U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINAL REPORT EVALUATION OF THE WANEP CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT December 2004 Abdi Aden, USAID/Ethiopia Dennis Bilodeau, USAID/Mali Carolyn Jefferson, USAID/REDSO Juliana Pwamang, USAID/Ghana Letitia Sam, USAID/WARP Conducted as part the USAID/Africa/DP and MSI Certificate Course in Evaluation , Accra, Ghana ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ………………………………………………………………………iii Acronyms …………………….……………………………………………….……………iv Executive Summary ………………………………………………………………………v 1. Introduction ………………………………………………………………………….1 2. The Problem …………………………………………………………………………….1 3. Theory of the Intervention…….…...………………………………………………..2 4. Overview of Project Design ……..………………………………………………….5 5. Purpose of the Evaluation ………..………………………………………………….9 6. Methodology…………………………………………………………………………..10 7. Design Constraints…………………………………………………………………..11 8. Findings………………………………………………………………………………..11 9. Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………14 10. Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………….17 11. Lessons Learned ……………….…………………………………………………..18 12. Recommendations ………………………………………………………………….19 Bibliography ……………………………………………………………………………..20 Annexes and Appendices ……………………………………………………………..22 iii Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge with gratitude the cooperation received from all WANEP network members—its various field officers in all the countries that the team visited, as well as ECOWAS headquarters which enabled the team to carry out the work reported herein. Special thanks are due to all of the Missions that took a keen interest in the evaluation course and authorized team members to take the course and to be away from post for several weeks in order to complete the training and field work. We would also like to record our deep appreciation and sincere gratitude for the USAID Mission to Ghana for its support and facilitation particularly with regards to handling the logistics, lodging and unexpected needs during our stay in Ghana. We have had the privilege of receiving the blessings, advice and active support of many individuals whose names are too numerous to list. We would like to express, most respectfully, our sincere gratitude to all of them. The high quality of the course is directly due to the efforts, skills and whole hearted support of Dr. Richard Blue, Ms. Molly Hageboeck and Ms. Janet Kerley. We sincerely thank all of them. Finally, we must express our sincere respect and appreciation for the blood, sweat and tears of all peoples working for a better world. After all is said and done, isn’t that what evaluation reports strive to advance? WANEP Evaluation team members: Abdi Aden, USAID/Ethiopia Dennis Bilodeau, USAID/Mali Carolyn Jefferson, USAID/REDSO Juliana Pwamang, USAID/Ghana Letitia Sam, USAID/WARP iv Acronyms AID/W Agency for International Development/Washington AU African Union (formerly Organization of African Unity) CBP Capacity Building Project CEAO Communauté Economique de l’Afrique de l’Ouest CEWR Conflict Early Warning and Response CEWR/PB Conflict Early Warning and Response and Peacebuilding CILSS Comité Permanent Inter-Etats de lutte contre la Secheresse dans le Sahel CPM Conflict Prevention Mechanism CPR Contract Performance Report CRS Catholic Relief Services CSO Civil Society Organization CTO Cognizant Technical Officer DG Democracy and Governance EC European Community ECOMOG ECOWAS Monitoring Group ECOMOG ECOWAS Monitoring Group ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States EOC Election Observation Center EU European Union FOWA Forum of West Africa G Global Bureau, USAID GB Governing Board ICT Information and Communications Technology IGO Intergovernmental Organizations IR Intermediate Results MOU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-Governmental Organization OAU Organization of African Unity OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OMC Observation and Monitoring Center OMC Observation and Monitoring Centers OYB Operation Year Budget PB Peacebuilding REDSO/WCA Regional Economic Development Support Office for West and Central Africa SO Strategic Objective SPO Special Objective TAG Technical Advisory Group USAID United States Agency for International Development WA West Africa WANEP West Africa Network for Peacebuilding WAPI West Africa Peacebuilding Institute WARN West Africa Early Warning and Response Network WARP West Africa Regional Program WCA West and Central Africa WIPNET Women in Peacebuilding Network v Executive Summary This report presents the findings of an evalution of the USAID/WARP-funded Capacity Building of the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) project. The evaluation was undertaken as part of the requirement for a certificate course in evaluation, conducted from August to October of 2004. The ECOWAS summit in 1999 agreed on a protocol for the establishment of a mechanism for conflict prevention, management and resolution, peace and security. Because of distressing events in several of its member states, ECOWAS soon realized that economic development and progress can only be pursued in an environment of peace and stability. It found that it had a role to play in mitigating conflict in its member states to ensure that an environment conducive to the implementation of its economic program was maintained. The United States Agency for International Development has spent significant sums of money on development programs, many of which will never be fully effective due to conflict. In West Africa, for example, violent conflicts have disrupted economic, political and social development for the last twenty years, it was therefore deemed necessary to support conflict prevention and resolution activities and integrate or streamline conflict management into more traditional development sectors such as agriculture, natural resource management, economic growth, democracy, health and education The West Africa regional office of the Catholic Relief Services (CRS), in partnership with West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP), proposes to work in collaboration with both the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to increase the capacity and effectiveness of both formal and non￾formal conflict prevention mechanisms in the West Africa Region in response to a Request for Application put out by USAID’s West Africa Regional Program (WARP) WANEP has the largest peacebuilding coalition in the sub-region with over 80 member organizations in 15 west and central African countries. For the last six years, WANEP has engaged in peacebuilding activities throughout West Africa. Together, WANEP and its coalition members have pioneered approaches to integrate CSOs into systems that predict, analyze and help mitigate conflict During this evaluation period the evaluation team was tasked to collect and analyze data to draw conclusions on whether capacity building assistance was indeed provided to the Network members and whether this assistance resulted in the strengthening of the CSOs. In most countries visited, the team observed that capacity building assistance had been provided to the CSOs, though additional assistance would be required for the system to be fully functional. In the case of ECOWAS where the project aimed to increase its conflict prevention capacity and effectiveness, it was noted that only a limited number of activities had been undertaken due to major constraints at the beginning of the project. The project has been extended by three months and key activities are scheduled to be completed during this extension, such as the completion of the training manual for conflict prevention, the creation of a list server for CSOs throughout the region, and the database of conflict prevention indicators. vi The capacity of WANEP national network offices has improved and resulted in improved coordination among Civil Society Organizations. WANEP training programs have in some instances enabled the NGOs to prevent community/ local level conflicts and integrated conflict into their programs. The number of organizations that joined the Network has increased during the life of the project, and many more continue to seek membership. The evaluation design was intended to be responsive to the program management and technical needs of key stakeholders. In view of the fact that the WANEP project, though near completion, is still on-going and that a number of key activities are yet to be implemented, a process evaluation seemed better indicated than an outcome evaluation in order to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of activities implemented so far and recommend what works in order to ensure that any follow-on project achieves desired impact upon completion. This information is of particular importance to the USAID WARP office that funded the project. WARP needs to know to what extent this project contributed to the achievement of its SPO. In conclusion, the evaluation team recommends that the project be continued, with the follow-on phase taking particular attention to the weaknesses noted in this report, and the lessons learned during the current phase of the project. 1 1. Introduction This report presents the findings of an evaluation of the USAID/WARP-funded Capacity Building of the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) project. The evaluation was undertaken as part of the requirement for a certificate course in evaluation, conducted from August to October of 2004. A five-person team conducted field work during the months of September and October. This report describes the problem that the WANEP Capacity Building Project was designed to address, and evaluates the program in terms of how well the project accomplished its stated objectives. 2. The Problem Since the late 1980s, several violent conflicts have disrupted economic, political and social development throughout West Africa. While most of these conflicts originate internally, they rapidly overflow national boundaries, thus negatively impacting neighboring countries and involving the regional community and institutions at large. While the ongoing Mano River Union (Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone) conflict remains the most well-known crisis in the region, others like the Casamance rebellion in Southern Senegal, and recurrent political strife in neighboring Guinea-Bissau, remain unresolved with destabilizing effect on the development of these countries. Nigeria has also become a source of growing concern in the region because of the potential conflict there. Côte d’Ivoire is also in the throes of an ethnic and religious conflict, which has had a significant negative impact on several neighboring countries. These recurrent outbursts of violence along ethnic, religious and political lines currently pose serious threats to political stability in West Africa. In addition to known historical reasons, almost all the aforementioned conflicts can be traced to a deficit of institutionalized democracy and good governance. Deriving from this situation are weak institutions that are unable to ensure equal access to power and resources, and to guarantee citizen’s right and broader societal security. The high cost of peacekeeping interventions, in terms of human and financial loss, has led to a shift in regional thinking and initiatives towards conflict prevention. The principal response to violent conflicts in West Africa thus far, has been through the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) Monitoring Group (ECOMOG). This peacekeeping body has conducted operations in Liberia, Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone with varying degrees of success. Civil society organizations are becoming increasingly involved in conflict prevention and resolution at local, national and regional levels. Their proximity to the populations and flexibility of action place them in an advantageous position for detecting the imminence of conflicts and, where possible, taking early preventive actions. In this regard, CSO play an important complementary role to regional organizations by helping in the collection and analysis of pertinent data, and by pressuring governments to end ongoing conflicts, while working towards preventing potential ones. 2 Unfortunately, CSOs are confronted with serious shortcomings, which limit the impact of their participation in conflict prevention. In addition to being under-funded, their actions remain largely uncoordinated due to lack of communication. Finally, unlike in other parts of Africa, the field of conflict prevention and resolution is new to West Africa. CSOs therefore lack the training and experience to carry out meaningful actions, particularly at a regional level. Thus, CSOs constitute a priority sector in terms of capacity-building in conflict prevention. A number of efforts have been undertaken to improve the region’s institutional response. In December 1999, the organization approved a Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security (ECOWATCH). With support from the EU, ECOWAS is actively setting up the various components of ECOWATCH, which include a coordination unit in Abuja, and sub-regional early warning offices in Cotonou (Benin), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Monrovia (Liberia) and Banjul (The Gambia). Key personnel for these offices have been recruited and are presently in place. More recently in December 2001, ECOWAS approved an additional protocol on good governance. In response to this protocol thirty ECOWAS observers, some of whom are part of ECOWATCH, participated in the presidential and parliamentary elections in Sierra Leone. Obviously, ECOWATCH offers a positive and welcome development for regional peacebuilding efforts. 3. Theory of the Intervention It is necessary to situate and to try to briefly reconstruct what the “Capacity Builidng in Conflict Prevention and Good Governance for ECOWAS and CSOs in West Afrca” (i.e., the WANEP Capacity Building) project was designed to do. There are four key conceptual components: ¸ conflict, early warning prevention, response, peacebuilidng and good governance; ¸ regional integration; ¸ regional programming; and, ¸ capacity strengthening/organization development. The project intervention was based on the premise that if a regional organization with a successful track record of providing technical CEWR and peacebuilding expertise is able to provide CEWR/PB technical assistance and support services to CSOs and the inter￾governmental organization working in conflict early warning and peace building, then the CSOs and IGO will be strengthened to carryout work that reduces conflict and strengthens conflict mediation and peace in communities at local and national levels. Reducing levels of conflict regularly in the ECOWAS region will contribute to an environment for sustainable economic growth and development, and wealth creation. West African regional organizations share a mandate and responsibility with contemporary African societies for improving the quality of life of its citizens. Regional integration for wealth creation is the strategic perspective being undertaken by diverse regional African bodies such as the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Union Economique et Monetaire Ouest-Africaine (UEMOA), and Comité Inter-Etats de Lutte contre 3 la Secheresse dans le Sahel (CILSS). Each of these organizations has existed since the 1970s. Despite over 25 years of effort to achieve regional integration, at present it remains illusive in West Africa. A successful regional integration agenda demands key stakeholders such as regional organizations to strengthen their performance capacity. They are expected to advance strategic intra-sectoral approaches that achieve sustained performance improvements and contribute positively to gains in regional integration. a. Use of a Regional Programming Approach What is regional programming? It is a strategic approach used to identify sector-specific development objectives and programs that can be more effectively and efficiently addressed with a regional platform/approach. Yet the regional efforts must complement not duplicate the efforts of bi-lateral stakeholders working in the public and private sectors. Regional programming within USAID enjoys a precarious existence because bi-lateral Mission programs may not agree with the concepts of regional programming. They may not (or do not) readily benefit from regional approaches. Some bi-lateral missions prefer to receive resources (including funding) assigned to regional programs directly to address development issues bi-laterally. Regional programming is expected to strengthen bi-lateral efforts and vice-versa. b. Reconstructing the Project Design The West Africa Regional Program (WARP) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) consulted with stakeholders about how to improve the performance capacity of the regional integration agenda in West Africa. In response to feedback from public, private and civil society institutions, WARP designed a five-year strategy with a goal of advancing "a Politically Stable and Economically Prosperous West Africa". The WARP strategy is premised on a common theme that most West African countries cannot function in isolation as economically viable entities -- that regional integration is essential for sustainable development, and that sustainable development cannot be achieved without political stability. So what is WARP advancing as a value-added approach? The WANEP Capacity Building project funded in large part by WARP intends to scale-up the scope and breadth of CEWR/PB work across the region in a more organized and strategic way. Within the Agency and the region, there is no concerted attention in this area. Bi￾lateral USG missions and other federal units working in the region are primarily concerned with conflict internal to a specific country with the exception of cross-border conflicts such in the Cassamance and Liberia/Guinea. Also, regional efforts by CSOs and ECOWAS in particular have a limited record of performance. In many cases the technical and financial inputs have been poorly coordinated and funded. Unlike any other international development agency, the WANEP project design focuses on working in a tri-partite partnership with a USPVO, regional CSO and IGOs and networks with a mandate/commitment and expertise to improve the coordination of conflict early warning responses and peacebuilding efforts. The project approach is ambitious in design and funding. The project design is geared towards helping both CSOs and IGOs, more specifically ECOWAS, organize themselves better. 4 Who are the Partner Organizations1 in the Tri-partite Partnership? There are three key partner organizations in the partnership, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). CRS: U.S. Private Voluntary Organization The Catholic Bishops of the United States founded Catholic Relief Services in 1943 to assist the poor and dispossessed overseas. In 2001, the total operating expenses were estimated at $A384 million drawn from both private and public sources. Total program expenses represented 90% of total operating expenditures. CRS reaches over 42 million people, directly and indirectly, in 92 countries served by over 4,000 field-based staff. CRS programming expertise lies in the sector of health, emergency response, and agriculture in addition to crosscutting themes such as peacebuilding, capacity building, partnership, and good governance. CRS is registered as a US private voluntary organization (USPVO). In the project design, CRS partners with the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP), a 6-year organization working in the ECOWAS region to mitigate conflict. WANEP: Technical Service Provider Working Regionally In response to nearly a decade of violent conflicts throughout West Africa, West African scholars and academics based in the United States especially at the George Mason, American, Duquesne and Eastern Mennonite Universities established WANEP in 1998. WANEP serves as a coordinating structure for collaborative peacebuilding in West Africa with the ultimate goal of building sustainable peace, thereby creating an enabling environment for development in West Africa. WANEP is one of the largest peacebuilding networks in West Africa. WANEP’s strength lies in the diversity of experience of its members. Currently, over 80 Civil Society Organizations from 15 African countries constitute WANEP. The WANEP Secretariat, based in Accra, Ghana, provides guidance and support to national networks in strategic planning and process management, and promotes information sharing among its members and associated institutions. The Secretariat hosts experts in the fields of peacebuilidng, mediation, conflict analysis, monitoring, and early warning and response and is frequently called upon to assist its national networks, embassies and international organizations. Each year, WANEP organizes peacebuilding training sessions. The WANEP Secretariat has cultivated relationships with internationally recognized institutions such as FEWER (Forum on Early Warning and Early Response), CIPP (Country Indicators for Foreign Policy), SPF-FAST (the Swiss Peach Foundation), and the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace Studies. On a regional level the WANEP Secretariat is engaged in ongoing dialogues with ECOWAS and other civil society networks on conflict. WANEP’s peacebuilding activities in West Africa can be divided into five general areas: conflict prevention/early warning and response initiatives, capacity building, network 1 Descriptions of partner organizations sourced from the Technical Application for RFA 624-A-02-0021-00, Capacity-Building in Conflict Prevention and Good Governance for ECOWAS and CSOs in West Africa, Resubmitted by Catholic Relief Services in partnership with West Africa Network for Peacebuilding, July 24, 2002. 5 development, conflict intervention, and active non-violence education. WANEP programs include the ¸ West African Early Warning and Response Network (WARN); ¸ Capacity Building and the West Africa Peacebuilding Institute (WAPI); ¸ WANEP National Networks; ¸ Women in Peacebuilding Network Program (WIPNET); ¸ Intervention and Special Initiatives Program (ISIP); ¸ Active Non-Violence Education; and, ¸ Justice-building. ECOWAS: Inter-Governmental Organization with CEWR Mandate In 1975, fifteen national governments in East and Central Africa organized themselves into the Economic Community of West African States to promote economic stability and development in the region. ECOWAS member states are Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Togo. The principle response to violent conflicts in West Africa thus far, has been through the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS) Monitoring Group (ECOMOG). This peacekeeping body has conducted operations in Liberia, Guinea-Bissau and Sierra Leone with varying degrees of success. In December 1999, the organization approved a Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security (ECOWATCH). With support from the EU, ECOWAS is actively setting up the various components of ECOWATCH, which include a coordination unit in Abuja, and sub-regional early warning offices in Cotonou (Benin), Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso), Monrovia (Liberia) and Banjul (The Gambia). The offices are known as the ECOWAS zonal bureaus More recently in December 2001, ECOWAS approved an additional protocol on good governance. This new document recognizes that many conflicts in the region are rooted in the absence of strong democracies and good governance. In response to this protocol, thirty ECOWAS observers, some of whom are part of ECOWATCH, participated in the presidential and parliamentary elections in Sierra Leone. An important objective of the project is to build an operational partnership between CSOs and ECOWAS to ensure a conflict early warning and response systems is working to avert and reduce diverse conflicts in the region. 4. Overview of Project Design The WANEP CB project design is based on the hypothesis that a functional conflict early warning, reporting, response and peace building system for the region is long overdue and key to improving the management of conflict mitigation, mediation and peace building efforts in West African States, sub-regions and communities. A viable system should formalize linkages between the ECOWAS Conflict Prevention and Management sub-system and networked sub-system of CSOs in communities. 6 OVERVIEW OF CRS / WANEP CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT WANEP REGIONAL OFFICE conduct a training needs assessment = develop a training plan for OMC = train additional professional staff = develop a conflict early warning and response training manual = develop CEWR web-base database, with a hosted Internet site available to both CSOs and ECOWAS = < operationalize appropriate structures in ECOWAS and CSOs for use of CEWR database = < CSO networks formalized to address conflict early warning and response < Open network offices < Identification and implementation of strategic agenda WANEP NATIONAL NETWORKS OF CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANZATIONS ECOWAS (OBSERVATION & MONITORING CENTRE) Provides training, technical assistance and support for the strengthening of the national CSO networks, to increase participation of, and collaboration between, civil society organizations in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and good governance Provides training, technical assistance and on-site technical support to ensure that appropriate structures are in place to establish and strengthen linkages between the CSO networks and ECOWAS, to increase the conflict prevention capacity and effectiveness of ECOWAS. Increase OMC’s capacity to collect and analyze data on conflict issues (Liaison Officer assigned to OMC). Areas for collaboration: integrating CSO conflict early warning and response in conflict analysis; and dissemination of policy briefs to inform policy dialog CRS, as USAID grantee, provides: Program facilitation; Budget and financial management support; Program monitoring & reporting MOU 7 OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE OF ECOWAS MECHANISM FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION, MANAGEMENT, RESOLUTION, PEACEKEEPING AND SECURITY In 2001, WARP circulated a Request for Application (RFA) to solicit regional program proposals that would contribute results towards the achievement of its Special Objective (SPO) 7 to “establish early detection and response mechanisms to prevent regional conflicts”. The Capacity Building project (CBP) designed by the regional office of the Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for West Africa and the West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) offered a competitive and innovative proposal familiarly known as the WANEP Capacity Building (CB) project. The WANEP CBP is expected to contribute to Intermediate Results that advance a functioning “. . . ECOWAS early detection and response mechanism to prevent conflict . . .” and that improve the performance “capacity of regional CSOs to participate in conflict detection and response” efforts. Annex A provides a structural overview of the WANEP CB project. Annex J for more information on WARP’s strategic objectives, intermediate results and illustrative project objectives. Is this project goal in the manageable interest of an international development program such as WARP? This evaluation study is not expected to address the reasonableness of the goal though the findings, recommendations and conclusions of the evaluation may inform the definition of what is doable under the Special Objective based on the Project’s embryonic, two-year experience. Also it must be noted that the special objective and intermediate results (IRs) in support of the strategy are currently being reviewed/refined and these revisions may affect the validity and reliability of the findings because the evaluation is pitched against the Authority (heads of state) Mediation and Security Council Executive Secretariat (Administrators for Authority and MSC) Authority may delegate to council Defence and Security Commission (Military) Council of Elders (Political) Ceasefire Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) Response Military Political OMC Zone Zone Zone Zone CSOs CSOs CSOs CSOs Institutions Organs 8 information provided by project documents operating under a 2003 performance monitoring plan (PMP). In order to understand the project, it is also useful to know the specific functions expected of each partner organization because the capacity-building model for this project is unique and responsive. Key roles and responsibilities for each partner are briefly outlined below. CRS, the USPVO is working in partnership with WANEP, a regional African organization. CRS receives the USAID/WARP funding, on behalf of the WANEP Capacity Building Project. CRS is responsible for financial accountability of the funds (including maintenance of a financial management system) and providing all administrative and logistical arrangements for program operations. It ensures that all financial and program reports are completed and forwarded to USAID/WARP in a timely manner. WANEP designs and provides all technical services and support to all project beneficiaries, namely CSOs and ECOWAS representatives. It is ensuring strategic and technical direction and management oversight of the project. The ECOWAS Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Political Affairs, Defense and Security, in charge of the Conflict Prevention Mechanism, is be responsible for: ß Authorizing access documents, participating in field research in selected countries in the region, and assisting with obtaining appointments with key ECOWAS officials; ß Ensuring ECOWAS’s political support to the program, by providing regular information updates to the organization’s authorities on program implementation progress; ß Encouraging and facilitating civil society participation throughout the duration of the program. Collectively, WANEP and CRS are responsible for achieving agreed-upon program results. To address sustainability, WARP acknowledged its need to rely on and strengthen the expertise and performance of African regional organizations working on strengthening conflict early warning systems. WARP brokered strategic partnerships between them and US-based private voluntary organizations (PVOs) such as Catholic Relief Services to collaboratively work on improving the functionality of conflict early warning, mediation and peacebuilding. This approach appreciates the mandates and gaps in expertise of IGOs and CSOs, Also, use of tri-partite partnerships tries to address limitations on USG human, material and financial resources assigned to improve development indicators in West Africa. USAID/WARP assigned a total of US $899,646 to the WANEP CB project. WANEP pledged cash/in-kind contributions totaling $166,458 and Catholic Relief Services pledged cash/in-kind contributions of $261,305. The total operating budget for the project is $1,326,409. 9 5. Purpose of the Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation is to determine if WANEP, through the capacity building project, has been successful in (1) strengthening ECOWAS conflict prevention mechanisms, (2) better organizing CSO networks and (3) linking them together to strengthen their efforts to strengthen the regional conflict prevention and peacebuilding mechanism. Design of Capacity Strengthening Project to Address and Mediate Conflict Ë US PVO (WARP designed limited CRS role in partnership w/ WANEP Regional) Ë African Regional CBO Technical Service Provider Ë National CSO networks deliver early warning, mediation and peacebuilding services Ë Effective and functional early detection systems in place Reduction in conflict contributes to livelihood improvements of communities and citizens The evaluation team sought to test the validity of WANEP CB project hypothesis that strengthening ECOWAS conflict management and prevention systems as well as the peacebuilding and conflict prevention system of WANEP, and linking up the two, would significantly reduce conflict in West Africa. The evaluation team did this by identifying the strengths and weaknesses of WANEP’s technical and management approach, by determining the efficacy and effectiveness of this approach, and proposing a “what works best” model for consideration in any follow-on project. In order to achieve these objectives, the evaluation team sought to find responses to the following questions that were outlined in the evaluation Scope of Work: The questions posed are the following: a. What intended (and unintended) measurable CSO-level results were realized in selected project target countries? b. What services did WANEP deliver as a result of the NGO strengthening project and in what ways were these “better”? c. What aspects of the WANEP strengthening effort were most important for realizing improvements in the national WANEP/CSO network programs services? d. Do WANEP’s national networks of CSOs have systems in place for addressing conflict early warning and response issues? Are they in use? e. Identify how CSO national network and ECOWAS zonal bureaus communicate/coordinate/relate on conflict early warning and response matters. f. What impact has the WANEP project had on conflict prevention and peacebuilding in WANEP-served countries? 10 6. Methodology The evaluation design was intended to be responsive to the program management and technical needs of key stakeholders. In view of the fact that the WANEP project, though near completion, is still on-going and that a number of key activities are yet to be implemented, a process evaluation seemed better indicated than an outcome evaluation in order to determine the efficacy and effectiveness of activities implemented so far and recommend what works in order to ensure that any follow-on project achieves desired impact upon completion. This information is of particular importance to the USAID WARP office that funded the project. WARP needs to know to what extent this project contributed to the achievement of its SPO. Though the nature of the project in itself indicated that more qualitative data would be obtained than quantitative data, the evaluation team collected quantitative data also whenever possible. There were two broad categories of project beneficiary institutions: (a) ECOWAS, and (b) the national CSO network secretariats. Within ECOWAS, the WANEP project was to build the conflict prevention capacity of the ECOWAS Secretariat staff, and the four (4) ECOWAS zonal bureau coordinators. The evaluation team therefore initially decided to interview key project managers at the ECOWAS Secretariat, and two of the four zonal bureau coordinators (one Anglophone and one francophone). However, the team was fortunate to be able to talk to all four zonal bureau coordinators in a focus group discussion when they came to attend a training program in Accra. The evaluation team, which consisted of 5 people (working from four different countries in two sub-regions of Africa) decided to split up into groups of two and in one case, one person team, and conduct site visits to at least one national network secretariat belonging to each category also ensuring a balance in evaluation coverage between Anglophone and Francophone secretariats. The schedule of site visits is presented in Annex L. The team used a mix of data collection methods and instruments to collect data on the project. It developed an interview guides for each of the various categories of informant and target beneficiaries. These were applied during key informant interviews and focus group interviews. Team members also used direct observation during site visits. The team adopted a very participatory approach where WANEP and WARP were constantly consulted in the evaluation design. Primary data collected was mainly of a qualitative nature even though some quantitative information on the achievement of targets was also obtained. Secondary data collected was in the form of activity reports, WANEP background information, newspaper articles, WANEP publication, website information. 11 7. Design Constraints Some of the key constraints to the evaluation design are summarized as the: ¸ Geographic spread of the evaluation sites selected (five different countries) ¸ Recognizing the CEWR investments from multiple stakeholders in sites researched and issues of attribution by country and then by technical focus area ¸ Unexpected changes in team composition The team acknowledged these challenges and identified approaches to mange them. 8. Findings The WANEP CB Project activities designed a work plan to outline key activities for the project period in accordance with the illustrative activities, intermediate results and indicators outlined in the WARP strategy. In response to the work plan, WANEP carried out its program activities in a reasonably logical sequence and delivered technical assistance and program and management support services to both the ECOWAS and WANEP target beneficiary groups. An internal mid term review was conducted in September 2003, halfway through the project period. It was realized that the program needed more time to complete the activities planed and thus, a 3-month extension was granted through the end of December 2004. A summary of data documenting the conflict early warning and response activities undertaken by the WANEP project that contributed to program achievements and results by project objectives are presenting the Annex A. Project achievements A. Findings about project management and implementation · Staffing: o WANEP has hired qualified project management staff. ß A Capacity Building project manager ß Two Capacity Building project coordinators (one Anglophone/one francophone) o 10 out of the 15 ECOWAS countries have qualified national network coordinators o The 10 network coordinators have at least one support staff. o ECOWAS Liaison Officer hired and in place Constraints: 1. Difficulty in finding people with required qualifications led to delays in project implementation. 12 2. ECOWAS OMC Director only hired at end of first year of project leading to delay in implementation of activities with ECOWAS. · Inputs o These can be identified as resources, training, equipment, systems, etc.. o Each network secretariat receives funding for its premises, salary of coordinator and some support staff and some operating expenses. While the category B networks are able to manage on this, category C and D have difficulty in managing these limited resources. Also transfer of funds was not always timely. o Training is provided in areas of peace building and conflict early warning provided to network members. However there is a need for training in management and fundraising for network secretariat and members. o Each network secretariat receives basic equipment (computer, printer, etc.). However, resources to keep these running are inadequate. o Each network secretariat has gone through or will go through a strategic planning process that will enable the secretariats to function more independently of the regional office. o While early warning system designs have been adopted by CSO networks, they need training on raising funds to get the system functioning at the regional level. · Reports and evaluations o WANEP’s quarterly reporting to ECOWAS through CRS has been timely and adequate. o WANEP’s CSO networks (at least for the category B and C networks) also submit annual activity reports to WANEP regional office on a timely basis. o A mid-term evaluation of the CBP took place to assess project progress and recommend actions for its successful completion · Project Implementation o The project’s first objective has to do with strengthening ECOWAS’s conflict prevention capacity. In this regard, project implementation was delayed for several reasons: ß ECOWAS could not hire a Director of OMC (WANEP’s couterpart) until September 2003 when the project was already at mid-term ß ECOWAS focus on conflict in Côte d’Ivoire led to a lack of attention being paid to the CBP. ß ECOWAS zonal bureau coordinators, though in place, did not really understand their role and had no supervisor. ß Many training activities are yet to be implemented; however the are expected to be completed during three month extension. o The second objective had to do with strengthening national networks. ß Network secretariats were created in 10 countries; ß Network secretariats have received CBP support in the form of money for premises, salaries, operating costs ß Strategic planning for secretariats either on-going or completed ß Network coordinators trained in key areas of conflict prevention, peacebuilding etc. 13 o The third objective which sought to link up CSOs with ECOWAS has been delayed due to constraints described above. However a three-month no-cost extension has been approved and WANEP has planned to complete key activities with ECOWAS during this period. Cost Considerations Budget Summary of Project Costs Total WARP Budgeted Amount: US$899,646 Line Item Projected Actual (revised budget) Percentage of Budget (actual) Personnel and Fringe benefits 338,647 239,376 26.6% Travel 180,380 215,052 23.9% Supplies 40,590 40,590 7.8% Contractual 45,840 43.091 4.7% Project activities 62,720 114,451 12.7% M&E 17,400 13,195 1.5% Other direct costs 22,806 42,629 4.7% Indirect charges 191,263 191,263 21.2% Source: USAID West Africa Regional Program, Accra, Ghana Some preliminary observations about the budget expenditures: ¸ Project activity costs accounted for only 12.7% of the entire budget and it implies that the efforts to rationalize the financial resources may have been constrained by the need to open WANEP national network offices in 11 ECOWAS countries and to pay the core expenses (salaries for 3 core staff, rent and utilities) for each. Personnel￾related costs and indirect charges account for over 50% of budget. These are recurring costs of doing business and it is not clear how the project design addresses financial sustainability of these core expenses. ¸ The extensive geographic coverage of the project shows that travel costs constituted 23.9% of the entire budget. ¸ Contractual costs includes ICT services (database development, commercial hosts) However with the achievements to date there is no planned approach to linking WANEP national network coordinators with the ECOWAS zonal bureau heads who are expected to receive and report on conflict and peacebuilding matters with their respective countries. 14 9. Analysis Whereas almost all the planned activities with the CSO networks have taken place, a significant number of the activities with ECOWAS are either in progress or are yet to take place. However these activities have been scheduled to take place during the three-month extension. The matrix (Annex A) also shows that regardless of the category of the network secretariat, the Capacity Building project has provided all secretariats with: · a coordinator · office premises · minimum equipment for functioning · a limited budget to cover administrative and operating costs. Following is an analysis of project findings at each level of planned intervention: Collaboration between ECOWAS and CSOs To achieve this objective, WANEP sought to: (a) create formal mechanisms for collaboration and communication between ECOWAS, WANEP and the CSOs; and (b) Improve coordination mechanisms between ECOWAS and CSOs to jointly collect, process and disseminate data. WANEP has been able to do the following: ß hire an ECOWAS liaison officer who facilitated the drafting and signing of the MOU ß organize three consultative meetings between ECOWAS and CSO staff to develop action plans ß start the development of a list server ß train some ECOWAS zonal bureaus in the development regional reports. However many of these activities are still on-going and at the moment collaboration between CSOs and ECOWAS is still rather weak. Observations 1. The ECOWAS Liaison officer also serves as the Early Warning system coordinator and spends a considerable amount of time going to network secretariats to collect and coordinate information to be included in reports and policy briefs. As a result, he is not as present at ECOWAS as he could have been if information were channeled to him electronically. 2. Each ECOWAS zonal bureau head covers three to four countries, including the one where he is based. Under the CBP, WANEP has no activity to link up the bureau heads with the national network coordinators in the countries they cover. These two 15 groups of people constitute the main ECOWAS – CSO link, in addition tothe Liaison officer, and formal meetings between the two groups to establish procedures for collaboration are indispensable if the system is to function well. However no such meeting were planned. The WANEP project has four major areas of collaboration between implementing partners. This section discusses findings (facts) that were found during the field research and review of documentation processes of the evaluation. CRS (as grantee) and the WANEP Project The evaluation team discovered that the value-added services provided by CRS were essentially limited to program facilitation, budget and financial management and support, and program monitoring and reporting. CRS also provided funding for the project in the form of a cost share. WANEP services to the ECOWAS Observation and Monitoring Centre The CBP’s goal was to increase the capacity and effectiveness of ECOWAS in conflict prevention. The project sought to achieve this goal through: · the establishment of information collection and analysis systems on violent conflict; and · the improvement of ECOWAS staff capacity in the area of early warning systems. The first expected result of establishing an information collection and analysis system on conflict was not achieved because, although the assessment of ECOWAS’s current conflict prevention system was conducted, the remaining three activities were not completed. The team identified reasons for this delay: · ECOWAS only hired a Director for its Observation and Monitoring Center in September 2003 (halfway into the project) · The Memorandum of understanding that provided a legal basis for WANEP’s collaboration with ECOWAS was only signed in February 2004 (almost one and a half years into this two-year project) The second intermediary result of building the staff capacity in early warning systems has also only just begun. The four ECOWAS zonal bureau heads have participated in some training programs at WAPI and had provided input to the development of the Conflict Prevention and Early Warning training manual being developed for ECOWAS. WANEP expects that at the end of the three-month extension, it should have completed the database, the training manual and trained the zonal bureau heads in assessing and reporting situations of potential conflict. One issue that remains unclear is how ECOWAS would eventually use the collected and analyzed information to actually prevent conflict. This is a key weakness in the design. 16 WANEP Regional Office Providing Services to National Networks of CSOs CBP’s second objective of increasing the participation of and collaboration between CSOs in conflict prevention and good governance was to be achieved through three intermediate results: ß Improved capacity of WANEP national network offices ß Improved coordination among CSOs ß Improved WANEP and CSO staff capacity. At this level WANEP was able to implement almost of its planned activities even though the training of monitors and analysts had not taken place in all the countries visited. Specifically, the WANEP project was to provide services for the National Networks of Civil Society Organizations. These services, and the findings, are shown below: 1. Facilitate the creation of formalized national networks: all five countries visited by the evaluation team have formalized national networks in place that were created by facilitation and technical support from the WANEP project. 2. Open national network offices: all five countries visited have national network offices that are open and functioning, with basic furnishings and equipment in place, and essential information technology (Internet and phone line) installed. 3. Hire National Network Coordinators: all five countries have a National Network Coordinator hired by WANEP. In one case (The Gambia), the Coordinator has just been hired and began working on Oct. 25. Other Coordinators have been working for longer periods. 4. Strategic planning and program agenda: All five countries have done some basic visioning work, although not all are at the same level of advancement in these regards. All National Network Coordinators have benefited from training from WANEP headquarters in conflict issues, and same the basic skills required for developing national strategic and action plans. All have done some analysis of the conflict areas that are to be addressed. Some of the positive effects were: 1. The opening of network secretariat offices had provided WANEP with recognition and credibility with national governments and other donors 2. The presence of a national coordinator had enabled the networks to organize themselves, elect a board of Directors and hold regular meetings as well as annual general meetings 3. CSO network members were, as a result, learning to work together and speak with one voice. 4. Joint programs were being designed that would benefit all members. 5. Members had been able to attend WANEP –sponsored training programs. 17 Observation While CSOs within a country were collaborating on an increasing scale, there was little evidence of networks within one country collaborating with the WANEP networks of neighboring countries. Considering the cross-border nature of conflicts, this should be encouraged. Also, national network members appeared to have very little input in the programs designed at the regional level. They therefore felt that some of the programs did not take into account the peculiar context within which they were expected to work. Extent of Synergistic Outcomes: WANEP’s program in WARN and its Institute (WAPI), has contributed greatly to the knowledge capacity of CSOs and ECOWAS Zonal Bureau Heads in the area of conflict prevention, peace-building and good governance. However, the standard training program and the duration of these sessions were found not to be adequate to address the specific needs of the CSOs. The collaboration with CRS has been a resource for WANEP. In CRS presence countries, the Networks have received assistance from CRS and its partners to conduct training in early warning, and have received funding for strategic plan development. 10. Conclusions The evaluation team has concluded that, while not achieving all of its intended results, the WANEP project has contributed toward to enhancement of conflict early warning and response mechanisms in ECOWAS member states, and has strengthened the network of civil society organizations. More time is needed to build the linkages between the CSOs and ECOWAS structures, and the team recommends that WARP consider an extension or follow￾on activity designed to accomplish this. Following are specific conclusions that should be taken into account in the design of any follow-on activities: At the ECOWAS level ß It is difficult to determine that a strengthened ECOWAS and national CSO networks will result in a reduction of actual conflict since it was not clear how ECOWAS would use the information it receives from CSOs to reduce conflict.. ß ECOWAS is aware of the need for partnerships with CSOs for its conflict prevention system to work and has taken significant steps to ensure that this happens. ß It is difficult to discuss which models that are working in the ECOWAS mechanism for Conflict Prevention, management resolution, peacekeeping and security because some of the basic components are not yet fully operational due to activities that are yet to be implemented. ß More time and support are needed to enable the system to become fully functional. 18 At the CSO level ß Within each national CSO network, analysis of data shows that early detection and response mechanisms are beginning to function and are leading to successful reporting. ß The Capacity Building project has played a key role in putting conflict prevention systems in place within CSO networks. ß WANEP networks in several countries now have government and donor recognition due to the CBP. ß There currently seems to be limited interaction between national networks – such interactions would promote sharing of lessons learned and best practices. At the level of ECOWAS-WANEP Network link-up · Many aspects of the work involved in strengthening the conflict prevention capacity of ECOWAS have yet to be iimplemented but the foundations for this partnership have been laid and need to be built upon. · The absence of a specific activity that will link the networks up with the ECOWAS Zonal coordinators who cover their countries is a weakness as it makes the Liaison Officer the only link. This is not the most effective way to build their capacity.. 11. Lessons Learned Following are some lessons being learned in the process of implementing the WANEP Capacity Building project. These lessons should be taken into account in any follow-on activities: ß Enhanced capacity requires demonstrated commitment of all stakeholders and project implementers; ß Ways and means need to be found to enhance the enabling environment for CSOs to fully develop their capacity, and to scale-up commitment and engagement on the part of stakeholders. ß Delivery of quality services and the caliber of technical reputation contribute to increased membership of CSO organizations of WANEP; WANEP management of WAPI is perceived by CSOs working on conflict prevention and peace building as a professional entity providing training and problem solving services in conflict mitigation; ß A “one size fits all” approach does not work to strengthened capacity; customized case study approaches might lead to more better practices and more lessons learned and adopted. 19 12. Recommendations Based on the conclusions and lessons learned above, it is recommended that: · A follow-up project be funded by USAID-WARP to enable WANEP tie up the loose ends that have been identified in this report for optimum results. One such loose end is directly linking the networks up with the ECOWAS zonal coordinators. · Any follow –up project should build upon the foundations laid by this project. Otherwise, this project runs the risk of ending before the conflict prevention capacity is really strengthened. · The follow-on project should also strengthen links between national networks . 20 Bibliography 1. Brinkerhoff, Derick, Technical Cooperation for Capacity-Building in Strategic Policy Management in Developing Countries 2. Blue, Richard “Quick and Dirty ways to more data when you have 3 weeks in the field “ (2004) 3. Blue, Richard, “Some criteria for rating evaluations”, 2004 4. Blue, Richard “A General guide to the Construction of an Evaluation Report” (2004) 5. Catholic Relief Services, Technical Approach for RFA 624-A-02-0021-00 (2002) 6. Catholic Relief Services, Ghana Program and Catholic Diocese of Damango, Final Report of the End of Phase Evaluation of the Northern Ghana Peacebuilding and Conflict Transformation, July, 2003 7. Development Alternatives Services Foundation (DASF), “Assessment of Training needs of NORWASP staff, partners and Stakeholders”, 2004 8. Davies, Robert, “Partnership – a revolution without route maps” 9. Development Alternatives Services Foundation (DASF) (2004)”Baseline survey for Governance, Peace building and Conflict Transformation in Northern Ghana”, 2004 10. Leeuw, Frans L., Reconstructing Program Theories: Methods Available and Problems to be Solved, American Journal of Evaluation, Vol. 24, No. 1, (2003) 11. Monographs by: TERA under Senegal PVO/NGO Support Project, USAID Project #683-0284, Practical Approaches to PVO/NGO Capacity Building: Lessons from the field 12. Listing of Selected News Articles: a. “Tamale people urged to bury differences”, Daily Graphic, Tuesday, 11, 2004, p. 3 b. “Ya Na’s burial next month”, Ghanaian Times, Friday, May 21, 2004, pgs. 2-3 c. “NCCE supports ban on outdoor politics in Tamale”, Daily Graphic. Wednesday, June 2, 2004 d. “Political parties pledge to separate politics, chieftancy issues”, Daily Graphic, Saturday, June 12, 2004, p. 12 e. “Redouble efforts towards peace in Dagbon – Debrah”, Daily Graphic, Saturday, July 3, 2004, p. 28 f. “Democarcy in Dagbon”, Daily Graphic, Friday, July 23, 2004 21 g. “Ban on outdoor political activities lifted in Tamale”, Daily Graphic, Monday, August 30, 2004, p. [4?] 13. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results Based Management, DAC Working Party on AID Evaluation (2002) 14. Senegal PVO/NGO Support Project #685—284, TERA Monograph Series, Practical Approaches to PVO/NGO Capacity Building, Lessons from the Field - - Approaches for Capacity Building Programs (1996) 15. Support for Analysis and Research in Africa (SARA), Regional Initiatives for Capacity Building in the Health Sector, Prepared for the Directors Joint Consultative Committee, Nairobi, Kenya (1995) 16. USAID/WARP, Strategic Plan for FY 2001-2008 for the West African Regional Program (WARP), US Agency for International Development, Regional Strategy Team, Africa Bureau (March 2000) 17. USAID/WARP, September 2004 Performance Monitoring Plan 18. USAID/WARP (2002) “Report on the workshop on preventing conflict and building peace in West Africa: Strengthening Civil Society 19. WANEP/CRS (2003) “Expert consultative meeting report Capacity building in Conflict Prevention and Good Governance for ECOWAS and CSO in West Africa 20. Miscellaneous Official reports, correspondence, news articles, etc. 22 Annexes Annex A: Preliminary Findings of the Conflict Early Warning and Response Services Provided by the WANEP Project Annex B: Structural Overview of the WANEP Capacity Building Project Annex C: Evaluation Scope of Work Annex D: Question and Answer Matrix Annex E: Interview Guides for Key Informants Annex F: Data Sheet for The Gambia Annex G: Data Sheet for Côte d’Ivoire Annex H: Data Sheet for Ghana Annex I: Data Sheet for Nigeria Annex J: Listing of Key Informants and National Network CSOs Annex K: Brief Discussion on SPO Framework, Presentation of September 2004 SPO Framework Annex L: Field Work Schedule 23 Annex A - Preliminary Findings of the Conflict Early Warning and Response Services Provided by the WANEP Project Chart Highlighting Preliminary Findings of CEWR Services Provided By WANEP Regional Headquarters (Regional CBO) Country￾Location of WANEP National Network (description of program results) [Improving] ECOWAS CEWR [Performance] Capacity Increasing CSO [Collaborative] Participation [Expanded] Cooperation Between ECOWAS and WANEP CSO Ghana (high) N/A Office staffed with e-mail facilities Zonal program activities being carried out successfully Strategic approach 4/receiving, responding to CMPR matters functioning National Network Office approached to intervene in conflict medication by diverse stakeholders regularly Assisted with customizing training so that CSO member organizations can train more stakeholders (e.g., parliamentarians) Hosted meeting w/CSO member organization to agree on strategic priorities Conflict prevention list serve being developed for all ECOWAS countries so that regional expertise and better practices can be disseminated and accessed [?] National study on to identify indicators for reducing election related conflict No participation in consultation meetings with ECOWAS Secretariat staff Cote D’Ivoire (medium) N/A WANEP regional completed organizational capacity assessment Finalized a strategic plan Coordinator hired and office open for business, basic equipment in place w/email connectivity Completed TNA for CSO members Recognized by government and invited to participate in meetings as a resource Focused efforts to involve media to cover trainings, meetings with CMPR related meetings WANEP coordinators attended consultative meeting No formal mechanisms in place for collaboration National study on to identify indicators for reducing election related conflict Conflict prevention list serve being developed for all ECOWAS countries so that regional expertise and better practices can be disseminated and accessed [?] Nigeria (high) N/A Secretariat established Office has equipment and connected to e-mail Network Coordinator in place Completed meeting with CSOs In the process of completing CSO assessments Thematic groups created Trained [115] analysts and [25] monitors From community level to CSO hear about conflict and can mediate and discuss with parties issues for mediation Liaison Officer hired and based in ECOWAS Secretariat in Abuja Support to ECOWAS/WANEP in the country of country level data Support to ECOWAS small bureaus and WANEP analysts in report writing Support to ECOWAS/ABUJA in the development of two regional policy reports Conflict prevention list serve being developed for all ECOWAS countries so that regional expertise and better practices can be disseminated and accessed [?] 24 Country￾Location of WANEP National Network (description of program results) [Improving] ECOWAS CEWR [Performance] Capacity Increasing CSO [Collaborative] Participation [Expanded] Cooperation Between ECOWAS and WANEP CSO Burkina Faso N/A National study being designed by [?] to identify indicators for reducing election related conflict and to disseminate intervention-linked findings for replication/adoption[?] (verified by both WANEP and ECOWAS) Conflict prevention list serve being developed for all ECOWAS countries so that regional expertise and better practices can be disseminated and accessed [?] The Gambia (low) N/A Hired WANEP national network coordinator Office furnished Provided Secretariat with electronic communication Held meeting to create national thematic groups Provided training to [24] CSO members in conflict analysis Additionally provided training to [25] to teachers in peace education and peer mediation Conflict prevention list serve being developed for all ECOWAS countries so that regional expertise and better practices can be disseminated and accessed [?] Assessment of ECOWAS current conflict prevention completed [and used in what way to improve ECOWAS’ OMC capacity[?] Collecting data from WANEP CSOs [regularly] and forwarding to ECOWAS Mechanism for conflict prevention Developing ECOWAS data base TNA of ECOWAS Observation Monitoring Centre, Zonal Bureau coordinators has been completed and used to [do what] Training Manual for ECOWAS CMPR systems management being developed and will be used by [whom] to do what? n/a Hired a [competent] Liaison Officer Technical support provided to ECOWAS/WANEP Officer with collection of data MOU signed to outline parameters for ECOWAS/WANEP partnership [slow implementation; no contingency plans for more effectively managing ECOWAS bureaucracy] Conflict prevention list serve being developed for all ECOWAS countries so that regional expertise and better practices can be disseminated and accessed and addressed [?] 25 Annex B – Structural Overview of the WANEP Capacity Building Project Chart A: Structure of Project in Relation to Special Objective, Intermediate Results and Proposed Activities Special Objective Intermediate Results Activities 1.1.1. Conduct an assessment of ECOWAS current conflict prevention mechanism 1.1.2 Develop recommendations for a system of peer reviewers and analysts at the country and regional level. 1.1.3 Support the collection of data from WANEP conflict prevention systems. 1.1 The establishment of systems to collect, process and disseminate information on violent conflicts 1.1.4 Design a simple database for conflict prevention indicators 1.2.1 Conduct an assessment of ECOWAS training needs and capacities 1.2.2. Develop a region-specific training manual 1. To increase ECOWAS conflict prevention capacity and effectiveness 1.2. The improvement of ECOWAS staff’s capacity in the area of early warning systems 1.2.3. Train 33 ECOWAS analysts, monitors, and peacebuilders in data analysis, conflict monitoring, peacebuilding (advocacy and good governance), and conflict resolution. 2.1.1 Conduct an assessment of organizational capacities of WANEP national networks. 2.1.2 Support the creation of new network offices in non￾presence countries. 2.1.3. Hire WANEP national network coordinators 2.1 Improved capacity of WANEP national network offices 2.1.4. Provide WANEP national network offices with electronic communications capabilities. 2.2.1 Host a meeting to create Civil Society forum 2.2.2. Host meetings to create national CSO “thematic groups” 2.2 Improved coordination among CSOs 2.2.3. Organize a meeting to develop a CSF action plan for advocacy and good governance initiatives 2.3.1 Conduct an assessment of the training needs of WANEP national network and associated CSO staff and members 2. To increase the participation of and collaboration between Civil Society Organizations in conflict prevention, peacebuilding and good governance. 2.3 Improved WANEP and CSO staff and member capacity in the areas of conflict analysis, monitoring and peace building. 2.3.2. Train 42 WANEP and CSO analysts, monitors, and peacebuilders in data analysis, conflict monitoring, peacebuilding (advocacy and good governance), and conflict resolution. 3.1.1. Hire a liaison officer 3.1.2. Hold meetings to support the development of ECOWAS-WANEP MOU 3.1.3. Assist in drafting MOU 3.1 Formal mechanisms for collaboration and communication between ECOWAS, WANEP and CSOs are established 3.1.4. Hold a meeting to develop a joint action plan with ECOWAS for conflict prevention 3.2. Improved coordination mechanism between ECOWAS and CSOs to jointly collect, process, and disseminate data established 3.2.1 Provide technical support for the establishment of a conflict prevention list serve 3.2.1 Provide technical support for the establishment of a conflict prevention list serve 3.2.2. Support ECOWAS WANEP and CSO monitors in the collection of country level data 3.2.3 Support ECOWAS small bureaus and WANEP analysts in the development of zonal early warning and response reports. 3. Collaboration between ECOWAS and CSO staff and members using the conflict prevention list service 3.2. Improved coordination mechanism between ECOWAS and CSOs to jointly collect, process, and disseminate data established 3.2.4 Support ECOWAS Abuja in the development of two regional reports 26 Annex C Evaluation Scope of Work Participant Team: WANEP USAID/WARP Project to be Evaluated: Capacity-Building in Conflict Prevention and Good Governance for ECOWAS and CSOs in West Africa Initial and Final Funding Years: October 1, 2002 to Sept. 30, 2004 (no cost extension through Dec. 31, 2004) Type Evaluation: _____ Mid-Term __X__ Final _____ Post-Facto/Impact Purpose and Intended Uses of the Evaluation: To assess the performance of West Africa Network for Peacebuilding (WANEP) project in strengthening the capacity of national networks of Civil Society Organizations to address conflict issues Brief Description of Project and it’s Intended Results: The Capacity-Building in Conflict Prevention and Good Governance for ECOWAS and CSOs in West Africa was designed to: (1) to increase ECOWAS’ conflict prevention capacity and effectiveness; (2) increase; (2) increase the participation of, and collaboration between, civil society organizations in conflict prevention, peace building and good governance; and (3) increase the collaboration between ECOWAS and civil society organizations in the areas of conflict prevention, peace building and good governance. Evaluation Questions: 1. What intended (and unintended) measurable CSO-level results were realized in selected project target countries? (Is the CSO conflict prevention and peacebuilding capacity strengthened as a result of WANEP project interventions?) 2. Did WANEP deliver services as a result of the USAID-funded NGO strengthening project? In what way were they “better”? (Were WANEP CSO national networks better able to establish [not yet “implement”] and manage a national conflict prevention and early warning system?) 3. What aspect(s) of the WANEP strengthening effort were most important for realizing improvements in the national WANEP/CSO national network and ECOWAS programs/services? 4. Do WANEP’s national networks of civil society organizations have systems in place for addressing conflict early warning and response issues? Are they in use? 5. Identify how CSO national networks and ECOWAS zonal bureaus communicate/coordinate/relate on conflict early warning and response matters. (How has the WANEP/ECOWAS collaboration addressed the objectives outlined in their MOU?) 6. What impact has WANEP project had on preventing conflict and promoting peacebuilding in WANEP-served countries. Evaluation Schedule/Deliverables: ß Evaluation Plan, presentations by teams on September 3, 2004 ß Field work schedule: weeks of Sept. 27-Oct. 1, 2004 and week of Oct. 11-15, 27 2004 ß Draft evaluation report is due October 13, 2004 by e-mail to mhageboeck@msi-inc.com; richardblue@earthlink.net and jkerley@usaid.gov. Maximum of 20 pages, single spaced, 12 pt plus annexes. ß Oral presentation of evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations: October 25, 2004 ß Final evaluation report is due not later than November 5, 2004 to the MSI trainers and Janet Kerley, AFR/POSE by e-mail. Evaluation Budget: · Vehicles for local travel · Local-language interpreter · Modest air fare Team Leader: Juliana Pwamang (jpwamang@usaid.gov) Team Members: Abdi Aden (AAden@usaid.gov), Dennis Bilodeau (dbilodeau@usaid.gov), Carolyn Jefferson (cjefferson@usaid.gov), Letitia Sam (lsam@usaid.gov) Team Motto: Making Evaluation Real! 28 ANNEX D Question & Answer Matrix Program or Activity: WANEP PROJECT Team Members: Juliana Pwamang (Team Leader), Dennis Bilodeau, Carolyn Jefferson, Letitia Sam, Abdi Aden Evaluation Question (1) Form of the Answer (2) Relevant Criteria (3) Sources of Information (4) Methods for Collecting Data (5) Data Analysis Procedures Questions for All Teams 1. What intended (and unintended) measurable CSO-level results were realized in selected project target countries? (Is the CSO conflict prevention and peacebuilding capacity strengthened as a result of WANEP project interventions?) Description; Comparis on; Cause & Effect Accuracy; disaggregation by country: representativeness Progress reports and documentation; key informants at WANEP headquarters, ECOWAS Zonal Bureaus (?), WAPI, WARN and selected CSOs; EWCP stakeholders at community level Direct observation; review of documentation and progress reports; interviews with key informants; target group interviews Review of interview responses, and tabulation by frequency and selected technical topics and strategic themes 2. Did WANEP deliver services as a result of the NGO strengthening project and in what way were they “better”? (Were WANEP CSO national networks better able to implement and manage a national conflict prevention and early warning system?) Yes/no; Description; Comparison Accuracy; representativeness; disaggregation by country Progress reports and documents; key informants at WANEP headquarters, ECOWAS Zonal Bureaus (?), WAPI, WARN and selected CSOs Direct observation; review of documentation and progress reports; interviews with key informants; target group interviews Content analysis of pre￾tested guided interviews; quantification (develop a scale) of what is meant by “better” and tabulation by most meaningful result (mean? median? mode? percentage?) 29 Evaluation Question (1) Form of the Answer (2) Relevant Criteria (3) Sources of Information (4) Methods for Collecting Data (5) Data Analysis Procedures 3. What aspect(s) of the WANEP strengthening effort were most important for realizing improvements in the national WANEP/CSO network programs/services? Description; ranking; comparison Accuracy; representativeness; disaggregation by country (by gender?) Progress reports and documents; key informants at WANEP headquarters, ECOWAS Zonal Bureaus (?), WAPI, WARN and selected CSOs Direct observation; review of documentation and progress reports; interviews with key informants; target group interviews. (Note: recent WARP experience has shown that response to emailed questionnaires is low; for this reason, only selected country network secretariats are being included in the data collection procedure.) Content analysis of pre￾tested guided interviews; quantification (develop a scale) of what is meant by “better” and tabulation by most meaningful result (mean? median? mode? percentage?) Project Specific Questions 4. Do WANEP’s national networks of civil society organizations have systems in place for addressing conflict early warning and response issues? Are they in use? Yes/no (with a narrative descripti on of the answer) Accuracy; representative ness; disaggregated by country and by WANEP/COA and ECOWAS overlap Key informants of WANEP national network technical and management staff, WAPI and WARN; progress reports; WANEP headquarters; ECOWAS Zonal Bureaus; selected CSOs Direct observation; review of data from progress reports and documentation; interviews with key informants; target group interviews (with CSO members) Analysis of types of early warning systems, and frequency of use 5. Identify how CSO national networks and ECOWAS zonal bureaus relate (communicate, coordinate) on conflict early warning and response matters. (How has the WANEP/ECOWAS collaboration addressed the objectives outlined in their MOU?) Description (narrative ) (disaggregated by country) Progress reports; key informants in WANEP headquarters, WAPI and WARN; ECOWAS Zonal Bureaus; selected CSOs Direct observation; review of documentation and reports; interviews with key informants; target group interviews with selected CSOs Develop a checklist to analyze communication and coordination between WANEP and ECOWAS and WANEP and CSOs; cross-tabulation 30 Evaluation Question (1) Form of the Answer (2) Relevant Criteria (3) Sources of Information (4) Methods for Collecting Data (5) Data Analysis Procedures 6. What impact has WANEP project had on conflict prevention and peacebuilding in WANEP-served countries. Cause-and￾effect, ranked by significance Representativeness (how likely the performance of one national network can be replicated to others); disaggregated by country ECOWAS, WARN, and WAPI; documentation and progress reports Interviews with key informants at ECOWAS, WARN, and WAPI; review of documentation and progress reports Evaluate response and map significance, using the SO Performance Monitoring Plan, at all levels (SO, IR and sub￾IR) 1. Description, Yes/No, Comparison (before-after, with-without intervention), test of Cause-and-Effect Relationship 2. Accuracy (likelihood that the answer is correct, usually expressed as a percent); representativeness (whether answers are expected to be true for a larger population that actually studied); disaggregation (gender; location; age; income level; ethnicity) 3. Existing data that can be accessed and used; sources from which primary data must be collected to answer the question 4. Specific technique(s) to be used to gather data from secondary or primary data sources. 5. Specific techniques to be used to organize and interpret raw data, e.g., content analysis of narrative data, frequency & percentage distributions, cross￾tabulations, ratios, central tendency (mean, median mode), tests of means, correlation, regression 31 ANNEX E Interview Guide for Key Informants: 1. What intended (and unintended) measurable CSO-level results were realized in selected project target countries? (Is the CSO conflict prevention and peacebuilding capacity strengthened as a result of WANEP project interventions?) 2. Did WANEP deliver services as a result of the NGO strengthening project and in what way were they “better”? (Were WANEP CSO national networks better able to implement and manage a national conflict prevention and early warning system?) 3. What aspect(s) of the WANEP strengthening effort were most important for realizing improvements in the national WANEP/CSO network and ECOWAS programs/services? 4. Do WANEP’s national networks of civil society organizations have systems in place for addressing conflict early warning and response issues? Are they in use? 5. Identify how CSO national networks and ECOWAS zonal bureaus communicate/coordinate/relate on conflict early warning and response matters. (How has the WANEP/ECOWAS collaboration addressed the objectives outlined in their MOU?) 6. What impact has WANEP project had on conflict prevention and peacebuilding in WANEP-served countries. 32 ANNEX F WANEP DATA CODING SHEET FOR THE GAMBIA 1. Name of National Secretariat: WANEP Gambia 2. Contact persons: Pamela Cole, National Network Coordinator Amama Ndiaye, WIPNET (Women in Peacebuilding Network) Coordinator 3. Telephone: 225-988-7449 and 225-992-2834 4. Address: 57 Garba Jahumpa Road, PO Box 2252, Serrekunda (Newtown), The Gambia 5. Email address : wanepgambia@yahoo.co.uk 6. Geographical Area/coverage of operation: National 7. Sector/Intervention: CMPR 8. Change in WANEP National Secretariat: From 2001 to the present, the WANEP Gambia National Secretarial has been managed by Mrs. Adama Ndiaye, the country’s WIPNET (Women in Peacebuilding Network) Coordinator. WANEP headquarters had hired a coordinator, but it was decided early on that this person did not have the skills and expertise required to do the job. (I asked why he was hired in the first place, but the question was not answered.) Pamela Cole, the new National Network Coordinator, was hired to replace this individual, and her first official day on the job was Oct. 25, 2004 (in fact, on the day she was interviewed, Oct. 19, she was not yet officially on board). I was told that WANEP Gambia was in the early stages of being set up, but that with the hiring of the Network Coordinator, it was expected that activities would get moving quickly. The first priority of the new Coordinator is to develop an Action Plan for WANEP Gambia, and to continue training of CSO members. Another priority is to work with community radio stations to develop and broadcast programs on women’s issues and peacebuilding topics. To date, the National Network had undertaken two training sessions: one for CSO members, on conflict identification and good governance (for 25 people), and another for 50 teachers on peace education in schools. Most of the CSO members are women’s organizations, working on two principal conflict issues: the effects on The Gambia of the conflict in neighboring Casamance (Senegal), and sex tourism. The latter is a matter of growing concern to conflict institutions working in The Gambia; the issue concerns growing tensions between the government, which needs the revenues generated by the tourist industry, and religious leaders who are concerned about the impact on the morals of Gambian youth caused by the sexually-oriented tourist industry in the country. 33 9. Change in Conflict Early Warning and Response Approaches: I was told that is was too early to judge the capacity of the network to provide early warning on conflict issues, and that no response mechanisms had yet been put in place. According to the Coordinator, all CSO members are trying to work with particular and targeted aspects of both conflict issues: some CSOs are working with Jolla refugees spilling into The Gambia because of the Casamance problem, such as housing, feeding and other basic needs of the refugee communities. Others are working on finding economic opportunities for girls to provide alternatives to their turning to sex tourism, such as providing training in dressmaking, cooking, etc. The WIPNET Coodinator (who had been acting in the role of Network Coordinator for much of the last two years), agreed that not much had been done yet to provide early warning and response mechanisms. 10. Proxies for Observed Change in CEWR: The Network Coordinator and WIPNET Coordinator both agreed that, while some activities being undertaken by Network members were useful in the overall effort to mitigate conflict issues in The Gambia, it was impossible to determine to what extent these actions had in fact reduced conflict. I was told that the Casamance issue is a cross-border problem, and that mitigation of this conflict would necessarily involve government agencies, NGOs and CSOs in The Gambia, Senegal and, to a lesser extent, Guinea Bissau. The sex tourism issue was seen as one that would have to involve the religious communities, government agencies, the key private-sector firms operating in the tourist industry. 11. Change in Peacebuilding Effectiveness: The National Network Coordinator and the WIPNET Coordinator both posited that the training given to CSO members was an important first step, but that much more needed to be done before peacebuilding effectiveness would be improved. 12. Proxies for Change in Peace Building: no specific data was collected on this indicator. 13. Services Received from WANEP Headquarters: Hiring of a National Network Coordinator; equipment and office furnishings; Internet and telephone connections 14. Services Provided to CSO Member Organizations: two training sessions (one for CSO member organizations, and one for teachers in peace education). 15. Achievements: to date, limited to the two training sessions mentioned above. 16. Recommendations for Project/Program Improvements: The National Network Coordinator recommended that WANEP headquarters place more efforts at the grass roots level. When asked what she meant my this recommendation, she 34 indicated that her impression was that WANEP worked too closely with government officials, and not enough where the root of conflict originated. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH CSO MEMBERS OF THE WANEP GAMBIA NATIONAL NETWORK Tayib Akinbola Thomas, Regional Advisor for Justice & Peace, CRS West Africa Regional Office Mr. Thomas is the individual at CRS who manages the WANEP project in The Gambia. He talked at length about the conflict situations facing the country, and reiterated what the WANEP National Network Coordinator and WIPNET Coordinator said about what these issues were: the “spillover” into Gambia of the Casamance conflict, and sex tourism. He said that Gambia, Senegal and Guinea Bissau should be seen as one “conflict system” and the the WANEP project was the most appropriate instrument for dealing with these cross-border conflict issues. He indicated that the Casamance problem was a Catch-22 for Senegal: if the Senegalese government doesn’t invest more resources in Casamance, anger in the area increases; on the other hand, if they do, this puts more resources in the hands of the rebels. As for WANEP, Mr. Thomas indicated that there is still no strategic plan for WANEP Gambia, and that the National Network Coordinator has just been hired [her first official work day is Oct. 25]. Coordination of country efforts to date had been handled by the WANEP Anglophone Coordinator, Jacob Ebane, and the WIPNET (Women Peacebuilding Network) Coordinator, Adama Ndiaye. He said that the grant to CRS only included funds for staffing, establishment and equipping of an office, but none for ground activities. He explained that the two training sessions conducted in The Gambia, one for CSO members and another for teachers in peace education, were funded with CRS funds. He posited that WANEP headquarters did not have enough confidence in local representatives, although agreed that this might be due to the fact that there was no WANEP National Network Coordinator in place in The Gambia. As for ECOWAS, he indicated that this was a “monster” with a very heavy bureaucracy, and gave as an example that the MOU was not signed until Feb. 2004. He said that the follow-on phase, if funded by USAID, should place more emphasis in conflict resolution and rapid response mechanisms, particularly for cross-border issues. Sara Poelman-Doumbouya, Project Coordinator, Concern Universal / Gambia Sara is the individual at Concern Universal who has direct responsibility for working with WANEP on conflict issues. Her assessment of the services provided by WANEP were not very positive: she indicated that the people from WANEP headquarters were skilled and knowledgeable, but that their level of intervention in The Gambia was very limited. She said that major challenges for WANEP in the Gambia was finding proactive and dynamic people to work for the national network; the lack of planning skills; inadequately trained people working in CEWR; and lack of cross-border capacity to respond to conflict issues. She indicated that the training topics selected for the Gambia were not responsive to needs, and that WANEP “spends lots of money in fancy hotels but doesn’t do much concrete work on the ground”. She further posited that WANEP takes credit for activities carried out by local NGOs without any assistance or involvement of WANEP. Concern Universal’s major area of conflict mitigation in the Gambia is the Casamance problem, specifically dealing with refugees spilling into Gambia as a result of the problems there. When asked what impact WANEP has had on the Gambia to date, she responded “not much”. She has participated as a resource person in the two training sessions. As for recommendations for WANEP, she suggested more cross-border work; taking greater care in dealing with local cultural differences when working on conflict issues; and “not generalizing conflict issues” but considering the local implications and specifics. 35 ANNEX G - WANEP DATA CODING SHEET FOR COTE D’IVOIRE EVALUATION OF USAID-FUNDED WANEP CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT Report on data collection trip to Cote d”Ivoire Team members who undertook trip: Juliana Pwamang and Letitia Sam Dates of trip: September 29 to October 2, 2004 Persons interviewed WANEP Cote d’Ivoire · Roger Yomba, National Network Coordinator · Edmond Guigré, Board Chairman and Network member · Marie-Ange Fofana Kpankaan, Board Treasurer and network member · Albertine Amenan Ipou, Network member · Marguerite Yoli-Bi Koné, Program Officer, WIPNET · Dokali Coulibaly, Network Accountant · Pauline Yao, Vice chair of Board and network member · Eugene Koffi Koffi, General secretary and network member · Michel Mian, former Network Coordinator and network member Interview format Individual key informant interviews were conducted for the present and former network coordinators, the WIPNET program officer and the network accountant. The remaining persons, who all head CSOs that are members of the network and many of whom were recently elected as Board members, were interviewed in a focus group discussion. The same interview guide was used to guide the various discussion but participants were encouraged to express their views freely. Key findings a. From the current network coordinator and WIPNET Program Officer · The Capacity Building Project had provided various national networks with: 36 o A coordinator o Office premises o Some admin costs o Operational costs o Local transportation b. Being part of a recognized sub-regional network of Conflict Prevention and Managements CSOs has given WANEP CI recognition at the national government and international donor levels. As a result WANEP CI has received some project assistance from UNDP OCHA and has just hada proposal for project funding from the EU approved. c. Having an operational network secretariat has provided WANEP regional with a mechanism to bring other peace building and conflict prevention training programs to network members in Cote d’Ivoire such as Peace Education for Schools and Women in Peace building. 12 Youth Peace organizations have been trained in Abidjan and 1 in Divo. These training programs are not funded by the CBP. d. WANEP Regional has assisted the network secretariat to develop and finalize their strategic plan e. The secretariat has also submitted a project proposal submitted to USAID/Washington in collaboration with Africare f. CSO membership has increased from 15 to 20 and members have begun paying annual dues (recently increased to CFA 20,000) to help maintain the office There had been a few problems however: · Fund provided for operational costs were inadequate to support the operations of the office. · Quarterly transfers were sometimes very late causing problems for the network. · Network coordinator can not function efficiently without help – provision needs to be made for a salaried program officer. 2. From the Network members Network members, in general reiterated the benefits of the CBP that had been listed by the network coordinator. They however felt that any subsequent project should look beyond the secretariat to the network members, many of whom require support. Network members also felt that as they were now part of a regional network, WANEP should include language training in their programs to enable members from different countries to communicate. 37 Network expressed the desire for more country-specific programs In some of the discussions, it became evident that some members were discontent because the Network Coordinator was not Ivorian. 3. From the National Secretariat Accountant Even though accounting is a key function of every office, the CBP did not make provision for such services in the budget it assigns to secretariats and this should be remedied in any follow-on project. He also felt that in view of the differences between Anglophone and francophone accounting, WANEP should provide the network accountants with training on how to keep WANEP accounts. 4. From the former Network Coordinator In addition to the benefits stated by the present network coordinator: a. Before the CBP, which helped to transform the Group of Peace Building CSOs in Cote d’Ivoire called COPACI into a WANEP network, COPACI had very little national recognition and had no statutes. b. As a result of their affiliation with WANEP, network members have had access to training programs and other CSO networks. c. As a result of training programs such as Training of Trainers in Mediation, Non violence Training, Peace Education for School Children and Early Warning system training, network members had had their capacity to prevent conflict strengthened. Though these programs are not funded by the CBP, the creation of the network facilitated these activities d. Mediation training for market women had helped them to get rid of inter-ethnic tension and work together in harmony. Conclusions: 1. The Capacity Building Project had provided the network secretariat with the facilities necessary to give it national and international recognition as a peace building and conflict prevention specialized organization. 2. This recognition has given and was continuing to give them additional donor funding thereby providing them with more resources for their work. 3. The national government also recognized the expertise and had been inviting WANEP CI to serve as a resource in some of its peace building events. 38 4. WANEP coordinators are specialists in Conflict Prevention who do not always have the management skills to keep the secretariat functioning smoothly without problems. 5. Some network members were harboring resentments that could degenerate into conflict if not dealt with. Recommendations 1. WANEP should design programs for the national networks based on identified needs in the country and within the network. 2. In addition to the network coordinator, WANEP should fund at least one program officer 3. Network coordinators should be given management and fundraising training to better equip to manage their secretariats. 4. Operational expense budgets for networks should be based on individual secretariat needs. Categories C and D appear to have greater needs because of their limited funding sources. 5. Network members also need to go through a team building exercise to ensure harmony within the networks. 39 ANNEX H --- WANEP DATA CODING SHEET FOR GHANA WANEP NATIONAL NETWORK SITE INTERVIEW AND OBSERVATION REPORT Site Visit Date: October 20-22, 2004 Name of Network: GHANEP Office Location: Tamale, Ghana Scope of Program: Conflict early warning and response; peacebuilding; network formation and facilitation; women in peacebuilding component (forthcoming) Program Coverage: Zonal (not national) Geographical Coverage: Northern Region Persons Contacted: 1. GHANEP a. Felix Naah Sabie, National Network Coordinator, GHANEP b. Administrative Secretary c. Accounting Clerk 2. NORDA 3. DAWEH Academy 4. Development Alternatives Services Foundation Evaluation Activities Undertaken: 1. Conducted individual and group interviews with paid staff using questions in SOW and interview guides 2. Reviewed reports and files (e.g., newspaper monitoring file) 3. Inspected the premises and offices 4. Rode around the city in selected areas, used direct observations to try and detect level of tension in stores, on streets, in restaurants, selected small stalls and stores Key Findings: 1. 2002 Baseline for Network Capacity: At start of project (2002), no capacity no network formalized, group of NGOs, CSOs, PVOs and local government organizations working on conflict in northern region; 2004: Network formed, formalized with offices and strategic CEWR/PB agenda 2. Expanded technical skills in CEWR/PB expanded: [enter number of pp, disaggregated by sex trained by GHANEP in WANEP conflict analysis framework]; strengthened Network Coordinator and Administrative Secretary/Technical Officer’s capacity to design visioning exercise for network formation; Network CSO member organization’s capacity to strategically think collectively about conflict and peacebuilding work zonally and to 40 communicate/coordinate themselves within the zone to work together to reduce conflict and strengthen peacebuilding work; 3. CEWR/PB Baseline Setting: National mapping, baseline setting and tracking of conflict situation in Ghana has been undertaken and reported in a 2002 GHANEP Quarterly Report2 (Report). General conflict situation described in the Report follows: a. “chieftancy conflicts in Bakwu, Wa, Bimbulla, Mpaha, Zaare and Daboya in Northern region; rest in Techiman, Berekum, Sewfi-Wiaso in Brong￾Ahafo region and western region and some areas in Volta, Eastern and Central regions; b. land disputes abound in Greater Accra region and Volta region; and, c. religion not a major source of conflict, there are pockets of intra-religious conflicts in Upper West, Brong/Ahafo and Greater Accra regions. Also every year there is an inter-religious conflict between traditional worshipers in Accra and Christian religious groups when the former is celebrating its annual one-month Homowo festival.”3 With this information, GHANEP has not been able to set a baseline and monitor its work against the baseline. Yet the DASF study offers a baseline that can be used by GHANEP to set a CEW baseline, targets and monitor and report on them so that GHANEP is able to track how well its program performs against its program plans and activities regularly. Currently the WANEP CB project is not assisting with CEW program performance monitoring. It is not clear if WANEP regional even has capacity to actually design and strengthen the WANEP networks with developing crude or formal systems for monitoring, reporting and designing programs and activities. 4. GHANEP is not a national network; it is a newly formed zonal network, created in 2003 as a result of the technical and financial resources of the WANEP CB project. GHANEP currently operates solely in the northern region of Ghana. Did not see any official documentation confirming that network is registered with a bi￾lateral government office. At this time it not clear that bi-lateral registration of any sort will ensure improved functionality of network though it may or may not help increase external donor confidence in working with network and providing it financial resources. Whether registered or not further consideration is needed so network and WANEP Regional can determine how best to ensure that quality technical services and financial resources are received by both WANEP regional and national/zonal networks to accomplish its work. Definition of approaches to transitioning to a national network requires more strategic attention and consultation between GHANEP and WANEP in order to identify a doable approach. 2 GHANEP Quarterly Report, 1st October – 30 November 2002, prepared by Ghanep and submitted to WANEP CB Project. 3 Ibid. 41 5. GHANEP has approximately 51 CSO members including not-for-profit, non partisan youth and development associations, research and consulting organizations, local government departments, USPVOs and international donor agencies, etc. Many of the indigenous CSO member organizations were established after the 1994 conflict in Northern Region and have been working on conflict, development issues for the past 10 years. A roster of members was provided by GHANEP and reviewed by the evaluation team. Evaluation team was able to meet briefly with [6] representatives from 6 of the 51 CSO member organizations/agencies. 6. GHANEP CSO member organizations participated in a visioning exercise and identified several technical program priorities. The network distinguishes conflict early warning, response and mediation work from peace building/strengthening work. In this context, GHANEP has defined its strategic priorities: intervening in the Dagbon chieftancy crisis, public education on violence-free election 2004 and capacity-building of GHANEP members, district assemblies and security personnel on conflict interventions. GHANEP a radio program, and is establishing a Women in Peace network coordinator. Design of program not discussed thoroughly during evaluation interviews due to time constraints. Most of WANEP support has been for assisting with defining and implementing the GHANEP technical program priorities identified above. 7. GHANEP is concentrating its efforts on intervening in conflicts in the three northern regions. As a zonal network with one office located in Tamale in the northern region of Ghana, GHANEP has a three-person staff: network coordinator, administrative secretary/technical officer and accounts clerk (on loan from government service). In the process of hiring additional technical staff person as a women in peace network desk officer. A report notes that the position is expected to serve as a deputy to the network coordinator a job that is currently being addressed, to some extent, by the Administrative Secretary. It is not clear how the management and administrative roles and responsibilities are formally and informally delineated. No printed organagram available. In short coordinator is responsible for managing all network affairs and programs; coordinator supervises all staff, paid and volunteer. Network management, technical and administrative policies, procedures and guidelines are in varying stages of definition. No manuals were reviewed during the evaluation. 8. Annual network budget provided by WANEP CB project inadequate and not verified. Currently, Ghanep rent payments are in arrears and the landlord has threatened ejection. GHANEP made a payment with WANEP grant yet the arrears need to be paid in full in order to avoid ejection from offices for breach of tenancy agreement. It is not clear what WANEP CB project role and responsibility is in this regard but the problem needs attention of WANEP regional coordinator and CRS immediately. 42 9. GHANEP staff is aware of/knowledgeable about all program costs funded via WANEP CB project. Salary structure is not clear and budget for salary is insufficient to fund core staff. Accounting staff person funded via national service arrangement though may not be sustainable. Other budget-related challenges are the inadequate support staff (secretary, cleaner and driver) and inadequate office equipment. There is one computer, no photocopier or facsimile machine, etc. The evaluation team had to use external copy services for materials. It is not clear how WANEP CB project sees its responsibility for investing in functioning networks that have core materials to maintain communication and coordination efforts. 10. Program co-funding from multiple sources and attribution are issues. It should be noted that two other donors, IBIS Ghana and Konrad Adenaur Foundation) contribute to Ghanep so it is difficult to verify program attributions to WANEP CB project. WANEP CB project does not provide guidance and management assistance with program and budget designs and reporting regarding USG funding. Because WANEP CB project pays for the majority of the core costs of operating the network office the evaluation team has attributed the formation of the network to the Project; also the visioning exercise costs that resulted in the definition of the strategic agenda for Ghanep was funded from the WANEP CB project so its achievements have been attributed to the Project. For the design and use of guidelines designed by CSO members, parliamentarians and political party representatives, the workshop expenses and related activities my have been a cosharing arrangement. It is not clear if/what the WANEP CB project paid for so it is difficult to confirm USG investments in the activity. 11. Network offices clean. During the 2.5 day evaluation schedule/work carried out in Tamale, meetings with GHANEP staff, meetings in GHANEP offices, staff was busy working, meeting with visitors requesting information, interviewing candidates for position vacancies. The staff was continuously busy and knowledgeable about work of the organization. 12. Major challenges reported by GHANEP in 2003-2004 activity report include “not having a strategic plan though in process . . . ; finances are low . . . . difficult to program, increase needed staffing levels to coordinate and expand coverage of activities; only one vehicle (donated by CRS-Ghana)” with broken windscreen (not enough resources to repair it) and staff are travel by foot and taxis to carryout program activities. Difficult to program coordinate and administer a zonal or national program without vehicles. The evaluation team notes that this gap with reliable transportation compromises safety and security of staff moving in taxis and on foot to conduct CEWR work. 13. It is too early to assess/evaluate the performance of the network. In fact, several key respondents reported this observation and reported that use of the term network is what GHANEP aspires to be; it is not yet a fully functioning network. Because GHANEP has offices with qualified staff persons (with undergraduate 43 and graduate/professional degrees, knowledgeable about roots causes of conflict and able to analyze issues from multi-disciplinary perspective, able to advance a technical agenda and doable actions for the network to address a strategic agenda—stays objective, etc.), GHANEP is viewed by the CSO members interviewed as professional and necessary. 14. GHANEP staff, in a short period, has been accepted as honest broker for parties to/in conflict. Listed below are GHANEP responses describing achievements and results documented as a result of opening and staffing GHANEP offices. Self-reported response A: Party A accused of aggressing Party B was taken to court by Party B for arbitration. Party A asked court to allow GHANEP Coordinator to observe the court proceedings and to inform on decisions taken to ensure objectivity. Court Judge interviewed GHANEP Coordinator about the role of GHANEP in the community and affirmed the need for GHANEP Coordinator to observe the proceedings as an observer to ensure that the evaluation of the matter/issues was comprehensive and that the court verdict would not contribute to conflict at community/zonal levels. b. Recommendations: 1. The precarious budget situation and the need to update/pay the core office expenses should be sorted out immediately so GHANEP is not evicted and is able to maintain its visibility and program operations particularly during the upcoming months of electioneering activities, etc. 2. There is a need to design an informal/formal approach to capturing CEWR data during the next two months so that GHANEP’s work in CEWR/PB is documented and reported to WANEP regularly. 3. Technical assistance with the design of a methodology and a strategic plan or programmatic framework for continued zonal work and expansion towards a national network configuration is needed. Concepts of sustainability can be addressed during the design of the strategic plan. 4. Development of a data base for assembling basic information about trainings undertaken, people trained and use of training skills needed. c. Additional Information includes more details about conflicts mediated/averted, responses to SOW questions and materials collected. a. Conflicts mediated/averted: Self-reported response A: Party A accused of aggressing Party B was taken to court by Party B for arbitration. Party A asked court to allow GHANEP Coordinator to observe the court proceedings and to inform on decisions taken to ensure objectivity. Court Judge interviewed GHANEP Coordinator about the role of GHANEP in the community and affirmed the need for GHANEP Coordinator to observe the proceedings as an observer to ensure that the evaluation of the matter/issues was comprehensive and that the court verdict would not contribute to conflict at community/zonal levels. 44 Self-reported response B: Local authorities announced decision to locate abattoir w/o input from all stakeholders. Word in the community was that if the abattoir location was not changed it would cause conflicts in the community because the location was favoring some selected households and not others in a community that has been under a [12 month] curfew because of conflict. GHANEP contacted and GHANEP [Coordinator and Administrative Secretary] intervened, facilitated input from key stakeholders and negotiated relocation of abattoir satisfactory to all parties. Self-reported response C: As regards the chieftancy-related conflict issues in Tamale, GHANEP, through its informal CEWR arrangements, received a report that Family A (key party in a chieftancy conflict) were organized/and ready to aggrieve Family B (key party in the same chieftancy conflict) because Family A had received a report that the windows of Family A’s [castle] were being knocked out as the [castle] was being built. Family A representatives contacted GHANEP offices to inform them of their intent to take actions immediately. GHANEP negotiated with Family A for a 12-hour delay until the report about broken windows could be substantiated. GHANEP officials drove to the site (in another town) and met with a district official who had not received any report of this kind and in fact the official had received a report from the site security that there was not problem at the site; security reported to the district official that all was quiet with the exception of someone who was looking around the site and the security had chased the person away. In collaboration with district officer, security found the “someone” and questioned him about whether he was reporting misinformation to Family A. The informant admitted to reporting the false, inflammatory information to Family A. The informant was escorted to Family A representatives with local authorities and GHANEP officials to Family A to prove to Family A that the informant was not telling the truth. It is not known if the informant was part of Family A or aligned with Family A. Family A accepted the evidence that the informant was unreliable and called off the raid of Family B. It is thought that government offices/officials (overseeing the construction) were spared further eruption (or intensification) of a community-level, chieftancy-related conflict that might have spread to vulnerable communities and other communities aligned with either Families A or B and located in other parts of the Northern region, i.e. the GHANEP zone. Self-reported response D: Another conflict averted regarding the chieftancy-related conflict concerned two youths, one from Family A and another from Family B. It was reported during the evaluation interview with GHANEP representatives that rumors were spreading in Tamale town (where GHANEP offices are located) that youths were being organized from both families because it was thought the youth from one family had been killed by the other family. In short, it seems that the youth business man from Family A thought that the youth businessman from Family B youth had not correctly reconciled a business transaction and that Family A youth had cheated Family B youth of payment for wood that had been received. A rumor circulating in Tamele town was that when the youth who thought he was cheated went to discuss payments due he was beat up/killed/? 45 In fact the rumors about what had happened with the youth were not the same, some rumors noted the youth was beaten - - - some rumors noted the youth might have been killed. Given the explosive nature of the chieftancy conflicts in Tamele and other parts of the northern region, GHANEP took its initiative to investigate the rumors and try to confirm whether either youth was hurt. It was reported that the Family A youth businessman had picked Family B youth businessman from the market on a motorbike and they had driven away together to discuss the matter. In their absence the rumors circulated throughout the market and into households and communities. Based on rumors communities were responding by organizing youth to take actions against Family A immediately. GHANEP approached key chieftancy leaders in Families A and B to inform them of GHANEP’s intention to try and quickly find out about both youth businessman from Family A and Family B. Through the GHANEP CEWR network, GHANEP was able to substantiate that the youths had amicably reconciled the business transaction. GHANEP learned that the youths were on their way to the market and that the two youth businessmen were returning, together, to the market. The young businessman from Family A was courteously returning Youth B to the market where they had begun the discussion. GHANEP reported this information to the Family A and Family B chiefs and other key and influential leaders who were satisfied with the findings and evidence GHANEP reported and agreed to use their internal channels to inform all youth, households and communities about the misinformation. While GHANEP was gathering data and documenting these veracity of the evidence gathered, other youths were organized, armed and ready to fight because they were not aware that the youths were both untouched and had reconciled their business differences. GHANEP in dialogue with both families was somehow “convinced” that it was better to let the youths return to the market and that the rumors would be countered with accurate information. The youth were received at the market. There were no incidents or reports of violence reported, formally or informally, as a result of the rumors. If there had been issues, GHANEP reports its next step was to take additional steps to work with the media to air broadcasts to the community about the situation. The GHANEP approach and partnership with families A and B in this incidence was effective. It was not clear how the GHANEP team made its decisions to delay contact with media about the situation as an additional step towards preventing further incitements due to rumors. Decision-making analyses and processes used to respond effectively to conflict prevention opportunities require further investigation. d. GHANEP staff reported that in the northern region local communities can quickly organize themselves to take matters into their own hands when their security and/or safety is threatened. GHANEP staff also reported that the informal networks are more organized, responsive and able to organize themselves in response to real and perceived threats to household and community safety, security (manifested sometimes via ineffective resolution of chieftancy, (to 46 include harmonizing internal family/clan mechanisms with indigenous and contemporary political structures). Inadequate access to community and national level resources exacerbates conflict and constraints peace strengthening efforts. b. GHANEP Responses to SOW Questions: 1. What intended (and unintended) measurable CSO-level results were realized in selected project target countries? (Is the CSO conflict prevention and peacebuilding capacity strengthened as a result of WANEP project interventions?) a. Intended results: ¸ Members of CSO organizations trained in conflict analysis skills: [total number] of CSO members trained; Disaggregated total number of members trained by: [number] of men trained; [number] of women trained; [n umber] of youth trained; ¸ Members of CSO organizations trained in peer mediation skills: [total number] of CSO members trained; Disaggregated total number of members trained by: [number] of men trained; [number] of women trained; [n umber] of youth trained; ¸ Members of CSO organizations facilitated with technical perspective/framework to collectively define and aggregate roots causes of conflict and to prioritize strategic conflict areas for zonal network attention b. Unintended results (not explicitly stated or described in project design; not clearly referenced in illustrative activities presented in PMP) ¸ Selected participants (CSO executive director) who completed training trained members of CSOs in conflict analysis and peer mediation; ¸ District official affirmed/reaffirmed support for network formation and relevant, practical linkages/activities expected to strengthen/accelerate conflict reduction and improve peacebuilding; Capacity strengthened: ¸ Strengthened Network Coordinator and Administrative Secretary/Technical Officer’s capacity to design visioning exercise for network formation; ¸ Network CSO member organization’s capacity to strategically think collectively about conflict and peacebuilding work zonally and to communicate/coordinate themselves within the zone to work together to reduce conflict and strengthen peacebuilding work; 47 2. Did WANEP deliver services as a result of the NGO strengthening project and in what way were they “better”? (Were WANEP CSO national networks better able to implement and manage a national conflict prevention and early warning system?) Services delivered: ¸ Training services in conflict analysis and peer mediation for members of CSO networks; network formation facilitation services (assisted groups of CSOs working on conflict, peacebuilding (and development -- in some cases) in the Northern region (zone) to formalize themselves into a network ¸ CEWR consultation and facilitation services WANEP services included budget for operating offices and for hiring CEWR coordinator; not clear what budget was to be given to network for operating costs; not clear if salary for other staff carrying out technical and administrative roles are paid by project or paid with resources newly formed networks have leveraged as a result of their successful resource mobilization efforts; during interview not able to review financial reports to substantiate that project paid for salary of two staff, coordinator and administrative secretary; data documented via self-reporting only; need for budget and comparison with other networks to determine budget and expenses covered by project and consistency across networks; Constraints to service delivery: Zonal network remains uncertain about WANEP regional budget support; currently there is insufficient budget to pay for Internet services and other core costs; network is struggling to exist and work in the region - - - absence of budget and certainty of whether work such as completing a strategic plan using a participatory methodology constrains the start-up work of the network; can lead to loss of competent staff and volunteers and can lead to loss of investments made to date, and increase in conflicts due to networks capacity to form an informal CEWR system that is able to intervene in potential intra￾religious conflicts and issues regarding management of local resources; Attribution Matters: At least 4 other USPVOs (CARE, World Vision, -- some of these organizations are network members) and other international donor agencies (e.g., UNICEF) are working in the region4 and it is difficult to attribute any CEWR-related training dividends to the WANEP projects. It can be said that WANEP CB project was the only one of its kind in the region to provide network formation facilitation services. 4 Some of the organizations have been working in this region for close to 10 years since 1994. It is not clear which organizations were working in the region on development-type projects before 1994 and have integrated CEWR, peace building and good governance into project perspectives. This context makes attribution to USG funding via WARP WANEP CB Project difficult except for network formation. 48 3. What aspect(s) of the WANEP strengthening effort were most important for realizing improvements in the national WANEP/CSO network and ECOWAS programs/services? a. Expanding CEWR and peace building expertise via performance-improvement training in GHANEP: members of CSO organizations trained in using multi￾disciplinary lens in conflict analysis: [total number] of members of CSOs trained; ¸ Disaggregated total number of members trained by: [number] of men trained; [number] of women trained; [n umber] of youth trained; and disaggregate by sex and age groups to capture number of youth and other targets key to conflict mediation and peace building efforts; ¸ Members of CSO organizations trained in peer mediation skills: ¸ [total number] of members of CSOs trained; ¸ Disaggregated total number of members trained by: [number] of men trained; [number] of women trained; [n umber] of youth trained; Training as outlined above important because it duplicable if participants are able to develop materials that can be used for training others. It is not clear if the training received is designed as TOT exercises yet some participants are able to replicate some type of training activities to their CSO members. Training is also important because in spite of the fact that participants, in some cases, have been trained by other organizations in conflict analysis or attended other CEWR workshops, those trained via the project now have a shared (and perhaps customized) approach to analyzing conflict, identifying workable approaches to address it. b. Members of CSO organizations facilitated with technical lens/framework to collectively define and aggregate roots causes of conflict and to prioritize strategic conflict areas for zonal network attention Basic and critical to the formation of informal CEWR systems and interventions in conflict 4. Do WANEP’s national networks of civil society organizations have systems in place for addressing conflict early warning and response issues? GHANEP has a determined a way to organize key and influential CSO members to constitute a CEWR “system”. The evaluation team was unable to verify how formal and systematize the approach is and whether it can be documented so that other CSO member communities can replicate the approach successfully and GHANEP can scale up the formation of and use of viable CEWR systems. Are they in use? GHANEP and its member CSOs reported that there are systematic approaches to CEWR in place and in use in selected CSO served communities. Through an interview with CSO network member, a description of the CEWR approach to reducing intra-religious conflicts in Muslim communities was described. 49 A network coordinator who participated in GHANEP trainings and CEWR and peace strengthening activities was motivated to repackage what was learned into a series of training activities for its members, especially Imanns and Muslim women, in conflict analysis and peer mediation. Members trained agree to use their skills to monitor religious oriented activities such as Friday sermons in mosques and to provide feedback about questionable or inaccurate interpretations of the Qu’ran presented during Friday sermons or on the radio. These reports are shared with the CSO executive director to address. In all cases the coordinator contacts others members of the CSO as well as interested and influential stakeholders to verify reports and to also address, via the network, how best to handle the elements of the sermons requiring clarification and attention so as to avoid hostile responses/misinformed hostilities. The coordinator facilitates the application of strategies and resources to reduce use of hostilities. 5. Identify how CSO national networks and ECOWAS zonal bureaus communicate/coordinate/relate on conflict early warning and response matters. There has been no direct communication between ECOWAS zonal bureau coordinator and GHANEP coordinator. It is not clear how the WANEP CB Project envisioned, in the 2- year workplan, facilitating CEWR and peace strengthening communications between ECOWAS zonal bureau and GHANEP coordinators. How has the WANEP/ECOWAS collaboration addressed the objectives outlined in their MOU? At the zonal or regional level is it not clear how pilot efforts towards communication and coordination between coordinators was addressed in the workplan. Seems the project workplan is silent on this area yet the gap should be addressed so there are no missed opportunities. One step might be to encourage zonal bureau coordinators to agree on CEWR information that needs to be exchanged’ agree on formats for informal and formal exchanges w/n zonal bureaus and exchange this information consistently and regularly. Also the same type of internal consultation is needed within WANEP networks so that the internal external information exchanges occur between WANEP networks and WANP regional; seems that WANEP regional should aggregate the information and disseminate it monthly if not more often back to its networks. With that noted, in the meantime, it is also necessary for WANEP and ECOWAS to draft formats for information exchange and pilot use of them. Should this effort be independent of the data base work being carried out? The evaluation team is convinced that the exchange of CEWR information within WANEP and within ECOWAS should be improved because within the organizations the “right” hand does not seem to benefit from what the “left” knows. For the exchange between ECOWAS and WANEP internal beneficiaries, the database formation must be a priority and must be operational in the next 6 months to contribute to the credibility of a regional CEWR reporting system. CSO and IGO stakeholders need sustained improvements in this regard in order to begin using the data base to report CEWR data. It should be noted that piloting use of the database requires some concerted scenario planning. 50 Additionally each stakeholder must organize their internal exchange of information better. Internal stakeholders (e.g., ECOWAS member states, WANEP networks) need useful options about how internal stakeholders identify important information to exchange internally and identify how to effectively use the data to avoid “defensive” straw responses and focus on actionable responses with integrity. What is not clear is how use of the data will hold stakeholders accountable to address the data and its implications. Further consultations and targeted technical and financial resources are needed. 6. What impact has WANEP project had on conflict prevention and peace building in WANEP-served countries? With the varying levels of diverse conflict in the Northern region5 and based on data assembled during the evaluation work (interviews with key informants and CSO networks, review of documents and director observation, it can be said that some selected conflicts have been averted and favorable addressed by GHANEP zonal staff (paid and volunteer) and its CSO network members. Closing Interview Discussion Points: o Acknowledge assistance and support received o Confidentiality of inputs o Review report for accuracy of data collected o Forward recommendations received from GHANEP in report for review, disposition Documents and Materials Received: 1. Peace Building Code: a. Communique Issued by Representatives of Political Parties at the End of GHANEP Workshop on Capacity Peacebuilding in Tamale from 7th – 9th June 2004 2. Activity and Management Reports: a. GHANEP Quarterly Report, 1 October – 30 November 2002 b. A Brief Report of Activities (by program function) Carried Out By GHANEP, 2003-2004 c. GHANEP Activity Report, October – November, 2003 d. GHANEP First Quarter Report, January – March 2004 e. GHANEP Quarterly Report, April – June, 2004 f. Partial (detailed) narrative, evaluative-type report on program and management work undertaken to date (missing page 1) 3. Listing of Selected News Articles: a. “Tamale people urged to bury differences”, Daily Graphic, Tuesday, 11, 2004, p. 3 b. “Ya Na’s burial next month”, Ghanaian Times, Friday, May 21, 2004, pgs. 2-3 5 See DASF baseline survey for Tamale and CEWR data found in the USAID/WARP strategy. 51 c. “NCCE supports ban on outdoor politics in Tamale”, Daily Graphic. Wednesday, June 2, 2004 d. “Political parties pledge to separate politics, chieftancy issues”, Daily Graphic, Saturday, June 12, 2004, p. 12 e. “Redouble efforts towards peace in Dagbon – Debrah”, Daily Graphic, Saturday, July 3, 2004, p. 28 f. “Democarcy in Dagbon”, Daily Graphic, Friday, July 23, 2004 g. “Ban on outdoor political activities lifted in Tamale”, Daily Graphic, Monday, August 30, 2004, p. [4?] 52 ANNEX I --- DATA SHEET FOR NIGERIA EVALUATION OF USAID-FUNDED WANEP CAPACITY BUILDING PROJECT Report on data collection trip to Nigeria Team members who undertook trip: Juliana Pwamang and Letitia Sam Dates of trip: September 27-29, 2004 Persons interviewed WANEP Nigeria Florence N. Iheme, ECOWAS Secretariat Ayokunle Fabgemi, National Network Coordinator, WANEP Nigeria Chukwuemeka B. Eze, Program Officer, Conflict Prevention Elizabeth Preye Joseph, Program Officer, Women in Peace Building Ifeazyi Okechukwu, Network Member, Rev. Seni Soewu, Network member, Patrick E. Enyogae, Network member Mike Samson, Network member Hon. Akin Akinteye, Network member Interview format Individual key informant interviews were conducted with network coordinator and ECOWAS representative, Focus group discussions with Network members and the WANEP program Officers The same interview guide was used to guide the various discussion but participants were encouraged to express their views freely. Key findings From Ms. Iheme, ECOWAS Secretariat · She admitted that she has not been much involved in the project since the Director of OMC was appointed in September 2003. 53 · The Capacity building Project has partially met its objectives. This is because the project activities with ECOWAS have not been completed and are still ongoing. The project has been extended by three months to complete the activities. · The Memorandum of Understanding between ECOWAS and WANEP was only signed in February 2004 and this was the document that set the stage for the collaboration between the two organizations · WANEP had hired a Liaison Officer who was providing the ECOWAS Secretariat with policy briefs and other reports on situations in the sub-region.. · CBP has provided an opportunity to interact with CSOs during consultative meetings. Need to develop CSOs list serve to continue with the relationship Problems/ Constraints: · The start activities with ECOWAS were delayed. The key staff (Head of the Observation and Monitoring Center) at ECOWAS Headquarter in Abuja was recruited late in September 2003 (half way through the Capacity building Program (CBP). · ECOWAS Zonal Bureau Heads are in place but not functioning. · WANEP had difficulty in recruiting its Laison Officer due to lack of capacity. One of WANEP’s staff had his position upgraded to take up the position and he therefore has additional conflict training responsbilities. As a result the Liaison Officer spends a lot of time outside Abuja and not available in the ECOWAS secretariat · The conflicts in some West African Countries (Cote d’Ivorie, ) disrupted activities and slowed down the process of attaining desired results in the short term. She recommended that: · ECOWAS staff should be trained in the skills identified in the training needs assessment · Need to facilitate ECOWAS linkages with Civil Society Organizations. · ECOWAS capacity be built to own the project · WANEP should complete the list serve, the conflict indicator database and the training manual before the project ends. From the Network coordinator and Program Officers · The Capacity Building Project had provided various national networks with: o A coordinator o Office premises o Some admin costs 54 o Operational costs o Local transportation · Being part of a recognized sub-regional network of Conflict Prevention and Managements CSOs has given WANEP Nigeria recognition at the national government and international donor levels. As a result WANEP Nigeria has received some project assistance from Austrian Development Authority, Missereor, DKA, and EED to support the development of its strategic and Business plans. Bread for the World will also assist in the development of conflict monitoring system for Nigeria. · Other donors have assisted in paying for the salary of other staff, equipment and maintenance of office and have agreement with private internet server to provide access to internet. · At the national level, the Coordinator participates in meetings, conferences, workshops, consultations and others. WANEP-Nigeria served on the coordinating team of the network on police reforms, during a summit on Crime and Policing in Nigeria. The government of Nigeria has created a CSO desk officer for most Federal and Local Ministries as a result of WANEP’s activities. · Having an operational network secretariat has provided WANEP regional with a mechanism to bring other peace building and conflict prevention training programs to network members in Nigeria such as Peace Education and Active Non-violence for Schools and Women in Peace building. These training programs are not funded by the CBP. There had been a few problems however: · Fund provided for operational costs were inadequate to support the operations of the office. · Network coordinator can not function efficiently without help – provision needs to be made for a salaried program officer. From the Network members · Network members, in general reiterated the benefits of the CBP that had been listed by the network coordinator. They however felt that any subsequent project should look beyond the secretariat to the network members, many of whom require support. · Network is operational in six geo political zones of the country. Each zone is represented on the WANEP-Nigeria’s Board. This is to allow for effective responses to the myriad of conflicts in Nigeria and to facilitate collaborative synergy to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in decision-making, operations and early response. However, there is lack of capacity in most of the zones, except one. 55 · Membership has grown from 21 in 2002 to 72 in 2004. Members cover a range of activities including: Conflict management, prevention, human rights, peace building, advocacy, gender, democracy and governance, economic empowerment. · 115 conflict monitors and 25 analysts trained from the various political zones. The zonal training was done in phases and there have not been any follow-on due to lack of resources. The two day duration of training is limited to improving knowledge and skills in conflict prevention, early waning and response. Need more follow-ups. · Network expressed the desire for more country-specific programs, especially based on local Government systems, to build trust and recognition by government Peace and Security Committee. · Some members felt that the trained Conflict Monitors and Analyst are seen as threat to the government. Need to develop strategic partnership with the government security forces. Conclusions: 1. The Capacity Building Project had provided the network secretariat with the facilities necessary to give it national and international recognition as a peace building and conflict prevention specialized organization. However, increased capacity in conflict prevention, early warning response is seen as threat to local government. 2. This recognition has given and was continuing to give them additional donor funding thereby providing them with more resources for their work. 3. The national government also recognized the expertise and had been inviting WANEP Nigeria to serve as a resource in some of its peace building events. Recommendations 1. WANEP should design programs for the national networks based on identified needs in the country and within the network. 2. In addition to the network coordinator, WANEP should fund at least one program officer and activities at the zonal levels. 3. Network coordinators should be given management and fundraising training to better equip to manage their secretariats and skills in strategic partnership. 56 4. Operational expense budgets for networks should be based on individual secretariat needs. Categories C and D appear to have greater needs because of their limited funding sources. 5. To improve relations with government and remove mistrust, WANEP Nigeria should involve the security committees set up by government at the local government levels, in their conflict prevention and peace-building programs. 57 ANNEX J -- List of Key Informants NIGERIA WANEP Nigeria: Ayokunle Fagbemi NNC WANEP-Nigeria 55 Coker Road, Off Town Planning Ilupeju, Lagos Tel: (00234) 222 2157 Mob: (00234) 803 303 7398 (00234) 802 367 0144 Email: wanepnigeria@yahoo.com kunlefagbemi@hotmail.com kunlefagbemi@tiscali.co.uk Chukwuemeka B.Eze Program Officer WANEP-Nigeria 55 Coker Road, Off Town Planning Ilupeju, Lagos Tel: (00234) 222 2157 Mob: (00234) 803 306 9682 Email: wanepnigeria@yahoo.com sylentar@yahoo.com ECOWAS Secretariat, Abuja · Florence Iheme, Programme Manager, Observation and Monitoring Centre WANEP Nigeria, 55 Coker Road, Ilupeju, Lagos · Ayokunle Fagbemi, National Network Coordinator · Chukuemeka B. Eze, Conflict Prevention Program Officer · Elizabeth Preye Joseph, WIPNET program Officer · Ifeazyi Okechukwu, Network Member · Rev. Seni Soewu, Network member · Patrick E. Enyogae, Network member · Mike Samson, Network member · Hon. Akin Akinteye, Network member 58 COTE D’IVOIRE WANEP Cote d’Ivoire · Roger Yomba, National Network Coordinator · Edmond Guigré, Board Chairman and Network member · Marie-Ange Fofana Kpankaan, Board Treasurer and network member · Albertine Amenan Ipou, Network member · Marguerite Yoli-Bi Koné, Program Officer, WIPNET · Dokali Coulibaly, Network Accountant · Pauline Yao, Vice chair of Board and network member · Eugene Koffi Koffi, General secretary and network member · Michel Mian, former Network Coordinator and network member Roger Yomba Ngué Executive Director, Positive Africa NEPAD CS Coordinator Central Africa Coordinator,African Youth transforming Conflicts 01 BP 5908 Abidjan 01 - Côte d'Ivoire Tel.:(225) 22 41 31 51 /fax:(225) 22 41 41 47 Mobile:(225) 07 66 70 40 Email: wanepci@yahoo.fr GHANA Felix Naah Sabie Ghana Network for Peacebuilding (GHANEP) P.O.Box 953 Tamale, Northern Region, Ghana Tel: (00233) 71-22394 Mob: (00233) 24 573333 Email: ghanep@yahoo.com Zakaria Haku Association of Assembles of God relief and development Alpha Martin Association of Assembles of God relief development Frances Sanyere DASF-Development Alternatives Services Foundation Abdulkarim Ibrahim Muslim local NGO Laary Biru National Commission for Civic Education-NCCE 59 Issa Nasagri National Commission for Civic Education-NCCE Gyamfi John Kwaku NORIDA Human Health and Development Group Commission on Human Rights WANEP Regional Office P.O. Box CT 4434 Cantonments Accra Ghana Tel: 233 21 221318/221388 Fax: 233 21 221735 Website: www.wanep.org Persons interviewed at WANEP regional: · Sam Gbaydee Doe, Executive Director · Thelma Ekiyor, Acting Program Director · Leyla Clude Werleigh-Pearson · Constant Gnacadja, Capacity Building Program Coordinator (Anglophone) · Jacob Enoh Eben, Capacity Building Program Coordinator (Francophone) · Bijoue Togo, Program Officer · Takwa Zebulun Suifon, ECOWAS Liaison Officer Other Interviews in Accra: ECOWAS Zonal Bureau Heads · Mohamed F. Diagne, Ouagadougou · Augustin Fagna, Cotonou · Dabal Moussa, Banjul · Bakary Bobbo WANEP Nigeria Board Chairman · Dr, Isaac Olawale Albert CRS West Africa Regional Office · Tayib Akinbola Thomas 60 THE GAMBIA Mr. Tayib Akinbola THOMAS Regional Advisor Justice & Global Solidarity 60 OAU Boulevard Box 568 Banjul ( GAMBIA) Tel: 00220 227120 / 227121 00220 222094 / 222095 E-mail: tthomas.rtacrs@gamtel.gm Sara Poelman-Doumbouya Project Coordinator Concern Universal PO Box 2164 Serrekunda, The Gambia Tel. 220 -494 -473 Email: s.poehlman-doumbouya@concern-universal.org Ambassador Joseph Stafford US Ambassador to The Gambia U.S. Embassy Banjul, The Gambia Tel. 220 -439 -2856 Ebrima Jarjou, Head of Programming CRS Gambia PO Box 568 Banjul, The Gambia Tel. 220 -422 -7120 Daniel Renna Political/Economic Officer U.S. Embassy Banjul, The Gambia Tel. 220 -439 -2856 Vicki Mboka -Boyer Development Office r U.S. Embassy Banjul, The Gambia Tel. 220 -439 -2856 Louis Thomasi Program Manager African Centre for Democracy and Human Rights Serrekunda, The Gambia Pamela Cole WANEP National Network Coordinator WANEP Gambia 61 57 Garba Jahumpa Road PO Box 2252 Serrekunda (Newtown), The Gambia Tel. 220-992-2834 Adama Ndiaye Women in Peacebuilding Network (WIPNET) Coordinator WANEP Gambia 57 Garba Jahumpa Road PO Box 2252 Serrekunda (Newtown), The Gambia Tel. 220-992-2834 Yvette Phillott, Director Adama Ceesay, Program Coordinator Emily Sarr, Conflict Specialist Forum for African Women Educationalists Serrekunda, The Gambia Tel. 220-991-7681 Binta Jammeh Siddibeh President APGWA (Association for Promoting Girls’ and Women’s Advancement) 74 Komba Sillah Drive Serrekunda (Churchill Town), The Gambia Tel. 220-392-826 Email: bijamsi@yahoo.co.uk SENEGAL The Board Chairman Fr. Camille Joseph GOMIS Tel: 00221 9911059 Cel : 002216424686 E-mail : oeuvres2@hotmail.com Mr. Malamine DIEME Tel : 002219368257 E- mail : malaminedieme2002@yahoo.fr Kathryn Lane USAID Senegal Casamance Special Objective Activity Coordinator Email: klane@usaid.gov Tel. 221-869-6100 62 Souleymane Niang, Radio Programming Coordinator Yann Hazoume, Development Officer Institut Panos B.P. 211323 Dakar, Senegal Tel. 221-849-1655 63 ANNEX K Brief Discussion on SPO Results Framework, Presentation of September 2004 SPO Framework In the FY 2001 Annual Report WARP requested that this Results Framework be revised streamlined to drop I. R. 7.3, donor coordination and stream line some of the activities and sub-I. R. s. This request was made primarily to make the SpO more manageable with WARP’s limited staff. The approved revised SpO follows. 64 SPO7: Early detection and response mechanisms to prevent regional conflicts established IR7.1: ECOWAS early detection and response mechanism to prevent regional conflicts functioning IR7.2: Capacity of regional CSOs to participate in conflict detection and response strengthened IR7.3: Lessons learned and best practices to avoid, mitigate or transition from conflict to democratic governance shared regionally FY 2001 SpO Results Framework 65 SpO7 Enhanced West African regional Capacity to detect and respond to conflict Indicators: (1) Conflict early detection and response mechanism is functioning at the regional level (2) Milestone scale for the development of donor coordination mechanisms to assist regional capacity to detect and respond to conflict IR 7.2: Capacity of regional Civil Society Organizations to participate in conflict detection and response strengthened Indicator: 1. Adoption of formal instruments for CSOs to affiliate with ECOWAS 2. Scorecard for institutional capacity development of selected organizations IR 7.3: Lessons learned and best practices to avoid, mitigate or transition from conflict to democratic governance shared regionally Indicator: 1.Milestone scale for the development of a best practice data management system IR 7.1: ECOWAS early detection and response mechanism to prevent regional conflicts Functioning Indicators: 1. # of situation reports produced by OMC and submitted to ECOWAS coordination unit warning of risk of conflict 2. Qualitative analysis of OMC Situation reports warning of risk Of conflict Pillar: Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Agency Goal: Lives saved, suffering associated with natural or man-made disasters reduced, and conditions necessary for policy and/or economic development re￾established. (100%) 66 The above has been the Results Framework under which the SpO has been operating since FY 2001. From that time to the present, the development hypothesis and conditions that led to the development of the SpO have not substantially changed. The long standing conflicts in Liberia and Sierra Leone have been largely resolved, and the Casamance conflict has been much diminished. However, new conflicts have erupted in Cote d’Ivoire, there is increasing civil unrest in Nigeria, and all the signs point to a potential eruption in Guinea, ushered in by the anticipated change in regime. While the capacity of civil society and ECOWAS to deal with conflicts and conflict mitigation has improved considerably, key weaknesses remain. The critical assumptions on which the Special Objective is based also continue to hold, namely, that conflict continues, the United States maintains an interest in the region and there are sufficient resources available to develop and implement meaningful programs. While the development hypothesis and assumptions have not changed, two largely unanticipated constraints that were not given sufficient weight in the strategic planning process have come to light. First, ECOWAS was, and continues to be, more difficult to change than anticipated for two prime reasons: a) the slow and cautious political waters that ECOWAS must navigate in order to make changes; and b) the exceptionally weak administrative organization of ECOWAS, best exemplified by a paucity of key staff. For example, the Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Political Affairs, Defense and Security (DES/PADS), the department responsible for conflict management, had until less than a year ago, only a Deputy Executive Secretary. In the four Directorates of the DES/PADS there were no Directors or professional personnel. Also, DES/PADS like the rest of ECOWAS suffers from much political manipulation that often mitigates against acquiring the best qualified personnel. The second constraint for WARP which has proven to be more severe than originally anticipated has been WARP’s own lack of capacity. Since its inception, the Conflict SpO has not been close to being adequately staffed. Until January, 2004 the SpO had long periods with only one or no professional staff and at no time has it possessed any dedicated support staff. It was only in June of 2004 that the SpO became staffed by two professional and one support staff members. Although, as with almost every other USAID Mission, governance-related funding greatly diminished during these years, a lack of financial resources cannot be considered a serious constraint for WARP for two reasons. First, WARP’s conflict implementation budget has expanded exponentially over the last two years as funding has been provided for proposals submitted to AID/W. Secondly, WARP’s staffing shortage has meant that it could barely manage the funds that were received, until quite recently (i.e. since December 2003). The final Results Framework revision, which we consider minor, was approved in June 2004 along with WARP’s request to extend the SpO until FY 2008. The primary reason for this revision was to logically encompass all the activities undertaken by WARP under its SpO including those special initiatives which had no place in the previous version, such as trafficking in persons and anti-corruption activities. The essential thrust of the 67 SpO however did not change. The current version thus encompasses these special initiatives under I. R. 7.3. The current Results Framework follows: SPO7: Improved enabling conditions for peace & stability in West Africa Indicator # 7.1: ECOWAS Conflict Prevention Mechanism Functioning IR7.3: Strategic cross-border US Government priorities furthered Indicator # 7.3.1: # of programs furthering USG priorities for peace and stability in West Africa that meet their targets 7.3.1: Anti-corruption activities integrated into WARP sectoral programs Indicator # 7.3.1.1: # of anti-corruption activities integrated into WARP sectoral programs Indicator # 7.3.1.2: Milestones achieved in building capacity to transparently manage anti-retroviral drug delivery Indicator # 7.3.1.3: # of CSOs that apply ICTs to their conflict & anti￾corruption work Indicator # 7.3.1.4: Milestones achieved in building capacity to transparently manage oil revenues 7.3.2: Strategic programs implemented in targeted areas Indicator # 7.3.2.1: # of people reached by TIP & VOT programs IR7.1: Enhanced regional capacity of organizations to address conflict Indicator # 7.1.1: Score measuring ECOWAS Capacity Indicator # 7.1.2: Score measuring CSO Capacity IR7.2: Some causes & consequences of conflict ameliorated Indicator # 7.2.1: Decreased human vulnerability as measured by a Human Security Scorecard Indicator # 7.2.2: # of people trained to deal with gender-based abuse Indicator # 7.2.3: # of victims of conflict receiving psycho-social support Indicator 7.2.4: % of conflicts successfully managed by conflict management mechanisms Indicator 7.2.5: # of persons trained in conflict reduction and peace building 68 ANNEX L FIELD WORK SCHEDULE TEAM MEMBER DATES COUNTRY VISITED KEY ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED Abdi Aden Ghana ß Ghana Network for Peace (GHANEP—WANEP Affiliate) ß Dawah Academy ß Development Alternatives Services Foundation (DASF) ß Northern Region Youth and Development Association ß Human Rights Commission ß District Elections Commission Oct. 14-15, 2004 Senegal ß USAID Senegal ß Institut Panos Dennis Bilodeau Oct. 16-20, 2004 The Gambia ß WANEP National Network Secretariat ß CRS ß US Embassy ß Several WANEP CSO members Carolyn Jefferson Oct. 20-23, 2004 Ghana ß Ghana Network for Peace (GHANEP—WANEP Affiliate) ß Dawah Academy ß Development Alternatives Services Foundation (DASF) ß Northern Region Youth and Development Association ß Human Rights Commission ß District Elections Commission Sept. 25-29, 2004 Nigeria ß ECOWAS Secretariat, Abuja ß WANEP Nigeria, Lagos Juliana Pwamang ß Representatives of network members Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2004 Côte d’Ivoire ß WANEP Côte d’Ivoire ß Everyday Gandhis Sept. 25-29, 2004 Nigeria ß ECOWAS Secretariat, Abuja ß WANEP Nigeria, Lagos Letitia Sam ß Representatives of network members Sept. 29 – Oct. 3, 2004 Côte d’Ivoire ß WANEP Côte d’Ivoire ß Everyday Gandhis