the conflicting community. Table 14. What Has Affected Trust Between Conflicting Communities? Factors that Improved Trust with Conflicting Communities # of Groups BBP peace program 9 Social Interaction 7 Disarmament 6 Less Violence 6 Joint Settlements 5 Free Movement 5 Intermarriage 5 Access to Resources 4 Economic Interaction 3 Local Defense Forces 3 Explanations of negative aspects of communities’ relationships centered on the continued violence, albeit, on a much smaller scale and often from isolated wrongdoers or criminals. One woman from Adilang explains, “these days, they come as thieves. Two years ago, they would come in broad daylight as an army to raid Acholiland with guns, in big groups, traveling through many sub-counties in a day.”16 This assertion also corroborates the hypothesis detailed in Section 3.2.2. that the conflict dynamic may have shifted from large scale cattle raids to small scale attacks. Importantly, though, trust in Acholiland appears to trail that of their Karamojong neighbors. While most respondents reported improvements in key indicators (i.e. relationships, quantity of interactions), suspicion of the Karamojongs’ true intentions permeated many discussions in Agago District. For instance, a woman from the same group in Adilang sub-county revealed that, “while there is trust between the people of Kacheri and Adilang, and more marriages,” it is hard to 16 Focus group discussion No. 16 (Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool), Women. Auu Kirute Village, Labwa Parish, Adilang Sub-county, Agago District. 25 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 37 truly “know what is in their [Jie of Kacheri] heart.”17 That this suspicion exists does not necessarily disminish BBP’s efficacy, but highlights the need for continued efforts between these target communties. Along with the significant statistical results, the FGD data illustrate respondents’ perceptions that social interaction and the ability to move freely in order to undertake that interaction leads to more trust, and in turn better relationships. While not yet at ideal levels, this positive trend in trust levels illustrates a promising sign that external actors may be able to facilitate trust-building, and in time peace￾building. 3.3.2. Social Interactions Both the survey and FGDs reveal an increase in social interactions between the conflicting communities since the midterm assessment. Compared to only 24 % at the midterm assessment, 57.4 % of respondents reported personally interacting socially with someone from the conflicting community. Corroborating the survey results, nine out of nine focus groups in the Scored Relationship Mapping discussion explicitly cited that social interactions had increased over the past two years. The self reported interaction score also increased. As Figure 10 illustrates, the mean social interaction score increased from 2.8 at the midterm assessment to 4.2 at the endline assessment. One group of elders from Lapono sub-county echoed these data results, explaining that social interaction, “has changed because in the past there was no interaction at all.”18 This group’s reported interaction score was 5, or interacted with the conflicting community on a daily basis. Table 15. Interaction Score Key (Social and Economic) 17 Focus group discussion No. 16 (Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool), Women. Auu Kirute Village, Labwa Parish, Adilang Sub-county, Agago District. 25 March 2011. 18 Focus group discussion No. 19 (Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool), Elders. Aboko Village, Amyel Parish, Lapono Sub-county, Agago District. 29 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 38 From the Scored Relationship Mapping Tool Figure 10. From Scored Relationship Mapping tool Interestingly, intermarriages and exchange visits were consistently mentioned throughout the group discussions during this study. Nine out of nine groups mentioned these types of interactions either as a reason why their relationship had improved or as an example of a recent social interaction. During the midterm, only three out of nine groups reported intermarriage as a social interaction, whilst eight out of nine viewed it as a sign of peace prevalence. In this study, seven out of nine groups cited intermarriage as a recent social interaction, a significant increase from the midterm assessment. Table 16. How have you interacted socially in the last three months? (# of groups) Type of Social Interaction Midterm Endline Cultural Dialogue/Exchange 8 8 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 39 Exchange Visit 0 6 Sharing Food 1 1 School 3 3 Intermarriage 3 7 From Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool Complementing this data, five out of nine focus groups explicitly cited either intermarriages or exchange visits as new interactions, or interactions that did not exist two years ago. An elder from Lapono sub-county explains, “there is now a true sense of intermarriage between the two sub-counties. In the past, when a Karamojong wanted a girl from Lapono, they would even use force to take the girl, while [the Karamojong’s] daughter were never allowed to marry an Acholi. But now, we can go to marry their daughters.”19 Following are the reasons cited as the cause of new interactions (both social and economic), with the number of groups mentioning the reason in parenthesis: Table 17. What Were the Causes of New Interactions? Factors that Influenced Increased Interactions between Conflicting Communities # of Groups BBP peace program 7 Disarmament 7 UPDF Detaches/patrols 6 Less fear/violence 5 Joint Settlement 4 Access roads 3 Free movement 3 Protected kraals 3 Education/sensitization 3 Local Defense Forces 3 From Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool Both the statistical and FGD data support the underlying hypothesis of this study that cultural dialogues and/or joint livelihoods projects can catalyze more social interaction. Statistical analyses revealed that those respondents in the target group were more likely to report personally interacting socially with someone from the conflicting community (X2=36.15 (N=413), p=0.000) than the control. While 57.4 % of respondents in the target group reporting socially interacting, the figure drops to 47.2 % when the control group is taken into account. Whether respondents could differentiate between intermarriage as a reason or 19 Focus group discussion No. 19 (Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool), Elders. Aboko Village, Amyel Parish, Lapono Sub-county, Agago District. 29 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 40 effect of a change was difficult to ascertain, as it appeared in both forms throughout the discussion. The exact process remains complex, and in need of future research. Nonetheless, one hypothesis is that there is a mutually reinforcing process underway in Karamoja. As the government’s presence, community dialogues and joint livelihoods projects opened up previously insecure areas, free movement and interactions increased, and inter-community trust grew whilst fear and suspicion lessened. Consequently, this mix of factors has allowed for greater interaction, trust, cooperation, which in turn opened the door for more intermarriages and informal interactions such as exchange visits. 3.3.3. Economic Interactions The study also found an increase in economic interactions between conflicting communities since the midterm assessment. Compared with 34 % in the midterm assessment, 57.4 % of survey respondents also reported personal economic interactions with the conflicting community. Responses from the FGDs again substantiated the survey results. Eight out of nine focus groups reported that economic interactions had increased over the last two years. Figure 9. From household survey Q6.1a & Q6.2a Similar to the social interaction score, the mean economic interaction score also increased from the midterm to endline assessment, from 2.6 to 4.1. Table 13 indicates that trade between the conflicting communities has increased, from three groups to eight groups mentioning it as an economic interaction. This was oftentimes attributed to the joint markets established between the conflicting communities. The increase of groups mentioning joint farming also lends credence to the hypothesis that these activities have incited increased trade between targeted June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 41 groups. Table 18. How have you interacted economically in the last 3 months? (# of groups) Type of Economic Interaction Midterm Endline Market Activity 4 6 Trade 5 8 Casual Labor 1 2 Joint Farming/Work 1 9 Sharing Resources/Goods 0 3 From Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool Despite the lack of pre-intervention data on the control groups, survey data appear to indicate that there is currently more economic interaction in the target group compared to the control group. While 57.4 % of respondents in the target group reported personally interacting economically with the conflicting community, the figure decreases to 49.9% after taking the control group into account. Focus group discussion data correspond to this finding, as seven out of nine groups cited the BBP peace program as the cause of increased economic interaction. Similarly, seven groups mentioned the governments’ program of disarmament. Interestingly, four groups cited both intermarriage and trust as an impetus for increased economic interaction. Indeed, this corresponds with Mercy Corps’ vision of first facilitating trust and cooperation between groups, followed with fostering stronger economic relationships to help build reconciliation and peace. Table 19. Why have economic interactions increased over the last two years? From Scored Community Relationship Mapping tool In terms of benefits of interaction, all nine focus groups believe there is a benefit to interacting with the conflicting community (compared with only seven groups during the midterm assessment), and all groups reported that the benefits had increased, or had improved over the last two years. The two benefits that increased the most were intermarriages (cited by two groups at the midterm compared to seven at the endline), and free Reasons for Increased Economic Interaction # of Groups BBP Peace Program 7 Disarmament 7 Less Fear/Violence 5 Intermarriage 4 Trust 4 UPDF Detaches/Patrols 3 Free Movement 3 Exchange Visit 3 Joint Settlement 2 Access Roads 2 Peace Prevalence 2 Protected Kraals 1 Local Defense Forces 1 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 42 movement (cited by three groups at the midterm compared to nine at the endline). Upon analysis, it appears free movement facilitates the existence of several key phenomena such as access to resources, increased interactions, trust-building, reductions in violence, thus, supporting the assertion above that Karamoja is witnessing a mutually-reinforcing process. Given the above analyses, one could conjecture that the BBP program along with the government’s programs, and army have all helped to catalyze this process. Most importantly (and perhaps less obvious), as intermarriages and free movement increased, people increasingly link these phenomena to interaction with the conflicting community. That is, they increasingly saw the benefits of interacting, and cooperating with the conflicting community, a key tenet underlying BBP’s peace program. 3.3.4. Willingness to Interact Figure 11. From household survey Q6.3a One of the most significant changes found in this study concerned respondents’ willingness to interact with the conflicting community. While remaining the same from the baseline to the midterm assessment, respondents’ willingness to interact showed a marked increase in the endline assessment. That is, almost all respondents (98.6 %) reported that they would be willing to interact with the conflicting community in the future. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 43 What has happened since the midterm assessment that could explain this increase? Indeed, the government’s program of disarmament, and UPDF patrols were already present prior to the midterm. Interestingly, this rise in willingness coincided with the implementation of BBP’s joint livelihoods projects, which primarily occurred following the midterm assessment. One possible hypothesis is that the joint livelihoods projects, through reinforcing trust and opening up previously insecure areas, provided the missing link for community members to truly believe change, and ultimately peace was possible. 3.3.5. Dispute Resolution Although not a primary focus of this study, survey results do reveal improvements in dispute resolution mechanisms. As illustrated in Figure 12 below, respondents reported more satisfaction with how disputes were resolved than in the midterm assessment. Most striking, the number of respondents reporting that they “Never” or “Rarely” were satisfied dropped to zero, from 14.1 % and 24.5 %, respectively. Looking at Figure 12, it becomes clear that these respondents have shifted to either being satisfied “Sometimes” or “Most of the time.” Figure 12. From household survey Q7.1 Another important indicator is not only how often people are satisfied with dispute resolution, but also how often this resolution occurred peacefully. Again, a graph provides a clear indication to the changes that have occurred since the midterm assessment. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 44 As Figure 13 shows, respondents citing that disputes were “Never” or “Rarely” resolved peacefully dropped to nearly zero. Similarly, those reporting that disputes were “Always” resolved peacefully increased about 7 % (from 20.5 % to 27.1 %). This result corroborates the findings of this study that not only has violence decreased, but also the level of trust and cooperation has increased. Indeed, resolving disputes peacefully is an indicator of both phenomena. Figure 13. From household survey Q7.2 Despite lacking explicit qualitative data on dispute resolution mechanisms, the Scored Relationship Mapping tool did explore topics on peace agreements. Moreover, peace agreements (informal or formal) were often tied to discussion about the cultural dialogues/exchanges. Upon analysis of the FGDs, it appears that one of the positive side effects of the cultural dialogues/exchanges was subsequent peace agreements, or peace “understandings” between the two communities. For example, the youth of Kacheri talked of an informal agreement set at the end of February 2011 at Old Lolelia, the site of BBP’s joint livelihoods project, to encourage everyone to stay alert, and inform cultural leaders of any wrongdoing. Moreover, throughout the FGDs, communities in Kotido District consistently linked the cultural dialogues to peace agreements, often times mentioning them as one and the same. Additionally, respondents most often perceive a peace agreement as fair when they witnessed a real impact, when rules and regulations are put into place, and when everyone is involved, especially the youth. This is important to take into account for future peace programming. 4. CONCLUSION June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 45 This final assessment has sought to assess, and analyze the current situation in Karamoja, and as such determine the extent to which Mercy Corps’ Building Bridges to Peace program catalyzed any observed changes that occurred over the last two years. As demonstrated throughout the study, there have been many changes in key indicators over the life of the program. Cattle rustling remains a primary characteristic of the conflict in Karamoja, though it appears that large scale raids have decreased since the midterm assessment. In that assessment, focus group discussions revealed that people “would know cattle rustling was resolved if cows could graze together, if there was more intermarriage, if there was more trading, if there was socializing with the conflicting community, and if they could move freely without fear.”20 Indeed, this study found developments on all cited signs of peace. Only three out of nine groups cited grazing lands as inaccessible (compared to six at the midterm), seven out of nine groups cited an intermarriage in the last three months (compared to only three at the midterm), eight out of nine groups cited trading with the conflicting community (compared to only five at the midterm), survey and FGD results indicate higher levels of social interaction, and nine out of nine groups said that no-go areas had decreased over the life of the program. While these changes represent encouraging developments in the conflict in Karamoja, the study uncovered many barriers to achieving full peace. Upon analysis, factors that threaten to stymie progress include youth idleness, persistent drought and hunger, and continued violence from isolated wrongdoers. An almost ethereal appreciation for cattle remains prominent in Karamoja, and should still be taken into account in future peace programming. Additionally, the transforming conflict dynamic engenders new implications for Karamoja. While large-scale cattle raids may have decreased, it appears that small-scale attacks can be just as violent, oftentimes led by “isolated wrongdoers”, who are easily manipulated within a conflict with many distinct actors with varying motivations. Similar to the midterm assessment, this study’s focus group discussions uncovered many ideas for resolving the conflict in Karamoja. The ideas mentioned as ways to promote peace in Karamoja include the following, with the number of groups citing each idea in parenthesis: Table 20. How Can Peace in Karamoja Be Further Supported? Ways to Further Promote Peace in Karamoja # of Groups Joint livelihoods projects 9 Cultural dialogues/exchanges 8 20 Midterm Assessment Report,” Building Bridges to Peace. Mercy Corps, P.35. August 2010. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 46 Joint settlement 5 Continued disarmament 5 Education/sensitization 5 Punishment of wrongdoers 4 Creation of access roads 3 Continued UPDF presence 2 As evident above, all focus groups provided positive feedback regarding both the cultural dialogues/exchanges and joint livelihoods projects. Nonetheless, suggestions on how to improve these activities were also mentioned. Regarding the cultural dialogues/exchanges, group members emphasized that youth need to be involved more and that the information gap between regular individuals and those who represent the community at the dialogues needs to be mitigated. In terms of the joint livelihoods projects, groups felt that youth need to be a primary target and that any unfinished projects must be completed. This final assessment included both statistical and qualitative analyses. Upon analysis of these data results, it appears that Mercy Corps’ multidimensional approach – first targeting the hearts through cultural dialogues, then the minds through joint livelihood projects – has positively impacted the conflict situation between the targeted communities. The results also reveal that the government’s program of disarmament, UPDF patrols, detaches, and protected kraals all have influenced the security situation in Karamoja. A youth group member in Rengen sub-county astutely reflects, “Everyone is without guns now….in the past everyone was an “emaanik” (main bull) or wanted to be one, and the gun was how one became powerful. Nowadays, everyone is emasculated.”21 Nevertheless, the encouraging results of this study support one possible hypothesis. While disarmament may have “emasculated” everyone, and reduced violence, Mercy Corps’ BBP program provided the foundation for this emasculation to be empowering rather than enfeebling. By fostering joint livelihoods projects between conflicting communities, the BBP program enabled former warriors to see an alternative to a life of raiding and violence, while the cultural dialogues and exchanges cultivated increased trust, and sparked increased informal interactions and intermarriages. In this sense BBP was the necessary accompaniment to the government’s disarmament and rule-of-law efforts, facilitating reconciliation and renewed purpose in the wake of the confiscation of weapons. 21 Focus group discussion No. 7 (Conflict & Resource Mapping tool), Youth. Lokatap Village, Lokadeli Parish, Rengen Sub-county, Kotido District. 14 March 2011. June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 47 BBP Final Evaluation Survey Part 1: Pre-interview data The interviewer should fill this out before the interview begins. Part 2: Informed consent The interviewer should read this aloud. Hello. My name is ________________ and I work with Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps is an international nongovernmental organization that works for peacebuilding and economic development in this region. We are conducting a survey of households and have randomly selected yours. Participation in the survey is voluntary and you are free to decline to answer any or all questions. The results will be kept confidential and will only be used to help Mercy Corps design better programs in this region. This survey usually takes ______ minutes to complete. Will you participate in this survey? …….…………………………………………...Yes ………………………………………………….No Signature of interviewer Part 3: Demographic information I’d like to start by learning a little bit about you. Please remember that your responses will be kept confidential. # Category Answers (and Coding) Instruction s 3. 1 Sex Male……………………………………….………………….1 Female…………….………………………………..…………2 # Category Answers (and Coding) Instructions 1.1 Interviewer Name 1.2 Date _______/_______/__________ 1.3 Location: District 1.4 Sub-county 1.5 Parish 1.6 Village 1.7 Name of conflicting community. The name of this community should be inserted in all site￾specific questions. Agago..………………………,…………….…….1 Kacheri, Kotido......……………………….…….2 Rengen, Kotido...................................................3 Nakapelimoru, Kotido....…...…………………...4 Lolelia, Kaabong.................................................5 Sidok, Kaabong...................................................6 Loyoro, Kaabong.................................................7 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 48 3. 2 Age 3. 3 Ethnic group (circle one) Acholi………………………,…………….…….…..…………. 1 Dodoth…………………………………………………………. 2 Jie…………………………...…………………………….……. 3 Other (specify)…..……………………...................……………4 3. 4 Occupatio n (circle one) Farmer……….…………………………………………………. 1 Pastoralist………………………………………………………. 2 Agropastoralist...........................................................................3 Trader….………………………….……………………………. 4 Other (specify)............................................................................5 Part 4: Livelihoods Now I’d like to ask you some questions about livelihoods in your community. # Questions Answers (and Coding) Instructions 4.1 Compared to two years ago, have livelihoods opportunities in your community: Increased………………………………………...1 Decreased………………………………………..2 Stayed the same………………………………….3 4.2a Are there resources that people in your community want or need to use but are unable to access? Yes………..……………………………………..1 No……………………………….……………….2 If No, skip to Q4.4a 4.2b If yes, what type of resource? (multiple - circle all that apply) Water……………………………………….…..1 Grazing land……………………………………2 Farmland……………………………………….3 Market………………………………………….4 Other (specify)…………………………………5 4.2c Why can’t you access the resource? (multiple - circle all that apply) Insecurity……………………………………….1 Lack of ownership…………………………...…2 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 49 No road……………………………………...….3 Leaders have agreed no one will go there…..….4 Other (specify)…………………………………5 4.3a Do people in your community share resources with people from ? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) Yes………….….………………………………..1 No…………..…………………………………...2 If No, skip to Q4.5a 4.3b If yes, what kind of resources do the two communities share? (multiple – circle all that apply) Water……………………………………….…..1 Grazing land……………………………………2 Farmland……………………………………….3 Market………………………………………….4 Other (specify)…………………………………5 Part 5: Security and Stability Now I’d like to ask you some questions about peace and security in your village. # Questions Answers (and Coding) Instructions 5.1 In relation to levels of violence, where does your village belong? (circle one) Very peaceful……………….…………………...1 Somewhat peaceful…………….……………......2 Neither peaceful or violent……….……………...3 Somewhat violent…………………….………….4 Very violent…………………………….……..…5 5.2a To your knowledge, have there been any incidents of violence in your village in the last 3 months? Yes………………………….…………………..1 No…………………………….………………...2 If No, skip to Q5.3a 5.2b If yes, about how many incidents occurred? (write the number of incidents that occurred) ________________________________________ 5.2c If yes, what happened? (multiple – circle all that apply) Beating…………………………………….……1 Killing………………………………..………....2 Cattle raid……………………………….….......3 Ambush……………………………………........4 Abduction……………………………….……...5 Household theft…………………………….......6 Rape/defilement………………………….........7 Land dispute……………………………………8 Other (specify)………………………………….9 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 50 5.3 In the last 3 months, were there any areas that you avoided going to or through because of insecurity during the day? Yes…………………………..………………….1 No……………………………..……………......2 5.4 In the last 3 months, were there any areas that you avoided going to or through because of insecurity during the night? Yes…………………………..………………….1 No……………………………..……………......2 Part 6: Relationships between divided communities I understand that there some misunderstanding between your community and community (insert name of sub-county and district from Q1.7). I would like to ask you some questions about the relationship between your community and this community. # Questions Answers (and Coding) Instructions 6.1a In the last 3 months, did you personally interact socially with people from _____? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) Yes……………………….……………………..1 No…………………………….………………...2 If No, go to Q6.2a 6.1b If yes, how did you interact? (Do not read the list. Let the respondent speak. Circle the first three interactions the respondent mentions.) Social event……………………………………..1 Intermarriage/at a wedding……………….…….2 At a funeral…………………………….…….....3 At church or mosque……………………….…...4 Inter￾Other (specify)….................................................5 6.2a In the last 3 months, did you personally interact economically with people from _____? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) Yes……………………….……………………..1 No…………………………….………………...2 If No, go to Q6.3a 6.2b If yes, how did you interact? (Do not read the list. Let the respondent speak. Circle the first three interactions the respondent mentions.) Trade/at the market……………………………..1 Cattle keeping…………………………………..2 Farming…………………………………..….….3 Borrowing or lending money…………………...4 Employment………………………………..…...5 Joint livelihoods projects………………………..6 Other (specify)…................................................. 7 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 51 6.3a Would you be willing to interact with people from _____ in the future? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) Yes………………………………………….…..1 No……………………………………………....2 If No, go to Q6.4 6.3b If yes, how? (Do not read the list. Let the respondent speak. Circle the first three interactions the respondent mentions.) Social event…………………………………….1 Intermarriage/at a wedding……………….…….2 At a funeral…………………………….…..…...3 At church or mosque………………….………..4 Trade/at the market……………………………..5 Cattle keeping…………………………………..6 Farming…………………………………..….….7 Borrowing or lending money…………………...8 Employment………………………………..…...9 Other (specify)…………………………………10 6.4 Do you trust people from ? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) Never…………………………………………..1 Rarely……………………………………….....2 Sometimes……………………………………..3 Most of the time……………………………….4 Always……………………………...…………5 In regards to someone from ____, how comfortable would you feel….(Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified on Q1.7) 6.5a ….if your brother or sister married them? I am very comfortable with this.…….............…..1 I am a little comfortable with this……...……......2 I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable........3 I am a little uncomfortable with this…….……....4 I am very uncomfortable with this.………….......5 6.5b ...starting a business with them? I am very comfortable with this.…….............…..1 I am a little comfortable with this……...……......2 I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable........3 I am a little uncomfortable with this…….……....4 I am very uncomfortable with this.………….......5 June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 52 6.5c ...if someone from that community was your leader? I am very comfortable with this.…….............…..1 I am a little comfortable with this……...……......2 I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable........3 I am a little uncomfortable with this…….……....4 I am very uncomfortable with this.………….......5 6.5d ….paying them to watch your animals? I am very comfortable with this.…….............…..1 I am a little comfortable with this……...……......2 I am neither comfortable nor uncomfortable........3 I am a little uncomfortable with this…….……....4 I am very uncomfortable with this.………….......5 Part 7: Dispute resolution Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how disputes are resolved in your community. # Questions Answers (and Coding) Instructions 7.1 During the past year, how often were disputes in your community resolved so that all sides were satisfied and didn’t complain? Never………………………………………………..1 Rarely…………………………………………….....2 Sometimes…………………………………………..3 Most of the time…………………………………….4 Always…………………………………...…………5 7.2 During the past year, how often were disputes in your community resolved peacefully? Never………………………………………………..1 Rarely…………………………………………….....2 Sometimes…………………………………………..3 Most of the time…………………………………….4 Always…………………………………...…………5 7.3 During the past year, who usually resolved disputes between your community and ___? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub￾county as specified on Q1.7. Do not read the list. Let the respondent speak. Circle the first three people/institutions the respondent mentions.) Elders……………………………………..………......1 Kraal leaders………………………….….…………...2 Peace committees/Joint Monitoring Teams..…………3 Women…………………………………………….....4 Youth…………………………………………..……..5 Local leaders……………………………….…………6 Nobody……………………………………..………..7 Don’t know………………………………………..…8 Other (specify)…………………………………….…9 7.4a During the past year, have there been any peace Yes………………………………………….…….…..1 If No or Don’t know, June 2011 Building Bridges to Peace (BBP) Final Evaluation USAID/CMM Cooperative Agreement # 617-A-00-09-00008-00 Mercy Corps 53 dialogues with ____? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) No………………………………………………….....2 Don’t know…………………………………….……..3 skip to Q7.5 7.4b If yes, who participated in the peace dialogue? (multiple – circle all that apply) Elders…………………………………….…………...1 Kraal leaders………………………………….………2 Peace committees…………………………………….3 Women………………………………………..….......4 Youth…………………………………………………5 Religious leaders……………………..……………….6 NGOs………………………………………….……...7 Local government………………………..……..…….8 Myself………………………………………………..9 Other (specify)…………………………………….10 7.5 How often do local government officials visit your community to discuss topics of conflict and peace? Never…………………………………………….…..1 Rarely…….……………………………………….....2 Sometimes……………………………………….…..3 Frequently.…….………………………………….….4 Not sure…………………………………...……….…5 7.6 How responsive is the local government to local needs relating to conflict, peace, and reconciliation? Very responsive……………………..……………….1 Somewhat responsive………………………….…….2 Not at all responsive…………………………………3 Not sure……………………………………………....4 7.7 How hopeful are you about having peace between your community and ______? (Site specific: insert name of conflicting community in bordering sub-county as specified in Q1.7) Very hopeful……………………………….………....1 Somewhat hopeful.....………………….......................2 Hardly hopeful………………………………………..3 Not at all hopeful………………………..…….......….4 Not sure……………………………………………….5 Conclusion Thank you very much for your time. Do you have any questions for me?