asd
April 27, 2012 
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. 
It was prepared by Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS). 
PROVINCE OF SOUTH KIVU
IMPLEMENTED BY CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES 
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF 
THE MOBILIZING 
COMMUNITIES FOR 
RECONCILIATION PROJECT
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT ii
Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number AID-RAN￾I-OO-09-00015, Task Order Number: AID-623-TO-10-00004
Implemented by: 
Development & Training Services, Inc. (dTS)
4600 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 304
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: +1 703-465-9388
Fax: +1 703-465-9344
www.onlinedts.com
With the support of: 
Bureau d’Etudes et d’Expertises pour le Développement (BEED)
86, Avenue de la Corniche 
Commune de Goma 
P.O. Box: 30 – Goma/North Kivu
Phone: +243 9993290961 
Democratic Republic of Congo
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT iii
PROVINCE OF SOUTH KIVU
IMPLEMENTED BY CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES 
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF 
THE MOBILIZING 
COMMUNITIES FOR 
RECONCILIATION PROJECT 
April 27, 2012
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United 
States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
At the end of this evaluation, we would like to thank all partners who have invested themselves in its 
successful conclusion. 
Our thanks go first to USAID/DRC for its “Peace and Stability Program.” Through this program, the US 
Government is actively contributing to peace building in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). 
We also thank the members of the Provincial governments of the North and South Kivu Provinces, the 
administrators of the territories of Rutshuru, Nyiragongo and Masisi in the North Kivu, and Uvira and Fizi in 
the South Kivu, and their staff members. Their contributions were of great importance to the contextual 
analysis through which the evaluation was implemented. 
We also thank dTS for having chosen the Bureau d’Etudes et d’Expertises pour le Développement (BEED) 
as a local partner for the evaluation of USAID-funded projects in Eastern DRC. 
We are grateful to the management team of Catholic Relief Services (CRS) for their precious collaboration. 
Documentation provided to the evaluators allowed them to better understand the workings and details of the 
project. 
Our gratitude also goes to the team of field facilitators and to the Local Mediation Committee (LMC) 
members for their availability and support, which greatly benefitted the evaluation team. Information given 
on project implementation provided evaluators the opportunity to master the content of the project with 
regard to reconciliation and reintegration. 
Lastly, we thank the surveyors for having walked around villages to administer the questionnaire to the direct 
beneficiaries of the project. 
The input of each partner, stakeholder and beneficiary allowed us to identify the relevant observations, results 
achieved and the weaknesses that led the team to propose recommendations for the continuity of the project 
and eventually for the future programming of peace building. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT v 
ACRONYMS
AFDL Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (Alliance of 
Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire) 
BEED Bureau d’Etudes et d’Expertises pour le Développement 
CDJP Commission Diocésaine Justice et Paix (Diocesan Commission Justice and Peace) 
CNDP Congrès national pour la défense du peuple 
CRS Catholic Relief Services 
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo 
dTS Development & Training Services 
FARDC Forces Armées de la République Démocratiques du Congo (DRC Armed Forces) 
FDLR Forces Democratiques de Liberation du Rwanda (Democratic Forces for the Liberation of 
Rwanda) 
FG Focus Group 
GDRC Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo 
IDP Internally Displaced Persons 
INGO International Non-Governmental Organization 
KI Key Informant 
LMC Local Mediation Committee 
M&E Monitoring & Evaluation 
MCREC Mobilizing Communities for Reconciliation in Eastern Congo 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization 
OCHA Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 
PM Project Managers 
RCD Congolese Rally for Democracy 
SGBV Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 
SOMINKI Société Minière du Kivu 
STAREC Programme de Stabilisation et de Reconstruction de l’Est du Congo.
(Stabilization and Reconstruction of Eastern Congo Program)
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT vi
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Recommendations...................................................................................................................1 
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3
Objectives of the Evaluation........................................................................................................................ 3
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................... 3
Background and Definition of the Issue .................................................................................................... 4
Project Brief .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Project Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 5 
Action Strategy ............................................................................................................................................... 6 
Beneficiaries .................................................................................................................................................... 6
Project Design ................................................................................................................................................ 6
Approach and Intervention Strategies ........................................................................................................ 6
Partners and Collaboration ........................................................................................................................... 6
Presentation of Findings ............................................................................................................ 7
Direct Beneficiaries Survey........................................................................................................................... 7
Focus Groups and Key Informants ............................................................................................................ 9
Assessment of the Project.............................................................................................................................11
Relevance .......................................................................................................................................................11
Effectiveness .................................................................................................................................................11
Efficiency ......................................................................................................................................................11
Impact ............................................................................................................................................................11
Sustainability and Ownership .....................................................................................................................12
Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................13
APPENDICES 
Appendix A. Survey Results .....................................................................................................14
Appendix B. Photographs ........................................................................................................36
Appendix C. Scope of Work .....................................................................................................37
Appendix D. Questionnaire .....................................................................................................48
Appendix E. Key Informants ...................................................................................................59
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 1 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
The Mobilizing Communities for Reconciliation in the Eastern Congo (MCREC) program implemented by 
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) was successful in achieving the goals identified at the project’s outset. Of the 
127 conflicts identified by communities during the baseline study, the project resolved 21, exceeding its 
original target of 18. The project was also successful in proving the viability of local mediation committees 
(LMCs) for conflict resolution and mediation. The LMC strategy of conflict resolution through mediation and 
conciliation was recognized as a more effective method than that of public structures. Evaluation findings 
indicate that LMCs have wide recognition, credit and acceptance for conflict resolution and mediation, 
particularly in dealing with conflicts associated with internally displaced persons (IDP), returnees and persons 
living with HIV/AIDS. 
Findings indicate that LMCs have a high degree of local ownership, and thus good prospects for sustainability. 
Moreover, the presence of a relatively large number of concurrent programs in conflict mediation and peace 
building in South Kivu is likely to contribute to supporting and sustaining the work of the LMCs. 
The most intractable conflicts in South Kivu have roots in ethnic differences and issues related to land tenure 
and land use, which are compounded by power struggles around local leadership, with local and customary 
authorities often involved in fueling conflicts. The evaluation shows that the LMC approach has limitations in 
dealing with conflicts originating from land ownership, land use and ethnic differences. The project also had 
limited effect in resolving conflicts originating from sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). While the 
project was effective in raising awareness of grassroots conflict resolution/mitigation structures and 
contributing to peace building in target communities, additional work is needed to build public awareness of 
structures designed to deal with the problems of marginalized persons. 
RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evaluation provides the following recommendations based on key findings: 
To CRS/DRC
 Strengthen and consolidate progress made in building and operating LMCs, given the high level of 
public support for these structures. 
 Provide basic training to LMCs on land and mineral laws so they can address land and mineral-related 
disputes in ways that are consistent with their legal provisions. 
 Provide higher priority to reconciliation ceremonies as a means of “sealing resolution of conflicts” in 
MCREC follow-up efforts. 
 Ensure greater alignment between LMCs and specialized awareness-raising structures for SGBV and 
land and ethnic disputes, and strengthen efforts to build public awareness of structures designed to 
deal with the problems of marginalized persons. 
 Strengthen radio programming, particularly that aimed at ethnic tolerance, as it can reach multiple 
ethnic audiences at once. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 2 
 Enhance the prestige of LMCs and offer various forms of recognition and non-monetary 
compensation to their members in order to offset potential problems originating from non￾remuneration. 
To the Government of the DRC (GDRC)
 Advocate for and secure funding for community development needs that are potential sources of 
conflict and cannot be addressed strictly with community resources (i.e., awareness-raising programs, 
technical support in land and mineral laws, assistance in agricultural areas of common interest). 
 Promote stronger coordination and collaboration between local development committees and 
provincial authorities regarding community priorities for development projects through policy and 
action plans. 
 Resolve long-standing conflicts over prior occupancy and traditional rights by providing long-term 
solutions to land disputes (including those over livestock herding) through legal frameworks. 
 Provide LMCs and parallel structures with technical support through specialized central units that are 
skilled in arbitrating land disputes. 
 Implement a full cadastral survey in order to provide land owners with land titles. 
To USAID/DRC 
 Explore lessons learned from MCREC and other conflict resolution and peace building programs in 
South Kivu to expand programming to other conflict-affected areas of the province and the country. 
 Strengthen programming aimed at building local leadership and capacity in conflict avoidance and 
prevention in order to mitigate conflicts fueled by local and customary authorities. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 3 
INTRODUCTION 
The Mobilizing Communities for Reconciliation (MCREC) project is part of USAID/DRC’s Peace and 
Stability programming, operating from July 2009 and scheduled to end in August 2011, as part of the US 
foreign assistance strategy. The project’s goal is to involve communities in their own reconciliation process 
through LMCs. 
This assessment, implemented four months prior to MCREC’s close, is an opportunity for stakeholders to 
review the project’s accomplishments and use lessons learned for future programming. 
OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION 
The overall objective of this evaluation is to assess the performance of the MCREC project’s progress in 
promoting reconciliation in targeted communities, make adjustments in the project’s final months, and 
provide guidelines and recommendations for future peace-building programs in the area. The evaluation’s 
specific objectives were to: 
1. Assess the implementation of USAID/DRC community reconciliation programming as evidenced by this 
project; 
2. Document the successes achieved toward community reconciliation and any peace dividends that may 
have resulted; 
3. Identify strengths, weaknesses, challenges and current trends in these initiatives that have implications for 
strengthening their future managerial, programmatic and funding directions; 
4. Analyze the potential for sustainability of the structures established or strengthened for community 
reconciliation that are being developed by these projects; and, 
5. Develop materials to communicate USAID/DRC’s accomplishments in community reconciliation and 
peace building. 
METHODOLOGY 
The evaluation was conducted from April 24 to June 6, 2011 in the province of South Kivu. Data gathering 
was conducted by a team of BEED (Bureau d’Etudes et d’Expertises pour le Développement) experts under 
the technical supervision of the dTS Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor and the USAID Monitoring and 
Evaluation Specialist who was there to observe the process. The BEED Team Leader was Hangi Binini, 
Director of BEED. The team was composed of:
 Albert Umbi Lunula, BEED Evaluator; 
 Elie Kanyangara Kany, BEED Evaluator; 
 Hangi Bulenda Charles, BEED Expert; 
 Laurent Kopi, dTS Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor; and, 
 Olivier Mumbere, USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist. 
Once assembled, the evaluation team proceeded with background work in Kinshasa and Goma while 
developing training modules for surveyors and designing a survey questionnaire and interview guides for the 
various focus groups. Contacts were then made in the MCREC target communities of Kamituga, Uvira and 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 4 
the Ruzizi Plain to prepare for social mobilization and data collection, while surveyors were recruited and 
trained before being sent to the field sites to collect data. 
Overall the mission was a success; all stakeholders were very cooperative and made documentation available 
in soft or hard copies. The project management team, field staff and LMCs members were all open to 
questions and discussions. The team was confronted with one security issue in South Kivu, where it was
subjected to a shakedown by an armed militia group. However, there was no physical harm and the team 
returned safely. 
Fieldwork was conducted at four sites: Baraka, Kiliba/Sange, Luvungi and Uvira center/Kalundu. The 
methodology for this evaluation included document reviews to understand the project, its operating context 
and results; a survey of 240 direct beneficiaries; 18 focus group discussions with LMC members, local leaders, 
women, men, youth and ex-combatants; and seven key informant interviews with the administrator and army 
captain of Uvira, police chief commander and secretary of the locality of Makobola, community chief of 
Kalunja, the CRS MCREC project manager in Kamituga, and the Uvira Commission Diocésaine Justice et Paix
(CDJP) program manager. 
BACKGROUND AND ISSUE DEFINITION 
Eastern DRC has been at the center of conflict in successive liberation wars. The first was with the Alliance des 
Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL), under the leadership of Laurent Désiré Kabila, 
that toppled the dictatorship of the late Mobutu. This was followed in 1998 by the conflict between Kabila 
and the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD), which ended with negotiations in South Africa; in 2002 
various political parties signed a treaty that included a power-sharing solution called the “1+4 formula” where 
one president would be assisted by four vice-presidents from the four major power centers. This created 
confusion, which gave rise to the dissident General Laurent Nkunda’s Congrès national pour la défense du peuple
(CNDP), and sparked conflict with armed groups in North and South Kivu. Later, during peace talks at the 
Goma Conference (2008), a number of proposals were developed to promote stability and development; one 
was the CRS MCREC project. 
PROJECT BRIEF 
As mentioned above, the provinces of North and South Kivu experienced a cycle of interethnic wars, 
resulting in community instability. At the same time, several conflicts are observed within communities. These 
are mainly linked to the struggle for living space, others with ethnic identity and the struggle for power. 
The MCREC project was designed following the conference on peace, security and development of the 
provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu, held in Goma from January 6-20, 2008. The conference paved the 
way for a sustainable peace in the region. It gave rise to the Amani Leo program, which was later replaced by 
STAREC (Program of Stabilization and Reconstruction of the zones emerging from war in Eastern DRC). 
It is in this context that unrelenting efforts were undertaken by the GDRC with support from the 
international community to promote community stabilization and reintegration. This was the foundation on 
which USAID awarded CRS the funds to implement MCREC, a peace-building and reconciliation project 
targeting the communities of Uvira, Fizi and Mwenga in the DRC’s South Kivu province. The project 
proposal was preceded by a basic study to understand local mechanisms and capacity to prevent violent 
conflict in the wake of armed conflicts, including Mai-Mai and the Forces Démocratiques de Libération du Rwanda
(Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda FDLR). The project is implemented in the Uvira Diocese, 
covering the following areas: 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 5 
 Uvira territory: Kamanyola, Kalundu, Kiliba, Luvungi, and Uvira Centre; 
 Mwenga territory: Mwenga Centre, Kasika, Kitutu, and Kamituga; 
 Fizi territory: Fizi Centre, Baraka, Lweba,and Mboko. 
Women have been well integrated into project activities and gender considerations adequately addressed by 
the MCREC. According to the African tradition, women personified the offspring power as they carry 
children in their wombs for nine months. In traditional African societies, they are the first educators and 
caretakers of the family. Because of their compassionate roles in families and communities, women are often 
targeted for promoting community reconciliation. In Baraka, the LMC is headed by a woman teacher who is 
very popular in the area; in Kalundu the Kimbaguist woman pastor is a member of the LMC, and in Kiliba, 
the deputy head of LMC is also a woman. 
The project also pays special attention to marginalized groups such as ex-combatants, minorities and 
returnees. It is working to completely reintegrate ex-combatants. The project helps returnees take back their 
real property (i.e., houses, farms and fields) and other assets that were illegally taken from them during their 
absence because of the war or other events. The project also gives particular attention to Pigmies, as well as 
Babuyu and Banyamulenge ethnic tribes. Some communities use familial relationships with local authorities to 
intimidate Pigmy tribes. The Banyamulenge are considered “foreigners” by others who consider themselves 
indigenous. The project therefore attempts to call for peaceful cohabitation among different ethnic groups. 
PROJECT OBJECTIVES: 
The overall project goal is to avoid violent conflict in targeted South Kivu communities by promoting 
community reconciliation. Objectives behind this are: 
1. Ex-combatants no longer threaten local communities with violence, with two intermediate results: 
a. Ex-combatant groups accept non-violence agreements with local communities; and, 
b. LMCs are engaged in managing sustainable reconciliation processes with ex-combatant groups. 
2. Ex-combatants and returning IDPs and refugees reintegrate nonviolently into 18 target communities in 
southern South Kivu Province, with three intermediate results: 
a. Local conflict-resolution mechanisms are strengthened; 
b. Women, youth, faith-based and other local groups are involved in reconciliation activities; and, 
c. 18 target communities adopt action plans to ensure the nonviolent reintegration of ex-combatants and 
returning IDPs and refugees. 
3. 18 inter-ethnic or religious-identity conflicts have been settled, with one intermediate result: 
a. Ethnic or faith communities in conflict are engaged in dialogue for conflict-resolution and 
reconciliation efforts. 
ACTION STRATEGY 
The primary strategy for achieving these objectives was to strengthen LMCs by training their members in 
reconciliation and conflict resolution methods, and engaging them in other types of micro-activities for the 
sustainability of gained peace, such as traditional ceremonies that conclude the gatherings. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 6 
BENEFICIARIES 
Project beneficiaries include externally and internally displaced populations, ex-combatants and victims of 
sexual violence. 
PROJECT DESIGN 
The project was designed based on recommendations from the Goma conference (2008) on peace and 
development of the North and South Kivu provinces. It started with a baseline study that mapped 137 
conflicts. Following dialog with the local community, the list was pared down to 127, with 18 to be addressed 
by the MCREC project. The conflicts were grouped into five categories: 
1. Political: i.e., between the DRC and Rwanda, between the citizens and government, conflict among 
political leadership, ideological conflict;
2. Religious: i.e., between churchgoers and pastors, between different churches;
3. Economic: i.e., between mining companies (SOMINKI & BANROW), between the rich and poor, land 
and forest conflicts; 
4. Socio-cultural: i.e., succession of power, professional conflicts, generational conflicts, individual and 
family conflicts; and,
5. Ethnic: i.e., between majority and minority tribes, between local population and immigrants.
APPROACH AND INTERVENTION STRATEGIES 
In order to promote reconciliation across these five categories and achieve its objectives, CRS and its partner, 
CDJP, use a variety of approaches to achieve the project objectives. These efforts focus on utilizing the 
community’s indigenous capacity to engage and promote reconciliation involving all local groups by raising 
awareness, promoting communal activity and shared communal space, as well as intervention by local 
mediation committees. Sporting events, community gardening and dramas were used in conjunction with 
radio programs and awareness-raising campaigns to promote reconciliation. Moreover, care was taken to use 
local traditions, such as reconciliation ceremonies, to underpin efforts to the greatest extent possible. 
PARTNERS AND COLLABORATION 
Collaboration between project managers and local authorities was found to be strong. Attending meetings at 
the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) put CRS in contact with other international 
non-governmental organizations (NGO) having similar missions. CDJP’s experience working with local 
structures has also encouraged collaboration with local NGOs. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 7 
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
DIRECT BENEFICIARIES SURVEY 
Conflicts and their causes: Data from a widely representative survey of 240 respondents (Appendix 1, 
Graphics 1-2) in the communities where MCREC operated show that the project was well centered to the 
need for conflict resolution and mitigation; 97 percent reported the existence of conflicts in their 
communities. The types reported were: ethnic (18 percent); power (18 percent); succession (16 percent); land 
(14 percent); conjugal (13 percent); leadership (10 percent); intra and inter-community (9 percent); and other 
(2 percent). (Appendix 1, Figure 3). 
The data also show the highest proportion of conflicts involve land use and land tenure, with farmers and 
livestock herders accounting for a combined total of 59 percent of the “parties responsible for conflicts,” 
ahead of community leaders and local officials, who are seen by respondents as actors or “responsible parties” 
at a combined total of 35 percent (Appendix 1, Figure 4). The high proportion of conflicts generated by 
farmers and livestock herders due to land-related issues is noteworthy, and points to a need for resources to 
address “actors of conflicts” in two ways: (a) resolving land tenure and land use issues involving farmers 
herders – and probably both, in some instances; and (b) leadership training in conflict avoidance for both 
community leaders and local authorities. 
Regarding causes of conflict, issues over land tenure and land use (straying animals and inequitable land 
distribution) account for 40 percent of “causes of conflicts,” followed by confiscation of power by a dominant 
ethnic group and ethnic intolerance at 31 percent (Appendix 1, Figure 5). Ethnic and land issues are often 
intertwined in the Kivu provinces of the DRC, with livestock herders often being predominately from one 
ethnic group and farmers from another. The Kivu provinces are well known as relatively densely populated 
areas of the DRC, with much higher population pressure on available land than exists in many other parts of 
the country. 
Some of the conflicts resolved during the course of the project were: land disputes (22.5 percent); conflicts of 
succession (22 percent); ethnic conflicts (15 percent); conflicts with traditional authorities (9.5 percent); and 
other (10 percent). A relatively high minority of respondents (21 percent) did not report any types of conflict 
as being resolved by the project (Appendix 1, Figure 6). 
Leading the “persistent conflicts” category (Appendix 1, Figure 7) are ethnic-related conflicts at 30 percent, 
and land-related conflicts at 26 percent. The two combined were reported by 58 percent of respondents. 
These two types are known to often be interconnected; many ethnic conflicts are related to and complicated 
by disputes over land tenure and use. Conflicts with local authorities were reported by a further 23 percent of 
respondents. A plausible conclusion from these data is that the most persistent and intractable conflicts will 
involve both land and ethnic issues, along with implication of local leadership. Additionally, the significant 
amount of persisting conflicts involving local authorities points to a need to address the problem with 
strategies like conflict avoidance and resolution training for local authorities. 
Strategies for conflict resolution: Mediation (45 percent) and conciliation strategies (29 percent, Appendix 
1, Figure 8) together (74 percent) were seen as the most effective methods for resolving conflicts, thus 
validating MCREC’s methods for conflict resolution. This conclusion is further buttressed by widespread 
recognition of MCREC’s role in conflict mitigation and resolution (86 percent, Appendix 1, Figure 9). While 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 8 
primary recognition of any particular structure varied, the CDJP was the most widely recognized structure for 
conflict resolution, being identified by 38 percent of respondents (Appendix 1, Figure 10).
Marginalized groups and effective ways to deal with their needs: SGBV survivors, persons living with 
HIV/AIDS, ex-combatants, IDPs and returnees were all recognized by the respondents as marginalized 
groups. These groups present difficult challenges for any conflict resolution/mitigation program due to their
specialized needs (Appendix 1, Figure 11). Fifty-three percent of survey respondents did not know of any 
integration structures for marginalized groups (Appendix 1, Figure 12); additional work is needed to build 
public awareness of the structures designed to deal with the problems of these individuals. 
The preponderance of LMC, Peace Promotion Committees and Committees of the Wise being cited as 
structures for integrating marginalized persons (56 percent combined) over public structures (14 percent) is 
remarkable (Appendix 1, Figure 13). By a ratio of 4:1, respondents clearly saw non-public structures as most 
effective for dealing with marginalization problems. The 25 percent of respondents who did not answer the 
question is unsurprising, given that a high proportion of respondents (53 percent) do not have knowledge of 
structures that deal with marginalized persons. 
At the same time, most respondents recognized some evidence or sign of the reintegration of marginalized 
persons. For example, 38 percent felt that marginalized people worked together with other community 
members, 35 percent believed that marginalized populations could express themselves in public, and 23 
percent noted that they had the same responsibilities as everyone else in the community (Appendix 1, Figure 
14). 
Legally recognized structures for conflict resolution, MCREC and peace building, and recognition of 
land and mining law: Even though 60 percent of respondents recognized the role of legally established 
structures for conflict mitigation, a fairly high proportion (40 percent) did not recognize these structures, 
which points to a continuing need for civic education among the population (Appendix 1, Figure 15). 
Similarly, while the majority (62.5 percent) expressed satisfaction with MCREC’s role in conflict 
mitigation/prevention, a significant minority (37 percent) were not satisfied (Appendix 1, Figure 16). A 
plausible reason for this would be persisting conflicts in communities. On the other hand, 76 percent of 
respondents saw MCREC as contributing to peace building in their communities (Appendix 1, Figure 17). 
Knowledge of essential laws, particularly land and mining, is low among the population, with only 40 percent 
having knowledge of land law and 3 percent of mining law (Appendix 1, Figure 18). High non-recognition of 
the Law on Land and the Mining Code is problematic for conflict avoidance, as those with knowledge of the 
law may be able to exploit those who are not, and thus become a source of future conflicts. Knowledge of 
land and mining laws, and adherence to them, are eventually the most sustainable solutions to land and 
mineral-related conflicts. Resources need to be directed toward more public information and education on 
land and on mining laws, particularly in the mining areas, to lessen a continuing source of conflict. 
MCREC collaboration with other structures: Other conflict resolution/mitigation programs operated in 
MCREC-serviced communities and MCREC was given high marks by respondents for strong collaboration 
with these other programs – 90 percent of respondents reported collaboration as “good” or “perfect”
(Appendix 1, Figure 19). 
Awareness building: Radio programs and dramas took the lead on awareness building (sensitization) for 
conflict resolution/mitigation among respondents for both recognition (42 percent and 28 percent, 
respectively) and effectiveness (31 percent and 30 percent, respectively, Appendix 1, Figures 20 and 21). 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 9 
Sustainability: Nearly three-quarters of respondents saw LMCs as sustainable due to their own sense of 
ownership and the interest of LMC members in the reconciliation process. A minority (28 percent) saw them 
as unsustainable, mainly due to the non-remuneration of LMC members (Appendix 1, Figure 22). 
FOCUS GROUPS AND KEY INFORMANTS 
Conflict resolution and reconciliation: Results from the focus group and key informant discussions 
indicate that the project is well known by a good number of people in the project area, and that there is 
popular support for resolving conflicts through mediation. Respondents believe that LMCs play educationally
and socially cohesive roles by raising awareness of peace and reconciliation through sporting activities, 
community fields, dramas, radio message programs and megaphones. The majority of respondents also 
confirmed that the project integrates gender considerations by involving women alongside men. 
A number of positive effects were noted as having been achieved following the project’s implementation. 
Among them were the convergence of members from different communities through recreational activities 
and work in community fields, friendly resolution of a good number of conflicts by LMCs (21 were resolved –
above the targeted 18, though reconciliation rituals for 10 conflicts remain to be performed in order to finalize 
the process), and the coexistence of people from different ethnic groups and communities (Bembe and others 
such as the Banyamulenge and the Babuyu) including intermarriage in communities like Bemebe and Babuyu, 
a practice that was uncommon prior to implementation of the project. Respondents also agreed that, with the 
exception of Kiliba,1
 the project had contributed to resolving most of the problems often associated with a 
community field, including respecting the agricultural calendar and protecting fields from stray animals in 
other areas. Most respondents believed that security in the implementation zones had improved. 
Respondents stated weaknesses and challenges of the project as: poor visibility of the LMCs in target areas 
due to the absence of visible gathering sites, long intervals between recreational activities, and poor physical 
infrastructure (especially in Mwenga and Fizi territories) that impedes access to potential beneficiaries and also 
inhibits economic activities like marketing and social services. Other project limitations voiced by the majority 
of respondents pertain to the limited capacity of MCREC to resolve land disputes and conflicts related to 
cases of rape. 
Basic structures participation in local good governance, notably in conflict resolution: The capacity 
building of LMC members was believed to have been well-organized and satisfactory, and LMCs were 
recognized as having members that were representative of the different ethnic groups living in targeted 
communities. The general consensus was that intercommunity dialogues were visible during coordination 
meetings. Most respondents regarded religious structures as proactive in the reconciliation process, and saw 
the use of people with moral authority, like priests and pastors, as a benefit to the project. 
The common view is that, although reconciliation can be observed in target communities, it is difficult to 
attribute reconciliation achievements to specific agents, given the “competition” with other structures due to 
the relatively large number of concurrent projects operating in the same field and areas. For this reason, there 
was disagreement among respondents regarding LMCs as the first instances for conflict mitigation. 
Respondents also expressed their apprehension regarding the despondency of some LMC members who think 
they should be remunerated for their work, and who are not knowledgeable on key laws such as the 
Constitution, family, land and mining laws. The general view was that concurrent structures working alongside 
 
1 According to respondents, the president of the LMC in Kiliba, who is the parish priest, lives in constant conflict with his vicar, and 
as a result, project beneficiaries in favor of the vicar often ignore the project and boycott the LMC president.
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 10
an LMC (i.e., Arche de l’alliance, Pax Christi, etc.) can inspire and motivate LMC members to continue their 
tasks. 
Most respondents felt that their communities had ownership of the reconciliation process. The exception was, 
once again, Kiliba, where the general belief was that the project was mainly assisting Catholics, given that the 
president of the LMC is a Catholic priest. This is despite efforts made by CRS to explain that the project has 
an “open door” policy and implementation approach. While some respondents expressed concern regarding 
the idleness of communities in Kiliba, who believe the project is supposed to resolve all their problems, the 
majority are optimistic that the Kiliba LMC will continue to operate after the project ends. 
Reintegration of marginalized persons:2 The majority of respondents felt that the project has made 
achievements in integrating marginalized groups, such as ex-combatants who no longer pose a threat to their 
communities, IDPs and returnees. While the project has attempted to integrate 250 Pigmies in one village and 
advocate for them to have arable land to cultivate in Kamanyola, the general consensus was that it has not 
been successful due to lack of access to sufficient arable land. Moreover, the majority of respondents felt that 
the project has fallen short of integrating and reconciling the Banyamulenge in the highlands with other ethnic 
groups. Respondents did indicate that reconciliation efforts have helped the Babuyu live peacefully with other 
communities. 
 
2 While the project pays special attention to marginalized groups such as returnees, IDPs, ex-combatants and minority tribes, in the 
course of the evaluation, four additional special groups were identified: 1) persons living with HIV/AIDS; 2) women victims of rape 
and sexual violence; 3) widows; and 4) women associated with armed groups. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 11
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT
RELEVANCE 
After being the center of so many conflicts over the years, South Kivu, MCREC’s primary area of operation, 
is considered a high priority area for stability operations by the GDRC and the international community. The 
area has been subject to a number of standing conflicts relating to unequal land use, and various other 
situations that create rivalry and tensions between communities. It is in this context that the MCREC project 
is being implemented. With about 98 percent of survey respondents and the majority of focus group members 
seeing conflicts as a problem in the communities in which the project operated, the triangulation of findings 
from the survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews strongly supports the relevance of 
MCREC and the need for conflict resolution and mitigation. Data show the project continues to evolve, 
focusing on reconciliation between targeted communities and among community members, and thus 
contributes to the long-term work of stabilizing the eastern DRC. Furthermore, SGBV survivors, persons 
living with HIV/AIDS, ex-combatants, IDPs and returnees were all recognized by respondents as 
marginalized groups; these clearly present difficult challenges for any conflict resolution/mitigation program 
due to their specialized needs. 
EFFECTIVENESS 
Findings from the evaluation indicate that the project has been effective in raising awareness for conflict 
resolution/mitigation and contributing to peace building in target communities, though additional work is 
needed to build public awareness of the structures designed to deal with the problem of marginalized persons. 
The majority of respondents considered mediation and conciliation the most effective methods for resolving 
conflicts, pointing to the validity of MCREC’s methods for conflict resolution. This conclusion is further 
supported by widespread recognition of the project’s role in conflict mitigation and resolution. It has been 
effective in building the capacity of LMC members and making committee representation multi-ethnic, as well 
as involving women, faith-based and other local groups in reconciliation activities. In fact, LMCs, Peace 
Promotion Committees and Committees of the Wise have taken the lead over public structures with regard to 
the integration of marginalized persons in target areas. The project has also been effective in reintegrating 
marginalized groups such as ex-combatants, IDPs and returnees into their communities. Of the 127 conflicts 
identified by communities during the baseline study, the project successfully completed 21 reconciliation 
processes, surpassing its target of 18. The project has, however, been less effective in reintegrating all minority 
groups, and resolving conflicts pertaining to rape and sexual violence. 
EFFICIENCY 
Given that the project’s outputs are not market priced, efficiency based on cost-benefit analysis cannot be 
undertaken. It is clear, however, that the benefit of the project, as noted in the executive summary, is also the 
fact that its goals were exceeded. 
IMPACT 
The most important impact sought under the project is reconciliation between communities to build long￾lasting peace and reintegrate marginalized groups. The full impact of the project is yet to be determined, given 
its longer-term objectives of peace building and reconciliation. It is also difficult to tease out the project’s full 
impact due to the presence of concurrent and competitive projects in the same intervention areas. 
Nonetheless, some signs of reconciliation and peace building are already observable. Notably, this includes 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 12
intermarriage in communities such as Bemebe and Babuyu (which was not practiced prior to the 
implementation of the project) and higher probability of peaceful coexistence among different ethnicities. 
SUSTAINABILITY AND OWNERSHIP 
All stakeholders at different levels of the intervention are aware of the need to sustain the gains achieved by 
MCREC and continue activities that will extend and possibly build on them. Findings suggest that the 
majority saw “ownership of the reconciliation process” and “concurrent (or parallel) structures continuing to 
motivate LMC members” as they yield “strength and potential.” MCREC has built a type of “resiliency” for 
the reconciliation process through its cooperation with parallel structures, and by building ownership of the 
process, which both contribute to the project’s sustainability. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 13
CONCLUSION
Overview: With 97 percent of survey respondents acknowledging the existence of conflicts in their 
communities, the MCREC project was well-placed to support conflict resolution in South Kivu communities. 
The large majority of respondents were satisfied with the MCREC role in conflict resolution and mitigation. 
The project achieved resolution of more conflicts than originally planned. Of the 127 conflicts identified by 
communities during the baseline study, the project facilitated 21 reconciliation processes, exceeding its target 
of 18. The primary strategy for achieving these objectives was to strengthen LMCs by training their members 
in reconciliation and conflict resolution methods, and by engaging them in other types of micro-activities for 
the sustainability of gained peace. The role of LMCs was widely recognized in communities, and mediation 
and conciliation were generally seen as the most effective means for resolving conflicts. The project was also 
seen as successful in bringing communities together through recreational and other activities and promoting 
intermarriage in communities such as Bemebe and Babuyu, something which was not practiced prior to the 
implementation of the project. 
Surveyed individuals saw grassroots structures such as MCREC as more effective than public ones in dealing 
with marginalized persons by a 4:1 margin. In awareness-building for conflict mitigation and peace building, 
data show that both radio and recreational events had high public acceptance. The project also had success in 
integrating marginalized persons (IDPs, returnees and persons living with HIV/AIDS) into their 
communities. 
Weaknesses and challenges: Conflicts involving ethnic differences and land use were seen as the most 
intractable, with local authorities often being the protagonists of such conflicts. The triangulation of data 
reveals that the project had limited impact in resolving conflicts originating from ethnic, land and SGBV 
sources. Integrating ethnic groups such as Pigmies was also seen as unsuccessful. 
Findings show that LMC members are themselves largely uninformed on land and mineral law. Not only can 
lack of knowledge of mining and land laws become a source of potential conflict (as persons who are not 
knowledgeable of these laws could be exploited), but as South Kivu moves to a post-conflict environment, 
legal structures are likely to become more important. 
Potential for sustainability of structures established by MCREC: Data support the potential 
sustainability of LMCs through widespread community ownership and the continued support of other donor 
projects having similar objectives as MCREC. It is noteworthy that a MCREC-associated structure, CDJP, 
which will continue to exist after MCREC, also provides support to the MCREC concept. A potential threat 
to sustainability appears to be the non-remuneration of LMC members, which can result in lack of incentive 
and motivation. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 14
APPENDIX A. SURVEY RESULTS 
IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS 
Figure1. Respondents by site and sex 
Of the 240 respondents, 138 were male (57.5 percent) and 102 were female (42.5 percent). It has been noted 
that men were more available than women. This is due to the fact that women were very busy with domestic 
duties.
Figure 2: Respondent disaggregated function within the community 
Baraka Uvira Kiliba Luvungi TOTAL
Male 35 33 37 33 138
Female 25 27 23 27 102
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Number
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35% 32%
15% 13%
9% 7% 6% 6% 5% 5%
2%
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 15
The 240 respondents were disaggregated by function in the community following the below proportions: 
Function Number of respondents Percentage
Farmers 76 32%
Teachers 36 15%
Traders 21 9%
Cattle Herders & Fishermen 13 5%
Pastors 5 2%
Housewife 30 13%
Students 15 6%
Officials 15 6%
Nurses 12 5%
Committee Members 17 7%
S/Total 240 100%
CONFLICTS AND THEIR MITIGATION 
Figure 3: Types of conflict 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 235 (97.92 percent) recognize the existence of conflicts in the targeted villages; and, 
 5 (2.8 percent) said there are no conflicts in their villages (this was particular for Kiliba). 
18% 18%
16%
14% 13%
10% 9%
2%
Types of Conflict
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 16
Of the 235 respondents: 
 33 respondents reported land conflict (14 percent);
 37 pointed out at conflict of succession (16 percent);
 42 said there were ethnic conflicts (18 percent);
 24 supported the existence of leadership conflicts (10 percent);
 31 affirmed that they live with conjugal conflicts (13 percent);
 21 said there were intra and intercommunity conflicts (9 percent);
 43 converged on conflict of power (18 percent); and, 
 4 cited other conflicts (2 percent). 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 17
Figure 4: Actors of conflicts 
According to the 240 respondents, originators of conflicts in communities are: 
 Farmers: 81 respondents (34 percent); 
 Livestock herders: 57 respondents (24 percent); 
 Community leaders: 46 respondents (19 percent); 
 Local authorities: 38 respondents (16 percent); and, 
 Others: 18 respondents (7 percent). 
Farmers Livestock
Herders
Community
Leaders
Local
Authorities
Other
34%
24%
19%
16%
7%
Originators of Conflict
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 18
Figure 5: Causes of conflicts 
The 240 respondents gave the following responses: 
 The straying of animals: 57 respondents (24 percent); 
 Confiscation of power by dominant ethnic groups: 44 (18 percent); 
 Political leaders that entertain conflict in the country: 44 respondents (18 percent); 
 Inequitable distribution of land: 39 respondents (16 percent); 
 Ethnic intolerance: 29 (13 percent); and, 
 Other: 27 respondents (11 percent). 
Straying of
animals
Confiscation
of power
Political
leaders
Inequitable
land
Ethnic
intolerance
Other
24%
18% 18%
16%
13%
11%
Causes of Conflict
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 19
Figure 6: Types of conflicts resolved 
According to the 240 respondents, the conflicts considered to be resolved were disaggregated following the 
below proportions: (Perception of survey hearing witnessed conflicts resolved in subject area) 
 Land disputes: 54 respondents (22.5 percent); 
 Conflicts of succession: 52 respondents (22 percent); 
 Conflicts with traditional authorities: 23 respondents (9.5 percent); 
 Ethnic conflicts: 35 respondents (15 percent); 
 Other conflicts: 25 respondents (10 percent); and, 
 No conflicts considered to be resolved: 51 respondents (21 percent), with the majority of respondents in 
Kiliba. 
Land
disputes
Succession No conflicts
resolved
Ethnic Conflicts
with
traditional
authorities
Other
23% 22% 21%
15%
9% 10%
Types of Conflicts Resolved
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 20
Figure 7: Persisting conflicts 
Of the 240 respondents, the following are the conflicts that persist: 
 Ethnic conflict – 76 respondents (32 percent); 
 Land conflicts that persist – 63 respondents (26 percent); 
 Conflicts with local authorities – 56 respondents (23 percent); and, 
 The other conflicts combined – 45 respondents (19 percent). 
Ethnic Land Conflicts with
traditional
authorities
Other
32%
26%
23%
19%
Persisting Conflicts
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 21
Figure 8: Strategies used in resolving conflicts 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 Mediation appears to be the most used method to resolve conflicts according to 107 respondents (44.5
percent); 
 Conciliation was noted by 70 respondents (29 percent); 
 The involvement of religious groups follows with 33 respondents (14 percent); 
 The army and the police were identified for 18 respondents (7.5 percent); and, 
 Other, 12 respondents (5 percent). 
Mediation Conciliation Involvement
of faith
groups
Army/Police Other
45%
29%
14%
7% 5%
Strategies of Conflict Resolution
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 22
Figure 9: Knowledge of conflict mitigation structures 
Of the 240 respondents, 
 206 (86 percent) recognize the existence of conflict mitigation structures in the villages; 
 34 (14 percent) are not aware of anything concerning the MCERC structures. 
86%
14%
Knolwedge of conflict mitigation structures
No knowledge of conflict mitigation structures
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 23
Figure 10: Types of conflict mitigation structures 
Of the 206 having knowledge on conflict mitigation structures, the following were identified: 
 CDJP, the sub-grantee of CRS had 78 respondents (38 percent); 
 Committee of the Wise according to 32 respondents (16 percent); 
 Peace Promotion Centers with 40 respondents (19 percent); 
 Reconciliation committee according to 23 respondents (11 percent); 
 Public peace committees developed by the State for 12 respondents (6 percent); and, 
 Other, 21 respondents (10 percent). 
38%
16%
19%
11%
6%
10%
Types of conflict resolution structures
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 24
SPECIAL GROUPS (MARGINALIZED GROUPS) 
Figure 11: Different categories of marginalized persons identified 
Groups of populations identified as marginalized or at risk of marginalization by 238 respondents (2 people 
did not answer) include: 
 Ex-combatants according to 49 respondents (21 percent); 
 Women victims of sexual abuse according to 44 respondents (18 percent); 
 Persons living with HIV/AIDS according to 42 respondents (18 percent); 
 Returnees with 41 respondent (17 percent); 
 IDPs according to 35 respondents (15 percent); 
 Pygmies by 17 respondents (7 percent); and, 
 Other according to 10 respondents (4 percent). 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25% 21%
18% 18% 17%
15%
7%
4%
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 25
Figure 12: Knowledge of integration structures for marginalized groups 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 113 (47 percent) are aware of the existence of integration structures for marginalized persons; and, 
 127 (53 percent) responded they have no knowledge about this. 
47%
53%
Integration Structures for Marginalized 
Groups
Knowledge of integration structures No knowledge of integration structures
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 26
Figure 13: Identified structures for integrating marginalized persons 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 The Local Mediation Committees had 56 respondents (23 percent); 
 Peace Promotion Centers with 49 respondents (20 percent); 
 Public structures according to 34 people (14 percent); 
 Committee of wise according to 31 respondents (13 percent); 
 Other for 11 respondents (5 percent); and, 
 59 respondents (25 percent) did not answer the question. 
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Local
Mediation
structures
Peace
promotion
centers
Public
structures
Committee
of Wise
Other No answer
23%
20%
14%
13%
5%
25%
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 27
Figure 14: Signs of community reintegration of marginalized persons 
240 respondents gave the following views: 
 Marginalized people work together with the rest of the population in community tasks according to 92 
respondents (38 percent); 
 They can express themselves in public according to 83 individuals (35 percent); 
 They have responsibilities like others for 56 respondents (23 percent); and, 
 Other signs with 9 respondents (4 percent). 
38%
35%
23%
4%
Signs of reintegration of marginalized groups
working together with the community Expressing themselves
Having responsibilities like others Other
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 28
PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNANCE OF COMMUNITY 
STRUCTURES OF THE CIVIL SOCIETY 
Figure 15: Existence of legally recognized structures according to respondents by site 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 144 respondents (60 percent) recognize the existence of legally established institutions; and, 
 96 respondents (40 percent) were not aware of these structures. 
The following table shows the head of legal structures that were recognized by the respondents: 
Structures Number of Respondents Percentage
Chief of the Collectivity 73 30%
Head of Sector 33 14%
Head of Territory 114 48%
Others 20 8%
60%
40%
Awareness of legally established institutions
No awareness of legally established institutions
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 29
Figure 16: Satisfaction with the project inputs on peace building 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 150 respondents (62.5 percent) were satisfied with services to communities on peace building through 
reconciliation of conflicting parties; and, 
 90 respondents (37.5 percent) were not satisfied with the services on peace building through reconciliation 
of conflicting parties. 
Satisfied with project Not satisfied with project
63%
38%
Satisfaction with Project
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 30
Figure 17: Project’s contribution to peace building 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 183 respondents (76 percent) said the project has contributed to peace building in targeted communities; 
and, 
 57 respondents (24 percent) abstained from answering or responded no. 
Yes No
76%
24%
Did the Project contribute to peace 
building in communities
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 31
Figure 18: Knowledge of types of essential laws 
The 240 respondents affirmed having knowledge of essential laws as follows: 
Law Number of 
respondents 
Percentage
The constitution of the Country 74 31%
Law on Land 46 19%
Mining Code 3 1%
Others 117 49%
31%
19%
1%
49%
The Constitution Land Law Mining Code Other
Knowledge of types of essential laws
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 32
COLLABORATION WITH PROJECT ACTORS AND THEIR 
PARTNERS 
Figure 19: Assessment of collaboration with other stakeholders by site 
Collaboration with other stakeholders was mentioned by the following number and percentage of 
respondents: 
 Good for 165 persons (69 percent); 
 Excellent for 50 respondents (21 percent); and, 
 Average for 25 persons (10 percent). 
21%
69%
10%
Excellent Good Average
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 33
AWARENESS BUILDING 
Figure 20: Recreational activities for awareness-raising 
The following recreational activities were mentioned by the 240 survey respondents: 
 Football: 36 respondents (15 percent); 
 Dramas: 67 respondents (28 percent); 
 Radio programs: 101 respondents (42 percent); and, 
 Others: 36 respondents (15 percent). 
Radio Program Drama Football Other
42%
28%
15% 15%
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 34
Figure 21: Effectiveness of the approach used for the sensitization for pacific cohabitation by site 
 Dramas: 72 responses (30 percent); 
 Football matches: 48 responses (20 percent); 
 Radio programs: 74 responses (31 percent); and, 
 Other activities: 46 responses (19 percent). 
Radio Dramas Football Other
31% 30%
20% 19%
Most effective awareness raising 
strategies
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 35
ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ESTABLISHED 
STRUCTURES 
Figure 22: Evaluation of the sustainability of LMCs 
Of the 240 respondents: 
 174 respondents (73 percent) were confident about the continuity of LMCs beyond the project cycle; and, 
 66 individuals (28 percent) think LMCs will no longer exist because the members have no motivation for 
their work.
72%
28%
Are you confident about the 
sustainability of the LMCs
Yes No
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 36
APPENDIX B. PHOTOGRAPHS 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 37
APPENDIX C. SCOPE OF WORK 
USAID/DRC MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PROJECT 
MSI & CRS EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK (SoW) 
1. PURPOSE
This statement of work presents a plan for an evaluation to be conducted for the USAID/DRC Peace and 
Stability office on two current projects, the: 
1. Promoting Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project (MSI), and 
2. Mobilizing Communities for Reconciliation in Eastern Congo Project (CRS). 
Both projects provide development assistance for community reconciliation and peace building. They are 
similar in the geographic area they cover in South Kivu in addition to North Kivu for MSI, and time period in 
which they operate, but differ in their programming and in amount of resources available to carry out 
activities. Details are provided below. 
Project Award 
Amount
Time Period Geographic Coverage
Promoting Stabilization and 
Community Reintegration Project 
(MSI)
$15,000,000 10/1/2009 –
9/29/2011
Eastern Congo:30 
communities in North & 
South Kivu
Mobilizing Communities for 
Reconciliation in Eastern Congo 
Project (CRS).
$596,978 8/1/2009 –
7/31/2011*
Eastern Congo: 18 
communities in South Kivu 
Province
*It is our understanding that the CRS project has been extended an additional year. 
With agreement of the USAID Programs Office and the Peace and Stability team, the M&E Project proposes 
to include both projects in the same general evaluation framework. Combining both enables the evaluation 
team to better compare and contrast the two different projects and to draw some lessons learned for future 
programming. Additionally, the dTS project will be better able to organize its resources for this work. 
Though the projects share many similarities, differences in programming approach and resource level requires 
us to treat each program separately in the evaluation, though coordinated under the same general framework. 
For all practical purposes, both projects are in mid-program phase, and this evaluation serves as an 
independent mid-program review. The specific audience for materials resulting from this evaluation is 
USAID/DRC technical and program staffs, with the purpose to better understand the community-level 
approach and provide information to be used in designing follow-on projects under this area. 
II. BACKGROUND
The overarching goal of U.S. foreign assistance is enabling stability in the DRC, as stated in the Country 
Assistance Strategy (CAS) the Mission now operates under. The USAID/DRC’s Peace and Stability Office’s 
priority goal is to increase stability by mitigating the causes and consequences of conflict in the country. The 
CAS lists two focal areas of this objective: 
1. Promote conflict prevention mitigation and resolution, as well as stabilization and recovery, with an initial 
focus on the ongoing tensions in Eastern DRC. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 38
2. Promote security sector reform and professionalization of the Congolese armed forces and police. 
Both projects included in this proposed evaluation fall under the first item. The approaches listed under the 
first focal area include: 
 Direct support to the Amani (Kivus) Peace, Security, and Development process, including technical 
assistance and material support for peace-building activities. 
 Support of stabilization and recovery activities, including a) security – disengagement and disarmament, 
integration into the army or reintegration into civilian life; b) political – negotiations; c) extension of state 
authority – establishing essential services of the state, including police presence; and d) return and 
reintegration – internally displaced persons, refugees and ex-combatants as well as community-based 
recovery, and care and treatment of victims of conflict. 
 Address other drivers of conflict such as land tenure and competition for natural resources and issues that 
may arise in the run-up to elections or because of historical tensions. 
The two projects address a combination of these approaches in varying extent. 
1. Promoting Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project (PSCRP)3
The MSI project’s objective is to promote peace, and in the process create short-term peace dividends in 
North and South Kivu. The program is expected to achieve short-term results that are visible within six 
months by ‘hitting-the-ground-running’ and working closely and directly with local communities. USAID 
identifies four intermediate results in PSCRP’s statement of work:
 Improved or increased productive infrastructure 
 Strengthened social mechanisms for community empowerment and transformation 
 Enhanced participatory local governance with community and civil society organizations 
 Extended reintegration of marginalized people into communities. 
MSI is teamed up with International Alert (IA) for this project. IA carries the community conflict resolution 
component of the work. 
PSCRP has been active in 17 communities: 
North Kivu South Kivu 
Kiwandja Hombo
Rutshuru Izege 
Ntamugenga Kamanyola 
Kingi Mulamba 
Kibumba Bwegera 
 
3
 PSCRP COP Herve de Baillenx and DCOP Sarah Hughes were interviewed in preparation for this document. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 39
Kimoka Mutarule 
Sake Sange 
Karuba Kalundja 
Baraka 
Ituri, a third district, was dropped from MSI’s scope of work due to funding issues.
PSCRP works through establishing/strengthening Peace Committees and Development Committees in target 
locations. The Peace Committees were established first. There are some issues concerning the non-elective 
process by which committee members were selected. The Peace Committees have emerged to take on some 
substantial issues and call upon state authorities to address their issues. 
Building upon this, the communities elected members to the Development Committees, which focus on 
reaching community agreements around a reconstruction agenda. Through this process, PSCRP imparts skills 
of accountability and funds management, along with conflict resolution, to committee members, and, by 
involvement, with the larger community. 
These committee structures provide a mechanism for inclusion, ensuring ex-combatants and other priority 
groups are involved in the process and activities. However, project staff emphasize that PSCRP does not 
specifically target reintegration of ex-combatants and refugees. Rather it serves a broader community 
reconciliation and peace building agenda. 
The program does not focus on these target groups, which would serve to isolate them from the community 
according to program management. The program ensures members of these groups are included in the 
activities. 
A key component of this program is the small grants program. Small grants for small community 
reconstruction projects made up the first phase of the program. These projects are all due to be completed by 
the end of January 2011. Bigger grants (up to $50,000) for larger infrastructure projects are the focal point of 
the second phase of the program, which is now under way. Project management stresses the importance that 
the grant component makes in their work. 
The work of the Peace Committees begins to lose traction after an initial period. The reconstruction grants 
provide an incentive for community members, through the Development Committees, to continue working 
together for a common good. Important skills are imparted to committee members in the process of deciding 
the target for the grant. (To date, all grants have been awarded for infrastructure projects.) Part of the learning 
process is to resolve conflicts that emerge when deciding upon use of the reconstruction grants. Long-term 
sustainability will be evidenced through the establishment/strengthening of provincially based NGOs and the 
ongoing functioning of peace committees after project support ends. 
Program management provided the following points for consideration in the evaluation: 
 MSI chose the sites for program intervention and got USAID approval for the selected sites. In some 
cases, conditions, which made work unfeasible in one community or area, would also affect other areas 
that shared the basic characteristics or factors. 
 The program is not intended to specifically benefit marginalized groups, but to ensure they are included in 
the process. There was a high rate of involvement of marginalized group members at the beginning of the 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 40
project, but this has declined when they discovered they would not receive special treatment through the 
program. 
 Reintegration of ex-combatants is not emphasized as a separate activity or goal of the project. 
The time frame of the project makes it difficult to see sustained results. Part of their mandate is to coordinate 
with the rollout of the government reconstruction program, which is still to occur. Also, using a participatory 
community approach to reconstruction is not the most efficient way to achieve quick results. Mentoring 
community committees requires much training and this calls heavily upon program resources. When 
measuring the results achieved by the infrastructure grants, one must also account for the social benefit 
achieved through the participatory approach, rather than evaluate the work completed without this context. In 
other words, one may expect to see more achieved if these projects had been directly contracted outside the 
participatory community process. 
2. Mobilizing Communities for Reconciliation in Eastern Congo Project (MCREC)4
The goal of the CRS MCREC project is to avert violent conflicts in conflict-affected communities in South 
Kivu. MCREC seeks to mobilize communities for reconciliation by developing the capacity to manage and 
resolve conflict, enabling them to provide assistance to help people manage trauma and feelings for revenge, 
and promote the will to engage in the reconciliation process. 
USAID has assigned three objectives to this program: 
1. Ex-combatants no longer threaten local communities with violence, with two intermediate results: 
a. Ex-combatant groups accept non-violence agreements with local communities 
b. LMCs are engaged in managing sustainable reconciliation processes with ex-combatant groups 
2. Ex-combatants and returning IDPs and refugees reintegrate nonviolently into 18 target communities in 
southern South Kivu Province, with three intermediate results: 
a. Local conflict-resolution mechanisms are strengthened 
b. Women, youth, faith-based and other local groups are involved in reconciliation activities 
c. 18 target communities adopt action plans to ensure the nonviolent reintegration of ex-combatants and 
returning IDPs and refugees 
3. 18 inter-ethnic or religious-identity conflicts have been settled, with one intermediate result: 
a. Ethnic or faith communities in conflict are engaged in dialog for conflict-resolution and reconciliation 
efforts. 
4. CRS works with the Diocesan Justice and Peace Commission (CJPC) of Uvira to implement program 
activities in the Uvira, Mwenga, and Fizi territories of South Kivu: 
Uvira Mwenga Fizi 
Uvira Center Mwenga Center Fizi Center 
 
4CRS Head of Programs Aude Saldana Cazenave and MCREC Project Manager Martin Biayi Mutombo were interviewed in 
preparation for this document. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 41
Kalundu Kasika Baraka 
Kiliba Kamituga Mulweba 
Luvungi Kitutu Mboko 
Kamanyola 
The MCREC Project provides reconciliation training, conflict resolution skills and training, and sustainable 
reconciliation activities in the 18 target communities in which it works. The project works through the Local 
Mediation Committees (LMCs), which they have established and continue to support in 13 of the 18 target 
communities: 5 in Uvira, 4 in Fizi, and 4 in Mwenga. 
In Year 1, the project established 13 LMCs, working with the CJPC and target communities to select leaders 
and CSO members. In total they have recruited 156 LMC members to manage the process of reconciliation. 
These members are not paid for this work. Training occurs once every two months, and topics include SGBV, 
human rights, land problems, access to power, reconciliation, mediation, and peace. This is a training of 
trainers (TOT) program and LMC members are expected to pass this knowledge and skills on to the larger 
community. 
Concurrently, the project is mandated to resolve 18 inter-ethnic or religious-identity conflicts in these 
communities. The conflict resolution process began with a baseline study that identified138 conflicts. Of 
these, LMC members confirmed that 127 remain current. The LMCs, with CJPC direction, chose 20 conflicts 
they wished to work on. MCREC reports that 19 of these have been resolved by this date. 
The project also provides support for community gardens as one mechanism for community reconciliation. 
Leaders of the conflicting groups select the workers for the garden in each target area. Produce grown there is 
divided among the workers and is used to provide resources to maintain the gardens in the future. By the end 
of January 2011, six have been established. 
Another MCREC activity is a sensitization program, which is essentially a communications effort targeting 
knowledge, attitudes, and behavior on such issues as land disputes and legal processes to resolve them. These 
activities include radio broadcasts, theatrical productions, and ‘sensitization sessions’ of an unspecified nature.
Reconciliation rituals are another feature of the program. 
Long-term sustainability is to be achieved through continuation of the LMCs and community gardens after 
project completion. Additionally, one would expect some change in behavior, or increased knowledge 
associated with attitude change, resulting from the sensitization program among the wider community. 
Ultimately, a sign of sustainable impact would be the ongoing resolution of the conflicts solved by the LMCs, 
and an enduring base of skills and knowledge remaining in the communities to resolve future conflicts that 
may emerge after the project has passed. 
III. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
Evaluation approach 
This evaluation will be a mid-program review of both the MSI and CRS projects. The overall purpose is to 
provide insights into the community reconciliation process. These inputs will assist USAID in mid-program 
corrections they may take. The evaluation will also provide guidance for the drafting of future program 
initiatives in this area. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 42
Both projects will be evaluated using the same evaluation strategy, will use the same evaluation team, and will 
be fielded during the same time period. Combining these evaluations will increase the team’s focus on the 
central issues of these projects: the community reconciliation process, what works and what does not, factors 
that increase or limit the sustainability of these interventions. The projects will be evaluated separately in terms 
of the expectations expected from each, the different environments they may be working in, as well as the 
different elements of their program activities. 
Overall objectives of this evaluation are to: 
1. Assess the implementation of USAID/DRC community reconciliation programming as evidenced by 
these projects; 
2. Document the successes achieved toward community reconciliation and any peace dividends that may 
have resulted; 
3. Identify strengths, weaknesses, challenges, and current trends in these initiatives that have implications for 
strengthening their future managerial, programmatic and funding directions; 
4. Analyze the potential for sustainability of the structures established or strengthened for community 
reconciliation that are being developed by these projects; and to, 
5. Develop materials to communicate USAID/DRC’s accomplishments in community reconciliation and 
peace building. 
Specific assessment objectives: 
The specific objectives of the assessment are as follows: 
 Analyze the security and political environment in the communities these projects operate in. Social unrest 
and violence create environments in which projects cannot successfully operate, or expect their staff to 
work in. These conditions, where they exist, must be assessed. The nature of these projects requires that 
the implementing partners operate in a recognized level of threat due to the nature of the work they agreed 
to undertake. There is a level, to be determined, where the environmental factors exceed reasonable 
operating conditions. 
 Assess the similarities and differences between these two projects and determine the relative impact these 
factors have had on success. 
 Determine the extent of any peace dividends that are being achieved by either program. 
 Estimate the sustainability of the community initiatives toward resolving future conflict and promoting 
ongoing reconciliation. 
 Identify benefits attributing to different subpopulations within these communities with reference to ethnic 
and religious groups; ex-combatants; IDPs, refugees, and returnees; and SGBV victims and OVC. 
 Document results achieved to date and indicate the extent that future programming efforts may further 
this achievement. 
IV. METHODOLOGY, DELIVRABLES, PLANNING, AND LOGISTICS
A. Methodology 
Methodologies for this assessment will include: 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 43
Review of project documentation. The project team will review, as necessary, archived material related to 
both projects, as well as other information available in USAID DRC files, as needed, to finalize the evaluation 
instruments. This review has already begun. This review will include quarterly reports submitted by the two 
projects. 
Assessment of the security and political situation. Both projects operate in areas prone to violence and 
insecurity. The evaluation team will work with the Peace and Stability team to assess the extent that program 
activities may have been set back in specific areas due to factors outside their control, which should be taken 
into consideration during the evaluation. Quarterly reports submitted by the projects are a starting point for 
this analysis in that they regularly identify security and/or political factors that limit their operations. One 
possible way to address this issue is by constructing a hazard scale for each community, in which: 
1 = normal political and/or security conditions that are expected for these communities and should 
present no unusual operational problems for the implementing team. 
2 = adverse political and/or security conditions that may hinder, but not stop, program activities. 
3 = open conflict or political instability that stops program activities for a set period of time or 
entirely halts operations. 
The scale would serve as a weight to be used when assessing program implementation and successes achieved 
to date. It would serve to discount lack of achievement in areas due to factors outside the reasonable control 
of the implementing partner. The evaluation team will work with the USAID Peace and Stability to develop 
this analysis. The next step would be to review this assessment with the implementing partners. 
Data Collection. To facilitate the collection of quantitative and qualitative data, the following tools will be 
developed: 
A. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) among committee members (LMCs, Peace Committees, Development 
Committees) in target communities. The purpose of the FGDs is to uncover underlying issues and factors 
determining the community reconciliation process, the program’s contribution to peace building in the 
communities, and perceived differences between subgroups in participation and benefits received from the 
perspective of the direct beneficiaries of program activities. The discussions also provide indication of the 
impact training has had on those most connected to program activities. An additional FGD will be conducted 
in each location with community members who did not participate in any of the committees. 
Representative discussion topics include:5
 The background of conflict in their community. 
 Which conflicts have been reconciled during the time period of the program? How were these conflicts 
resolved? Would these conflicts have been resolved without assistance from the project? 
 What is the potential for future conflict in their community? What will the conflicts concern? What is their 
estimate of their ability to resolve these potential conflicts? What will be required to maintain peace in their 
communities? 
 
5 NOTE: Not all topics are relevant to all committees or to both programs. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 44
 What are the most important tools and resources they have gained to promote and maintain peace in their 
community as a result of participation in these projects? 
 What are their upcoming plans for implementing project activities? How hopeful are they to achieve 
results from this process? 
 What is the future for these committees when the project ends? How do they envision building upon and 
maintaining what they have accomplished? 
 Will peace and reconciliation continue in their communities after the projects end? 
B. Key Informant Interviews will be conducted with representatives of special groups. Among these are: 
Representatives of the Justice and Peace Commission. Possible topics include: the process in which conflicts 
were chosen for LMC action, issues and obstacles overcome in managing the LMCs; results achieved; factors 
that stopped program success; potential for sustainability; factors required to maintain and build upon 
community reconciliation. 
Community leaders. Possible topics include: how members were selected for inclusion in these committees; 
examples of how the work done by the committees benefited their community; what conflict has been 
resolved as a result; what is the potential for future conflict in their community; how will participation in the 
project help maintain peace and promote reconciliation; what is their estimate of sustainability for the 
committees and progress achieved after the program ends. 
Leaders of special groups. Representatives will be selected from different ethnic-religious subgroups within 
the community, as well as from special populations including women, SGBV and OVC advocates or care 
providers, ex-combatants. Possible topics include: 
Local and Regional Government Officials. Possible topics include: How does the work done by the different 
committees contribute to or deter the work they are doing toward reconciliation and peace building; what 
successes have they observed, if any, in the work done by these projects; what is the potential for future 
conflict in these communities, and how will the experiences gained from the project affect this; what is their 
assessment of the future sustainability of these initiatives and what factors may increase or decrease this 
potential. 
C. Community survey to have a quantitative estimation of the benefits perceived from program activities in 
their communities. The purpose of the community survey is to gauge the wider impact achieved from these 
projects on the community level. The community survey will include a beneficiary component to track and 
assess the differential benefits obtained directly through participation in program activities or indirectly as a 
result of beneficial outcomes realized in their community. 
Possible topics include: 
 Conflict 
- How bad has conflict been in their community over the past three years? 
- What are the most important conflicts they have had? 
- What are the most important conflicts that are still to be resolved? 
- How is the situation now in their community with regards to conflict? 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 45
 Reconciliation 
- What efforts have been made in their community to resolve conflicts between groups? 
- Is reconciliation working? Why or why not? 
- Is reconciliation important to them? 
- What suggestions do they have for the reconciliation process? 
 Awareness 
- Do they know about any activities carried out in their community to help resolve conflict? What are 
these? 
- Have they heard anything about the committees (LMC/Peace Committee/Development Committee)? 
- Do they know anyone who works on any of these committees? Do they work on one of the 
committees? 
- Have they ever attended any meetings conducted by these committees? 
- Do they know about the community gardens? What is the purpose of these gardens? How does the 
community benefit from them? 
- Do they know of any reconstruction projects carried out by these projects? What was accomplished by 
this reconstruction? 
- How important to them is the (item constructed) to the community? To them personally? 
 Sensitization 
- Have they seen any materials or information regarding conflict and different issues that cause conflict 
in their community? 
- What information have they seen or heard? From what source? 
- Do they know of any theater events about community conflict and reconciliation? Did they ever attend 
one of these events? 
- Have they heard anything on the radio about community conflict and reconciliation? When was this? 
What do they remember about it? 
 Future outlooks 
- Will there be reconciliation in their community in the near future? 
- What may cause conflict in the future? 
- How useful will these reconciliation efforts be toward maintaining peace?
- Are these committees important? Should they continue? 
- What is the best cost-effective way to reach the desired outcome within the target communities? 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 46
4. Sampling 
Sampling will be needed on four levels: 
1. Selection of communities. The first step is to determine which communities may be omitted because 
conflict and/or political conditions have halted program operations. The next step is to identify the several 
communities in which both projects are active, and select them. As a final step, a sample should be 
selected from those communities that remain. Criteria for selection should be the degree of hazard in each 
community (a selection from the different categories), the extent of program activities (selecting the most 
and least successful), geographic coverage, and the different subgroups and/or conflicts involved. The 
evaluation team will work jointly with USAID to select these communities. 
2. Recruitment for FGDs. Discussion group participants will include all current members of the different 
committees in each selected community. An effort will be made to identify members that are no longer 
active in the committee, and to interview them separately. 
3. Selection of key informants. The evaluation team will work with the two projects to identify the CJPC 
representatives, community leaders, and local and regional state officials to be interviewed. Representatives 
of special subgroups within each community will be selected following discussions with community leaders 
and implementing partner program staff. 
4. Community surveys. The evaluation team will need to determine the best methodology to use when 
conducting community surveys from among the several different approaches that may be used. The 
guiding criteria will be that the surveys are representative of the social characteristics of each community, 
and that valid survey research methodology is used. Determining the appropriate methodology requires a 
review of best practices used in this area given the communities involved, and requires more consideration 
into this question than possible in this draft.6
B. Deliverables 
Expected outputs of the assessment are: 
 Detailed documentation of USAID Peace and Stability community reconciliation programming in the 
Eastern DRC. 
 One brief results summary of USAID/DRC Peace and Stability efforts utilizing data collected through the 
evaluation. 
 Draft recommendations for future community reconciliation programming. 
Draft Evaluation Report Outline 
The evaluation report will include the following items: 
I. Executive Summary: Key findings and recommendations 
II. Introduction and Background 
Definition of the problem 
Summary of projects 
 
6 For example, a random household survey may not be possible given lack of statistical information about household and community 
structure. The security situation may not allow for unknown interviewers to wander around the community. These issues need to be 
determined and the best methodology developed given the environment. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 47
III. Program Results 
Relevance: How well do the projects focus on their goals? 
Effectiveness: Are the projects accomplishing their objectives? 
Impact: To what extent are the projects benefitting the people in the target communities? 
Sustainability and Replication: Are the activities and results likely to be sustained after the project is 
completed? To what extent can the activities and results of the project be replicated? 
IV. Considerations for special populations and gender 
V. Conclusions 
VI. Recommendations for future USAID programming 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 48
APPENDIX D. QUESTIONNAIRE 
Annex E.1. Survey questionnaire for project beneficiaries
SITE OF: …………………Territory of ……………. Province of…………….
Data collection date: …………………………………………………………
Interviewer: ……………………………………………………………………………
Theme I: Identification of interviewee 
1.1. Gender: …………………………………………………………………………….
1.2. Function in the community: ……………………………………………………..
Theme II: Conflicts and their resolution 
2.1. Do conflicts exist in your villages? 
- Yes
- No
- No responses 
2.2. If yes, what type of conflicts? 
- Succession conflicts 
- Marital conflicts
- Community conflicts 
- Power conflicts 
- Ethnic conflicts 
- Land conflicts 
- Leadership conflicts 
- Other ……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….....
…......................................................................................................................................
2.3. Who are responsible for or actors of conflicts? 
- Breeders 
- Farmers 
- Traditional authorities 
- Public/State power 
- Other ……………………………………………………………………………………
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 49
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
2.4. Why do conflicts exist in our village? 
- Unequal distribution of lands 
- Confiscation of power by one ethnic group 
- Animal straying 
- Ethnic intolerance 
- Political leaders fuel conflicts 
- Other ………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………..
2.5. What are the conflicts considered resolved? 
- Land conflicts 
- Traditional conflict 
- Ethnic conflicts 
- Succession conflicts 
- None
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………
2.6. What strategies are resorted to resolve conflicts? 
- Mediation 
- Conciliation 
- Army or police 
- Force by one ethnic group imposing itself on another 
- Faith based groups 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………
2.7. Is the strategy good or bad? If bad, which one seems adapted? 
…………………………………………………………………………..
2.8. Do you have another structure intervening in conflict resolution? 
Yes No
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 50
2.9. If yes, which one? 
- Peacemaking committee initiated by the State 
- Justice and Peace Commission 
- Baraza/forum of elders 
- Peace core 
- Reconciliation Committee 
- Other ……………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
2.10. How many conflicts have been settled through this structure? 
……………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
2.11. Where are persistent conflicts in your village? 
- Land conflicts 
- Traditional conflicts
- Ethnic conflicts 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Theme III: Marginalized groups in the communities 
3.1. What are marginal groups existing in your village? 
- Women associated with armed groups 
- Pygmies 
- Demobilized 
- Raped 
- Displaced 
- Returnees
- HIV/AIDS patients 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………….
3.2. Is there a structure tackling the integration of such groups into the community? 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 51
Yes No.
3.3. If yes, which one? 
- Peace core 
- Development local committee 
- Public/State power 
- Inter-community barza/forum 
- Other ……………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………………
3.4. What are the signs of an integration of marginalized persons within the community? 
- The marginalized and the population work together in community works 
- The marginalized speak out in public 
- The marginalized occupy responsibility positions like others 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
3.5. Give an estimate of the number of integrated and nonintegrated persons within the community in your 
village? 
Theme IV: Infrastructures 
4.1. Is there a structure in charge of the improvement, rehabilitation and construction of infrastructures in 
your locality, in your village? 
If yes, which ones? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
4.2. What/have this/these structure(s) achieved in your village? 
School 
Bridge 
Dispensary/Clinic 
Other (to be specified) ………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………
4.3. Are you satisfied with this/these achievement (s)? Yes No
Why …………………………………………………………………………..
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 52
……………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………..
4.4. Do you think that those achievements are sustainable? 
Yes No
Why …………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………..
……………………………………………………………………………………..
Theme V: Participation in the local governance of the community structures of the civil society 
5.1. Are there legally established institutions in your village? Yes No
5.2. If yes, which ones? 
- Locality chief 
- Grouping chief 
- Territory administrator 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………
5.3. Are there parallel institutions established by any armed group in your village/locality/grouping/territory? 
 - Locality chief 
 - Grouping chief 
 - Territory administrator 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………….
5.4. If yes, why? 
- Weak State authority 
- Rebellion consequences persist 
- There are many conflicts 
- Other ……………………………………………………………………………………...
5.5. Do you have information on the legal texts governing the management of your entity? 
Yes No
5.6. If yes, which ones? 
- The Constitution 
- The land law 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 53
- The mining law 
- Other …………………………………………………………………………………….
5.7. Are you satisfied with the services provided to the grouping/locality by the project of community 
mobilization for peace building? Yes No
If yes, which ones ? …………………………………………………………………
If no, why? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.8. What are the positive or negative changes obtained through services provided by the project? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Theme VI: Collaboration between actors 
How do you assess the collaboration between project managers and local, provincial and other authorities 
(STAREC, International NGOs, local NGOs…)?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………
Theme VII: Sensitization 
7.1. Cite recreational activities organized in the village by the peace consolidation committees? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
7.2. Which approach has been most efficient in sensitizing about community cohesion? 
Peacemaking radio programs; 
Plays; 
Inter-community football matches 
Other inter-community recreational activities 
Theme VIII: Assessment and suggestions for the future 
8.1. How do you assess the sustainability of mediation and development committees after the end of the 
project? 
These committees are likely to continue to work even after the end of the project; 
The future of these committees is uncertain. These committees run the risk of disappearing after the end of 
the project. 
N.B.: Any response obtained will be supported by an argumentation: 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 54
Annex E.2. Survey questionnaire for project managers and other key informants (LMC, 
CLD)
SITE OF …………………Territory of ……………. Province of…………….
Data collection date: …………………………………………………………
Interviewer: ……………………………………………………………………………
Theme I: Identification of the interviewee 
1.1. Gender: …………………………………………………………………………………
1.2. Position/function in the community ………………………………………………..
Theme II: Analysis of security and political context during the period extending from April 2009 to 
May 2011 
2.1. How do you assess the political and security situation which prevailed in your project scope of action 
during the period extending from April 2009 to May 2011?
Political and security situation 3/3 2/3 1/3 0/3
Normal, as it has enabled communities and project actors 
to go about their daily business without any worries;
Unstable, having enabled members of the community and 
other project actors to go about their daily business with 
interruption from time to time;
Unstable, having resulted in the interruption of the project 
implementation
Other assessment? 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………
2.2. Which of these political or security events have influenced the project implementation positively or 
negatively? 
Events Positive Influence Negative Influence 
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
The authority change at the entity level (province, 
municipality, quarter, village)?
The population attack by armed groups
Insecurity caused by bandits
Local population harassment by the military, police 
and local chiefs
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 55
If there are other events? Please describe: 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………….………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Theme III: Causes of conflicts 
3.1. What are the causes of inter-community conflicts in your area? (Several responses may be selected at a 
time) 
Bad management of lands by traditional authorities; 
Destruction of crops by animal straying; 
Bad local governance (bad public fund management); 
The problematic of the acquisition of the Congolese nationality; 
Other (to be specified) ……………………………………………………………….. ………………….
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Theme IV: Analysis of conflict resolution and of the level of reconciliation between communities 
4.1. What conflicts are encountered in your area? 
Conflicts between the authorities and the population due to forbidding the latter to exploit the park; 
Conflict between the natives and the immigrants considered as foreigners; 
Conflict between the returned persons and the inhabitants who have remained on the spot and who have 
been accused of usurping the returned persons’ property; 
Land conflict between well off persons and the poor following the usurpation of their lands; 
Conflict between breeders and farmers; 
Other (to be specified): ………………………..…………………………………………… 
.……………………………………………………………...…………………….................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................
4.2. How were the conflicts resolved with the support of the project? 
Through the mediation committee (peaceful resolution); 
Through the assistance of the project coordinators before the court; 
By force; 
Through the police or the military; 
Other mechanisms: 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 56
4.3. How did faith based groups get involved in conflict resolution? 
Through sensitizing conflicting parties on the basis of the word of God; 
Through preaching; 
Through meetings with conflicting parties; 
Through projects where conflicting parties are involved in the implementation (beneficiaries); 
Other (to be specified) …………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
4.4. According to your assessment, what is the positive impact noted within the community attributed to the 
project intervention in matters of reconciliation and the improvement of living conditions? 
Sincere reconciliation between members of the community; 
Tendency to reconciliation among members of the community; 
The increase in agricultural production and breeding through stability (specify the quantities by speculation if 
possible); 
Social infrastructure rehabilitation (to be specified by the interviewee); 
Security and free circulation of persons and their property; 
Improvement of housing conditions; 
Other positive effects: ……………………………………………………………
…………………………………..………………………………………………………… ………………… 
……………………………………………………………………
4.5. Do you think that peace and reconciliation have already been achieved in your community? 
Yes
No
N.B. Comment your stand/position:………………………………………...………..
.……………………………………………………………………………………………
Theme V: Assessment and suggestions for the future 
5.1. Taking into account your experience, what are the conflicts that you fear for the future? 
Conflicts between authorities and the population concerning the fact of forbidding the latter to exploit the 
park; 
Conflict between the natives and the immigrants considered as foreigners; 
Conflict between the returned persons and the inhabitants who have remained on the spot and who have 
been accused of usurping the formers’ property;
Land conflict between well off persons and the poor due to the usurpation of their lands; 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 57
Conflicts between breeders and farmers; 
Other conflicts (to be specified) ……………………………………………………………… 
………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………....................................................................................................... 
5.2. How do you assess the running of the mediation and development committees after the end of the 
project? 
These committees are likely to pursue their work even after the end of the project; 
The future of these committees is uncertain. These committees run the risk of disappearing after the end of 
the project. 
N.B.: Any response provided will be supported by an argumentation: 
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
5.3. What are your proposals for the remainder of the implementation period and the preparation for a new 
possible peace-building program? 
Maintain the working strategy with mediation committees; 
Training of local leaders in matters of local good governance, fair justice and a rule of law; 
Exploitation of local peace capacities for conflict resolution; 
Voluntary involvement of key actors in conflict resolution; 
Promoting the dialogue culture within and between communities; 
Promote the sharing of the same economic activities; 
Fighting corruption; 
Promote a fair justice for all; 
Other strategies to be put in place ………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Theme VI: Collaboration with actors 
6.1. How do you assess the collaboration between project managers and local, provincial and other authorities 
(STAREC, international NGO, local NGO…)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Theme VII: Sensitizing 
7.1. What is the sensitizing strategy for inter-community reconciliation which yielded the best result and why? 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 58
Annex E.3. Discussion Guide for Focus Groups
I. Proposed focus groups for semi-directive 
Members of mediation committee (not + than 10) 
Members of the development committees (not + than 10) 
Some persons having benefited from reintegration (not more than 10) 
Some project beneficiaries, non members of various committees 
Some youths (not more than 10) 
Some women (not more than 10)
Local leaders (not more than 10) 
The military and the police (not more than 5) 
II. Themes for discussion 
Theme 1. Conflict resolution and reconciliation (strengths and weaknesses) 
What is the progress noted in the region in matters of conflict resolution and reconciliation (strong points)? 
In any other domain are there any positive effects achieved following the implementation of this project? 
Are there any conflicts resolved through the support of this project? 
What are the infrastructures rehabilitated through this project? 
What are the strong points of this project? 
What are the weaknesses (difficulties) and the limits noted when implementing the project? 
Theme 2: Basic structures participation in local good governance, notably in conflict resolution 
What is your opinion concerning the work performed by mediation committees and development 
committees? Is their participation in this work pertinent? Efficient? Effective ! 
Theme 3: Reintegration of marginalized persons 
Can you estimate the number of persons having benefited from reintegration in your community, for instance 
ex-combatants, returned persons, women and children victims of war and sexual violence or other? 
What is the level of reintegration of these persons (total, partial reintegration, or none)?
What is the progress made concerning violence and other threats to the community posed by ex-combatants 
in the community (increase, stagnation, reduction)?
Theme 4: Suggestions for the future 
What are your proposals for the improvement of the work by the end of the project implementation and, 
possibly, the development of a new project/program? 
Thank you for granting us this interview. 
MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE MOBILIZING COMMUNITIES FOR RECONCILIATION PROJECT 59
APPENDIX E. KEY INFORMANTS 
Names Titles Date of 
interview
Location
Wabunga Singa Zebedde The administrator of the Uvira territory 13-May-11 Uvira
Tabu Charles The Army captain responsible for the protection of 
children
13-May-11 Uvira
Esube Aoci Richard The Chief community of Kalunja and his notables 14-May-11 Kalunja
Lukala Mubanda 
Dominique
The Chief Commander of the Makobola police 
station
14-May-11 Makobola
Binwa Lukundula 
Dominique
The secretary of the municipality of Makobola 14-May-11 Makobola
Martin Biayi The CRS MCREC Project Manager 13-May-11 Kamituga 
Abbé Jacques The CDJP Program Manager 13-May-11 Uvira
Group The members of LMCs of Kiliba 25-May-11 Kiliba
Group The members of LMCs of Uvira 24-May-11 Uvira
Group The members of LMCs of Luvungi 27-May-11 Luvungi
Group The members of LMCs of Baraka 25-May-11 Baraka
Group Members of the Makobola Police 14-May-11 Makobola
Group Members of the Military stationed in Fizi 27-May-11 Fizi
Group Returnees 27-May-11 Luvungi