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). MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE STABILIZATION AND COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION IN THE EAST OF THE DRC PROVINCES OF NORTH AND SOUTH KIVU IMPLEMENTED BY MSI AND INTERNATIONAL ALERT Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration 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 Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project iii MID-TERM EVALUATION REPORT OF THE STABILIZATIONAND COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION IN THE EAST OF THE DRC PROVINCES OF NORTH AND SOUTH KIVU IMPLEMENTED BY MSI AND INTERNATIONAL ALERT April 27, 2012 Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS On completing this evaluation, we are grateful to all the partners who contributed to its successful achievement. Our thanks are first addressed to USAID/DRC for its Peace and Stability program. Through this program, the US Government is contributing to peace building in the Democratic Republic of Congo. We also thank members of the provincial Government of North Kivu as well as the administrators of the Rutshuru, Nyiragongo and Masisi territories in North Kivu and the administrator in the Uvira territory in South Kivu and their collaborators. Their contribution has been of vital importance for facilitating contacts and analyzing the context or background against which the project has been implemented. We are grateful to the managerial team of MSI and International Alert for their valued collaboration. The documentation they kindly put at the disposal of the assessors enabled them to further understand the workings of the project. Our thankfulness also goes to the International Alert facilitators, to members of Local Development Committees (LDC) and Local Mediation Committees (LMC), as well as to the project recipients, for their availability and assistance, which benefited the team. The information on project achievements with regard to reconciliation, the integration of marginalized persons, and social and economic infrastructures construction, has enabled assessors to realize the level of progress achieved on the ground. We would also like to thank the investigators for having traveled extensively in the villages to administer the questionnaire to project beneficiaries. Everyone’s contribution has allowed us to determine the strengths and weaknesses prior to making useful recommendations for the continuation of the project and, possibly, for a future program. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project v ACRONYMS BEED Bureau d’Etudes et d’Expertises pour le Développement (Study and Appraisal Bureau for Development) LDC Local Development Committee (Comité Local de Développement) LMC Local Mediation Committee (Comité Local de Médiation) DRC Democratic Republic of Congo dTS Development and Training Services GDRC Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo IDP Internally Displaced Population MONUSCO Mission des Nations Unies pour la Stabilisation du Congo (United Nations Mission for the Stabilization of Congo) NGO Non-governmental Organization OVC Orphaned and Vulnerable Children PSCRP Promoting Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project RRC Relèvement et Reintegration Communautaire (Community Recovery and Reintegration) SGBV Sexual and Gender-Based Violence STAREC Programme de Stabilisation de zones sortant de conflit à l’Est du Congo (Program for the stabilization of zones emerging from conflict) USAID United States Agency for International Development Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project vi CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................iv Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................v Contents ....................................................................................................................................vi Appendices.............................................................................................................................. vii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 8 Introduction .............................................................................................................................10 Promoting Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project (PSCRP) ...................................10 Objective .................................................................................................................................................10 Partnership ..............................................................................................................................................10 Utilization of Funds ...............................................................................................................................10 Intervention Zones ................................................................................................................................11 Beneficiaries ............................................................................................................................................11 Special Groups .......................................................................................................................................11 Objectives of the Evaluation ...............................................................................................................11 Methodology ............................................................................................................................13 Sampling ........................................................................................................................................................13 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................14 Beneficiary Survey........................................................................................................................................14 Focus Groups and Key Informants ..........................................................................................................17 Assessment of the Project ..........................................................................................................................19 Relevance .................................................................................................................................................19 Effectiveness ...........................................................................................................................................19 Impact ......................................................................................................................................................20 Sustainability ...........................................................................................................................................20 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................22 Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project vii APPENDICES Appendix A. Tables and Figures .............................................................................................24 Appendix B. Survey Questionnaire ..........................................................................................46 Appendix C. Discussion Guide for Focus Groups...................................................................53 Appendix D. Individuals Met and Other Key Informants .......................................................55 Appendix E. Survey Questionnaire for Project Managers and Other Key Informants (LMC, LDC) ............................................................................................................................56 Appendix F. Photos ................................................................................................................. 61 Appendix G. Scope of Work .....................................................................................................62 Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project operated from October 2009 to September 2011 as part of a larger donor effort to achieve community reconciliation in the war-torn provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Its specific objectives were as follows: (a) increased peace dividends; (b) reinforced social mechanisms for community reconciliation; (c) increased community and civil society participation in local governance; and (d) increased reintegration of marginalized persons. Building community infrastructure was an important component for promoting integration, reintegration and reconciliation. Evaluators viewed the project as largely successful in achieving its objectives for community stabilization and reconciliation. It contributed to strengthening local peace building capacities, mobilizing local social organizations for conflict resolution, building community mediation processes, resolving a large number of conflicts, increasing women’s involvement in community decision making, and increasing the integration of marginalized persons (though success with that group was below expectation). The evaluation also revealed a number of challenges/needs for this type of community reconciliation and peace building in the DRC’s Kivu provinces: (a) the need for increased assistance to resolve land disputes – particularly when also linked to ethnic tensions – and basic training for Local Mediation Committee (LMC) members in land law; (b) unevenness in the skills of LMCs and the need to train some of those organizations; (c) the need for “companion projects” that specifically address marginalized groups; (d) adaptation of project structure for large communities; and (e) the need for more recognition of LMC members who donate a substantial amount of their time to mediation efforts. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of this evaluation, the following recommendations are offered: To MSI/DRC  Strengthen LMC member skills with specific training in conflict mediation and basic legal training in land law in order to reduce inconsistencies between the adjudication of land disputes via land law and adjudication via traditional means of conflict resolution.  Develop strategies to recognize the contribution of LMC members through non-monetary measures such as training and official training certificates, ceremonies to honor LMC members, promoting self-efficacy and empowerment among members, and other normative types of recognition for the role of LMC members through awareness-raising efforts to contribute to greater ownership of peace building efforts.  Increase the scope of effective awareness-raising measures for the role and peace dividends of structures such as LMCs in order to reach larger numbers of the population. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 9 To the Government of DRC (GDRC)  With provincial and local authorities, build on the collaborative base developed by structures such as LMCs and Local Development Committees (LDCs) to promote reconciliation and resolution of conflicts through peaceful means and by recourse to the informed knowledge of legal measures.  Resolve long-standing conflicts over prior occupancy and traditional rights by providing a long-term solution to land disputes (including livestock herding related ones) via updating land laws and developing a viable legal system for adjudicating land disputes.  Provide LMCs and LDCs and land parallel structures with technical support through specialized central units that are skilled in land laws and the arbitration of land disputes.  Implement a full cadastral survey in order to provide landowners with land titles.  Create stronger liaisons and higher collaboration for complementary projects between local development committees and provincial authorities to address the particular needs of marginalized groups in different areas (including health, protection, legal, income generation, etc.).  Advocate for and secure funding for community development needs that are potential sources of conflict, and which cannot be addressed with only community resources, such as awareness-raising programs, technical support in land and mineral laws, and assistance in agricultural areas of common interest. To USAID/DRC  Provide technical assistance to the GDRC to update land laws and implement a full cadastral survey to provide landowners with land titles.  Provide technical and financial assistance to the GDRC to address the needs of marginalized groups through comprehensive programming.  Lobby for funding for “companion” projects to promote greater utilization of newly built or ongoing socioeconomic infrastructures like health centers and schools.  Lobby for funding to increase the scale and scope of conflict-resolution socioeconomic infrastructure program components to increase the real peace dividends for communities from those efforts by absorbing larger numbers of people, especially from marginalized groups. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 10 INTRODUCTION 1993 was the beginning of a cycle of inter-ethnic conflicts over the issue of land and indigenous claims in the provinces of North and South Kivu that was followed by successive liberation wars and power struggles. The Goma conference on peace, security and development for the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu (January 2008) paved the way for a sustainable peace in the region. Eastern DRC, however, continues to be marked by sporadic power struggles and ethnic tensions. The overarching goal of US foreign assistance is to promote peace and stability in the DRC, as stated in the Country Assistance Strategy (CAS). The Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project falls under the CAS focal area of promoting conflict prevention, mitigation and resolution, stabilization and recovery, with an initial focus on the ongoing tensions in Eastern DRC. PROMOTING STABILIZATION AND COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION PROJECT (PSCRP) Funded by USAID, the PSCRP aims to achieve peace and stability in Eastern DRC by means of peaceful conflict resolution. The project is implemented by MSI in partnership with International Alert (IA) for a two￾year period between October 2009 and September 2011. It is designed to address the concerns of the Congolese population in North and South Kivu by also taking into account the community stabilization and community reintegration priorities addressed in MONUSCO’s Stabilization Strategy that supports STAREC and the provincial “relèvement et reintegration communautaire” (RRC) in South Kivu. OBJECTIVE The overall objective is to promote conciliation and recovery in the territories of Masisi and Rutshuru in North Kivu, and the territories of Uvira, Fizi and Walungu in South Kivu. The project has a community￾based approach with a view to reinforcing local capacities and empowering local institutions through a process of inclusive participation and management via basic structures (i.e., Local Development Committees (LDC) and Local Mediation Committees (LMC)). The project employs the construction and rehabilitation of socioeconomic infrastructures as a strategy to foster reconciliation through dialogue between members of the communities. PARTNERSHIP The project works in partnership with local non-governmental organizations (NGO) to reinforce local conflict resolution mechanisms. In South Kivu, the partners are SOPADI (Solidarité et Paix pour le Développement Intégré ), Dynamique Synergie des Femmes (Women’s Synergy Dynamic) and Pain pour Les Déshérités (Bread for the Disinherited). In North Kivu, they are HEAL Africa and Alpha Ujuvi. Local NGOs have been selected on the basis of their competence in supporting the program according to the following criteria: structure and management; capacity in community mobilization and conflict resolution; local knowledge and reputation; and donor experience. UTILIZATION OF FUNDS While the project provides financial support to partner NGOs, the actual funds go directly to communities, which are involved in the management of such resources through an ad hoc project committee. The distribution of funds to the project committee takes place within a stringent framework to guarantee transparency and accountability. The amount of the financial package is communicated to the community in advance. Although there has generally been good collaboration between project facilitators and the territory Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 11 administrators and other local authorities, at times such collaboration has proved difficult, as some local authorities have tried to control the funding destined for the communities (e.g., in Rutshuru and Kibumba). INTERVENTION ZONES The project is active in 17 communities in North and South Kivu, including Kiwandja, Rutshuru, Ntamugenga, Kingi, Kibumba, Kimoka, Sake, and Karuba in North Kivu, and Hombo, Izege, Kanyola, Kamanyola, Mulamba, Bwegera, Mutarule, Sange and Baraka in South Kivu. These intervention zones were determined through profile studies on communities in the Kivu provinces that were deemed likely to benefit from reconciliation and reintegration efforts. BENEFICIARIES The total number of direct beneficiaries in North and South Kivu is 284,485: 189,548 community members in North Kivu, and 94,937 in South Kivu. The populations benefiting from the project are organized into communities with numbers varying between 250 persons (the LDC in Bwegera in South Kivu) and 33,979 (the LDC in Mubambiro, Matcha and Kimoka in North Kivu). The project’s indirect beneficiaries, through more peaceful conditions, are the entire populations of the North and South Kivu provinces. SPECIAL GROUPS The project has been designed with particular attention to special groups, including ex-combatants, Pygmies other ethnic minority tribes, and women victims of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV). The mechanisms for the integration or reintegration of marginalized groups are as follows: Ex-combatants: Recruitment of ex-combatants in the construction and rehabilitation of infrastructures such as schools, health centers, bridges and markets; Pygmies: Promotion of their presence as members of LDCs, LMCs and other structures (which allows them to build relations with other community members, as well as become accountable as members of such committees), and their recruitment for the infrastructure work; Women victims of sexual violence: Awareness-raising on gender issues, referrals to appropriate legal authorities and health facilities; and, Minority tribes: Representation in community structures such as LDCs and LMCs, which allows them to become integrated into the community and also claim their rights. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION This report is a mid-term evaluation of the MSI/International Alert project on stabilization and community reintegration in the North and South Kivu. Its overall purpose is to provide insight into the community reconciliation process by examining the project’s relevance, effectiveness, impact and sustainability in targeted communities.1 Findings from this evaluation will allow the project to address its gaps, make mid-program corrections and provide suggestions for future initiatives in this area of intervention. The evaluation’s specific objectives are to examine the degree to which: a) social and economic dividends of peace have been enhanced in the targeted communities; b) social mechanisms for community reconciliation, mediation and conflict prevention have been reinforced; c) communities and civil society organizations have 1 The efficiency of the project is not determined due to the unavailability of financial reports at the time of the survey, which would have allowed for measuring the cost-effectiveness of the project. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 12 been involved in the local governance process; and d) marginalized persons (i.e., ethnic minorities, ex￾combatants, internally displaced people (IDPs), refugees, returnees, SGBV victims and orphaned and vulnerable children (OVC) have been reintegrated into their communities. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 13 METHODOLOGY The evaluation was conducted from April 24 to June 6, 2011 in the province of South Kivu by a team of investigators from the Bureau d’Etudes et d’Expertises pour le Développement (BEED, based in Goma), under the technical supervision of the dTS Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor and the USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist. Under the coordination of Hangi Binni, BEED Director, the mission consisted of the following persons:  Albert Umbi Lunula, BEED evaluator  Elie Kanyangara Kany, BEED evaluator  Hangibulenda Charles, BEED expert  Laurent Kopi, dTS Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor  Olivier Mumbere, USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist Desk reviews took place in Goma and Kinshasa, and training modules were developed for interviewers who were recruited with the assistance of partners in Goma, Kibumba, Rutshuru, Sake, Karuba, Bukavu and Uvira. The evaluation consists of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. It is composed of a survey questionnaire, as well as semi-structured focus group and key informant discussion questions. It also includes guidelines for assessing the quality of infrastructures (already built or under construction) and the availability of appropriate equipment at medical centers. The survey and focus group questionnaires were developed through a participatory process with the input of project stakeholders at all levels. SAMPLING The evaluation was conducted in Kiwandja, Kibumba, Sake and Karuba in the province of North Kivu, and in Kalundja and Mutarule in the province of South Kivu. These sites were selected in consultation with USAID according to geographic coverage, political and demographic characteristics, and scope of project activities. The survey sample size is 360 beneficiaries. The qualitative component of the evaluation consists of findings from focus group discussions with a total number of 23 participants, and semi-structured interviews with 27 key informants. The focus groups were composed of active members of LMCs and LDCs, community members (women and men), youth and ex￾combatants. Among the key informants were project managers,2 representatives of marginalized groups, members of the Peace and Justice Commission, community leaders, and local and regional government officials. 2 Twelve project managers were interviewed in total. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 14 KEY FINDINGS BENEFICIARY SURVEY The total sample size for the beneficiary survey was 360, composed of 211 males (58.6 percent) and 149 females (41.3 percent) (Annex A, Figures 1 and 1.1).3 The majority of respondents were farmers, followed by livestock herders/breeders (Annex A, Figures 2). Conflicts and their causes: Ninety-nine percent of respondents reported the presence of some form of conflict in their communities. The leading types of conflicts were related to land tenure and land use, reported by about 30 percent of respondents. They were followed by inter-ethnic (20 percent) and intercommunity conflicts (5 percent), that together accounted for 24 percent of identified conflicts, and leadership and power conflicts that, when combined, accounted for 23 percent. Approximately 15 percent of respondents identified marital conflicts; 7 percent reported conflicts related to inheritance (Annex A, Figure 3). Farmers (26 percent) and herders/breeders (32 percent) combined were identified by more than one-half of respondents (58 percent) as the principal agents of conflict, followed by traditional authorities (40 percent) (Annex A, Figure 4). This is not surprising, given that land disputes were the leading type of conflict. Land disputes were mainly centered around the inequitable distribution of land (35 percent), and straying of animals (32 percent). The two together were identified by 62 percent of respondents as the major causes of conflict (Annex A, Figure 5). The Kivu provinces are well known as a relatively densely populated area of the DRC, with much higher population pressure on available land than exists in many other parts. Although ethnic intolerance was reported by a relatively small percentage (6 percent) of respondents, it is important to note that land disputes and ethnic conflicts are intertwined in the Kivu provinces, with livestock herders and breeders often predominately from one ethnic group, and farmers from another. Conflict resolution: While 40 percent of respondents reported that inter-ethnic conflicts had been resolved in their communities, only a small percentage (7 percent) identified land disputes as having been resolved (Annex A, Figure 6). Similarly, 52 percent of respondents reported land disputes as a persisting type of conflict in their communities, compared to about 17 percent that identified ethnic conflicts as an ongoing problem (Annex A, Figure 7). It is important to interpret these results with caution. As mentioned before, land disputes and ethnic conflicts are closely associated in the Kivu provinces; ethnic conflicts are often masked by disputes related to land tenure and land use. Strategies and structures of conflict resolution: Mediation (44 percent) and conciliation (25 percent) were seen as being the most effective methods for resolving conflicts by far; the two combined were identified by 68 percent of surveyed respondents (Annex A, Figure 8), validating the project’s methods for conflict resolution. The conflict resolution structures that were identified by respondents were as follows: Peace Promotion committees (33 percent); Committees of the Wise (24 percent); LMCs (19 percent); Justice and Peace committees (14 percent); heads of families (7 percent); and other (3 percent) (Annex A, Figure 9). Conflict 3 Men were more readily available for the interviews than were women since most women were working in the fields at the time of the interviews. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 15 resolution structures such as Peace Promotion Committees and Committees of the Wise (associated with other conflict resolution projects in the community) can serve as important support structures for LMCs in bringing about peace and stability in target communities. Marginalized groups: SGBV survivors, persons living with HIV/AIDS, ex-combatants (men and women), IDPs and returnees, and Pygmies were all recognized by respondents as marginalized groups (Annex A, Figure 10). While the majority of respondents (72 percent) had knowledge of integration structures for marginalized groups, a relatively large minority (28 percent) did not have any knowledge of such structures (Annex A, Figure 11). This implies a need for additional effort to build public awareness for them. Roughly one-third (35 percent) of respondents identified Peace Promotion Committees as structures for the integration of the marginalized persons, followed by about another one-third (31 percent) who identified LMCs. Inter-community forums were mentioned by 16 percent of respondents as structures for integrating marginalized persons; other NGOs and faith-based organizations were identified by 15 percent (Annex A, Figure 12). Hence, with the exception of a small percentage (3 percent), respondents clearly viewed non￾public structures as being the most effective for dealing with marginalization. Most respondents (97 percent) recognized some evidence of the reintegration of marginalized persons, such as their ability to speak in public (35 percent), working with other community members (33 percent), holding positions of responsibility in various committees (15 percent), and “other” (16 percent) (Annex A, Figure 13). Socioeconomic infrastructures: The majority of the respondents (97 percent) had knowledge of already built or ongoing socioeconomic infrastructures in villages. Schools and health centers combined were reported by 68 percent of respondents (Annex A, Figure 14). Although the majority (66 percent) were satisfied with the socioeconomic infrastructures in their communities, more than one-third (34 percent) expressed dissatisfaction with such infrastructures (Annex A, Figure 15).4 On the other hand, 95 percent believed that the infrastructures built in their communities were well built, given that the majority were built with durable materials (Annex A, Figure 16). Legally recognized structures for conflict resolution: Almost all (99.6 percent) respondents recognized legally established institutions in their communities. The local and district chiefdoms (35 and 31 percent, respectively) took the lead as recognized legal institutions, together accounting for about 63 percent of respondents (Annex A, Figure 17). Local and district chiefdoms (16 percent and 22 percent, respectively) were also recognized as parallel legal structures, together accounting for 41 percent of respondents. Other parallel legal structures identified included the heads of administrative supervision, intelligence services, the army and National Police (39 percent), territory administrators (15 percent) and “other” (6 percent) (Annex A, Figure 18). These findings point to the position of chiefs as legal and/or “paralegal” authorities. Most respondents (44 percent) attributed the presence of parallel legal institutions to weaknesses of the State, followed by the consequences of rebellion (30 percent), ethnic intolerance (23 percent), and other types of conflicts (2 percent) (Annex A, Figure 19). 4 The survey did not ask the reason(s) for respondent dissatisfaction. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 16 Recognition of essential laws: Knowledge of essential laws, particularly those for land and mining, is low among the population, with only about 4 percent having knowledge of land law and another 4 percent of mining law (Annex A, Figure 20). Non-recognition of the Law on Land and the Mining Code is problematic for preventing conflict, since it increases the likelihood of exploitation by those with information of those who have no knowledge or are less knowledgeable. Resources thus need to be directed toward more public information and education on land and on mining laws, particularly in the mining areas, to avoid a continuing source of conflict. Similarly, only a small percentage (4 percent) had knowledge of Sexual Violence Law, and Child Rights (8 percent) (Annex A, Figure 20). This is an important concern, since lack of knowledge on these essential laws not only prevents survivors of sexual violence and child abuse to claim their rights, but also inhibits the recognition of such acts by the perpetrators as criminal and punishable by law. Satisfaction with project and project contributions: Although the majority (60 percent) expressed their satisfaction with the project’s achievement in peace building, a relatively large percentage of respondents (40 percent) were not satisfied.5 Kiwandja had not only the highest number of individuals expressing dissatisfaction, but also a larger number of persons expressing dissatisfaction than satisfaction with the project (Annex A, Figures 21 and 21.1). A majority (67 percent) similarly believed that the peace building and reconciliation structures were sustainable, while one-third (33 percent) did not feel they would sustain after project termination6 (Annex A, Figure 22). Collaboration among project partners: The project was viewed as strong with respect to partner collaboration. Most respondents (83 percent) felt there was good collaboration among project partners with respect to implementation and obtaining results; about 14 percent reported it as average, and about 3 percent as poor (Annex A, Figure 23). Awareness-raising: Folk and traditional dances took the lead in awareness-raising strategies (32 percent of respondents). They were followed by soccer matches (24 percent), radio messages (21 percent), theatre and play (18 percent), and “other” (5 percent) (Annex A, Figure 24). 5 The survey did not ask the reason(s) for respondent dissatisfaction. 6 The survey did not ask the reason(s) for which respondents considered the project sustainable or unsustainable. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 17 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. In larger communities, however, some beneficiaries are unaware or poorly informed of community structures such as LDCs and LMCs, due to the fact that leaders find it difficult to disseminate information on a large scale. There was not a general agreement regarding the LMCs’ educational and awareness-raising role in matters of development. The majority, however, agreed that there is popular support for resolving conflicts through mediation within community structures such as Peace Promotion Committees and LMCs over public legal structures, especially since the former do not demand service fees. In fact, in some areas (i.e., Mutarule, South Kivu) Peace Promotion Committees are recognized as the principal legitimate entities for conflict resolution. The ethnic diversity of the community structures also varies by community; some have a majority from the same ethnic group. Respondents were split about the practice of intermarriage between different ethnic groups. Many are still concerned about security in the territories, and do not believe that inter-ethnic communities (i.e., in Rutshuru and Karuba) have succeeded in living together peacefully. In fact, the majority attributed insecurity in both North and South Kivu to inter-ethnic conflicts and extreme hostilities (i.e., between Babembe and Banyamulenge) more than to national and foreign armed groups. The construction and rehabilitation of infrastructures such as schools, health centers, bridges and water sources are regarded as important positive project features.7 For example, many noted that in places where rainwater channeling (to prevent damage to houses) had not taken place, risks of conflict with those living in the vicinity of the channels (mostly Hutus) were pertinent. On the other hand, respondents also voiced their concern about the absence of a management committee for the rehabilitated water sources and springs in areas such as Karuba, where the problem of long queues for water persists. Furthermore, many believed that the rehabilitation of health centers had not necessarily contributed to higher utilization of services; by extension, neither had there been greater contact or better relations among service users from different ethnic groups. Basic structures’ participation in local good governance, notably in conflict resolution: LDCs and LMCs were considered as having inclusive participation and management, and as being representative of different ethnic groups and authority figures, such as local chiefs and leading members of faith-based organizations. The project was recognized as having been able to build a direct relationship between project promoters and the grassroots by excluding large number of intermediaries. The common consensus was that local capacity building had been achieved effectively with the support of prominent community members, although knowledge of and training in basic laws (i.e., land and mineral laws) were lacking. According to the majority of respondents, the participatory process of the project was well-respected, and target communities were actively involved in all phases including inter-community dialogues during the coordination process. The majority also believed that the laborers involved in construction and rehabilitation of the infrastructure sites were paid on time so as to avoid work stoppage. 7 Data on the number of different types of infrastructure constructed, in the process of being constructed or rehabilitated were however unavailable at the time of the study. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 18 Respondents believed that police authorities had been cooperative with the LDCs and LMCs in resolving cases of arbitrary arrests, and that there had been good collaboration between project managers and provincial ministries (i.e., Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Land Management and Ministry of Planning). They did not see a risk of overlap between the project’s base structures and those that have been put in place by the government. The presence of parallel administrative structures was also not seen as a potential for conflict (for example, in Karuba where there are two army commanders, two intelligence service officers, two national police commanders, and two post chiefs for administrative supervision). All participants expressed their concern regarding the “wait and see” attitude of some communities who expect the project to resolve “all” their problems. Respondents perceived some LMC and LDC members as lacking motivation to do their work because they are not remunerated. Respondents were split in their views on whether members of the LMCs and LDCs would continue to pursue their work in the future without remuneration. On the other hand, most believed that the policy of non-remuneration within these structures prevented envy and conflict between members and non-members. The majority felt that LDCs were not transparent and accountable with respect to the choice of projects that were to be funded or the selection of contractors and the monitoring of their work, since the final decisions regarding these were made by the more prominent committee members. The majority of respondents gave low marks to LDCs and LMCs as appropriate structures for managing inter-ethnic conflicts. These structures were also seen as being limited in their capacity to resolve persistent conflicts. To the extent that land and ethnicity are interrelated, LDCs and LMCs appear to be lacking in resolving persistent conflicts sparked by inter-ethnic tensions related to land tenure and land use. Reintegration of marginalized groups: The project was generally viewed as having made progress on the reintegration of Pygmies and ex-combatants in the communities, although respondents believed it was done on a small scale. For example, most agreed that the recruitment of ex-combatants as laborers in construction work contributed to their reintegration in communities, but that the project recruited a relatively small number. The project was seen as having been less successful in reintegrating other groups of marginalized persons, such as women survivors of sexual violence and minority tribes. In fact, many believed that, in general, women did not have a voice in decision-making processes at the community level due to traditional practices and beliefs, and that the project had not contributed substantially to changing gender attitudes and empowering women. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 19 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT RELEVANCE North and South Kivu, PSCRP’s primary areas of operation, are considered a high priority area for stability operations by the GDRC and the international community, after being the center of so many conflicts over the years. Eastern DRC has been subjected to a number of standing conflicts relating to unequal land use, inter-ethnic conflicts and various other situations that create rivalry and tensions between communities. It is in this context that the project is being implemented. The triangulation of findings from the survey, focus group discussions and key informant interviews strongly support the relevance of the project with respect to the need for conflict resolution and mitigation. All survey respondents and the majority of focus group members saw conflict as a problem in the communities where the project operates. Furthermore, the persistence of different types of conflict in North and South Kivu and the communities’ preference for mediation structures (such as LMCs and LDCs) over public legal ones also attest to the relevance of the project for conflict resolution and mitigation, as well as the project’s contribution to securing long-term reconciliation in eastern DRC. The reintegration of marginalized groups, such as SGBV survivors, ex-combatants, Pygmies and other minority tribes into their communities presents difficult challenges for any conflict resolution/mitigation program due to the specialized needs of these populations. Moreover, in the absence of a viable judicial system that punishes SGBV perpetrators and protects the survivors, community mediation structures not only serve as sites to reintegrate SGBV survivors into their community, but also as important settings to condemn such acts and reduce impunity through normative measures. EFFECTIVENESS The project has been effective in building the capacity of members of the base structures, making committee representation multi-ethnic, and involving women, faith-based and other local groups in reconciliation activities. Data, however, show that the capacity of members of the base structures is inadequate to the extent that they are not knowledgeable about essential laws including the Land Law and the Mining Code, as well as the Sexual Violence Law and Child Rights. The majority of respondents considered mediation and conciliation as the most effective methods for resolving conflicts, pointing to the effectiveness of the project’s methods for conflict resolution. This conclusion is further buttressed by widespread recognition of the role of basic structures such as LMCs and LDCs (as well as similar structures by other program, like Peace Promotion Committees) in conflict mitigation and resolution. The project was considered as having been effective in resolving inter-ethnic conflicts by approximately 40 percent of surveyed individuals, but the majority of focus group participants and key informants did not believe that the base structures had succeeded in resolving inter-ethnic problems and integrating all minority groups. This is not surprising, given that inter-ethnic and land conflicts are inseparable in the Kivu provinces and conflicts related to land tenure and land use continue to persist in Eastern DRC. The project has been able to raise awareness on integration structures for marginalized groups, although more work is needed, given that roughly one-fourth of respondents did not have knowledge of such structures. More than 97 percent of respondents also recognized some evidence or signs of marginalized groups’ reintegration, including having more voice (i.e., speaking in public), working together with other community members, and holding positions of responsibility in different community groups. On the other hand, most Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 20 focus group participants and key informants believed that, in general, women still lacked a voice in decision￾making processes at the community level, despite their membership in LDCs and LMCs. The project has been successful in reintegrating ex-combatants and Pygmies into the community through the construction and rehabilitation of socioeconomic infrastructures. It has, however, been somewhat limited with regard to the reintegration of large numbers of people belonging to these groups. It has also been effective in increasing access to and improving socioeconomic infrastructures through construction and rehabilitation. Access to health centers, however, has not necessarily produced a significant increase in service utilization (as noted by focus group respondents); the project has consequently not been as effective in fostering greater contact and relationship-building among different ethnic groups through such infrastructures. IMPACT The most important impact sought under the project is reconciliation between communities to build lasting peace while reintegrating marginalized groups. The full impact of the project is yet to be determined, given that it pertains to longer-term and cumulative achievements in peace building and reconciliation. Notwithstanding, some results point to the project’s potential long-term impact including: a) the widespread recognition of mediation and conciliation as the most effective strategies for resolving conflicts in communities; b) the active involvement of community members in basic structures such as LMCs and LDCs in conflict mitigation and resolution; and c) signs of reintegration of marginalized populations into communities. SUSTAINABILITY The operational capacity of the mediation and development committees beyond the end of the project was declared as feasible by the majority of respondents, although a sizeable minority believed the project was unlikely to be sustainable, mainly due to the non-remuneration of members and the “wait and see” attitude of some community and LMC/LDC members. Some respondents also expressed their concern about the base structures’ transparency and accountability in the identification, selection and monitoring of projects, even though findings suggest the majority see “ownership” of the reconciliation process. All stakeholders at different levels of the intervention are, however, aware of the need to sustain the gains achieved by the project and continue activities that will extend and possibly build on them. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 21 CONCLUSION Based on the evaluation findings, the largest source of unresolved disputes appears to fall within the area of land disputes. In the Kivu provinces, land and ethnic disputes are often intertwined, particularly because farming and herding activities are typically performed by different ethnic groups. Farmers and livestock herders/breeders were identified as the principal agents of conflict. Since traditional mediation methods for settling land disputes are likely to predominate in Eastern DRC for some time before a viable system for adjudication of land disputes is in place, mediation and conciliation over land disputes needs to be consistent with principles incorporated in the land law to promote lasting solutions. As the results indicate, knowledge of the land law and the mineral code is extremely low in communities, a situation that can promote exploitation of those who are not knowledgeable of the laws by those who are. According to the findings, structures such as LMCs and LDCs have high beneficiary recognition in small communities, but in large ones, leaders have been unable to effectively communicate the presence and function of such structures to large numbers of people. Respondents perceived some members of the LMCs and LDCs as lacking motivation to do their work, given that they are not remunerated. While monetary incentives for LMC members would pose its own problems, non-monetary inducements, such as training, promoting efficacy (i.e., ability to change) and empowerment, and normative types of recognition for the role of LMC members through awareness-raising efforts contribute to greater ownership of peace building efforts. Evaluation results indicate that the project established good relations with the local police, who tended to cooperate with the LDCs and mediation committees in resolving cases of arbitrary arrests. Moreover, findings show that the presence of parallel administrative structures was not seen as a potential for conflict between the project and local and provincial authorities. The LDCs can build upon such collaborative bases with provincial and local authorities to promote reconciliation and conflict resolution through peaceful means and by recourse to informed knowledge of legal measures. The provision of funds to communities is a well-known catalyst for organizing a community around specific goals, which can include reconciliation through collaboration on building and rehabilitating infrastructure. The construction and rehabilitation of infrastructures such as schools, health centers, bridges and water sources through community efforts are important strategies in promoting ownership and creating opportunities for exchange and contact among different groups, and in contributing to peace building. While the data indicate that the engagement of marginalized groups such as ex-combatants and Pygmies in infrastructure projects is regarded as having been positive, the real peace dividends to communities from such efforts have been limited due to the project’s inability to absorb a large number of these populations into its infrastructure component. Furthermore, access to services does not necessarily guarantee their utilization, and thus, greater contact among different ethnic groups. Utilization of services such as health is, to a large extent, contingent on information, awareness and community efforts to promote utilization. The reintegration of marginalized groups such as SGBV victims, ex-combatants, Pygmies and other minority tribes into their communities presents difficult challenges for any conflict resolution/mitigation program due to the specialized needs of these populations. The project’s success in reintegrating marginalized groups such as ex-combatants and Pygmies has been relatively small-scale due to its inability to address the needs of the large numbers of people belonging to these groups. In addition, over one-fourth of respondents did not have any knowledge of integration structures for marginalized groups. This implies a need for additional efforts to build public awareness of the structures designed to deal with the problems of marginalized persons. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 22 APPENDIX A. TABLES AND FIGURES Figure 1: Respondent profile (N=360) Males: 211 (58.6 percent) Females: 149 (41.3 percent) Figure 1.1 Respondent profile by sex and site (N=360) 59% 41% Male Female Kiwandja Kibumba Sake Karuba Mutarule Kalundja Sex M Sex F Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 23 Figure 2. Respondent breakdown by function (N=410) 8  Farmers: 175 (43.6 percent)  Breeders: 72 (18 percent)  Students: 42 (11 percent)  Teachers: 18 (4.5 percent)  Nurses: 6 (2 percent)  Police: 5 (2 percent) 8 The total number of respondents by function also includes members of focus groups. 44% 18% 11% 10% 8% 5% 2% 2% Farmers Breeders Students Civil Servants Business people Teachers Nurses Police Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 24 TYPES OF CONFLICTS Figure 3. Types of conflicts (N=357)9  Land disputes: 109 respondents (30.5 percent)  Power and leadership conflicts: 82 respondents (22 percent)  Ethnic conflicts: 70 respondents (19.6 percent)  Marital conflicts: 55 respondents (15.4 percent)  Inheritance conflicts: 24 respondents (6.7 percent)  Inter-community conflicts: 17 respondents (4.8 percent) 9 Three missing responses. 30% 23% 20% 15% 7% 5% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 25 AGENTS OF CONFLICT Figure 4. Actors responsible for conflicts (N=360)  Traditional authorities: 144 respondents (40 percent)  Breeders/herders: 113 respondents (31.9 percent)  Farmers: 95 respondents (26.4 percent)  Well-to-do persons: 8 respondents (2.2 percent) Traditional authorities Breeders Farmers The Rich 40% 32% 26% 2% Agents of conflict Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 26 CAUSES OF CONFLICT Figure 5. Causes of conflicts (N=360)  Unequal allocation of lands: 125 respondents (34.7 percent)  Animal straying: 117 respondents (32.5 percent)  Political leaders fueling conflicts: 61 respondents (16.9 percent)  Ethnic power and intolerance: 57 respondents (16 percent) Unequal land allocation Animal straying Political leaders fueling conflict Ethnic power and intolerance 35% 32% 17% 16% Causes of conflict Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 27 TYPES OF CONFLICTS RESOLVED Figure 6. Resolved conflicts (N=360)  Inter-ethnic conflicts: 145 respondents (40.3 percent)  Customary/cultural conflicts: 45 respondents (12.5 percent)  Inheritance conflicts: 37 respondents (10.3 percent)  Land disputes: 25 respondents (6.9 percent)  Other: 108 respondents (30 percent) Inter-ethnic Customary conflicts Inheritance conflicts Land disputes Other 40% 13% 10% 7% 30% Types of conflicts resolved Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 28 CONFLICTS PERSISTING IN VILLAGES Figure 7. Persisting conflicts (N=360)  Land conflicts: 188 respondents (52.2 percent)  Cultural conflicts: 74 respondents (20.5 percent)  Ethnic conflicts: 60 respondents (16.7 percent)  Other conflicts: 38 respondents (10.6 percent) Land conflicts Cultural conflicts Ethnic conflicts Other 52% 20% 17% 11% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 29 STRATEGIES USED FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION Figure 8. Strategies for conflict resolution (N=360)  Mediation: 157 respondents (43.6 percent)  Conciliation: 89 respondents (24.7 percent)  Faith-based groups’ intervention: 55 respondents (15.3 percent)  Army or Police: 17 respondents (4.5 percent)  An ethnic group force imposing its force on another: 7 respondents (1.9 percent)  Other means: 35 respondents (9.7 percent) Mediation Conciliation Faith-based groups Army/police Ethnic power Other 44% 25% 15% 4% 2% 10% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 30 STRUCTURES PUT IN PLACE FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION Figure 9. Structures for conflict resolution (N=360)  Peace Promotion Committees: 119 respondents (33 percent)  Wise persons committees (Baraza la wazee): 87 respondents (24.2 percent)  Local mediation/conciliation committees: 68 respondents (19 percent)  Justice and Peace committee: 49 respondents (13.6 percent)  Heads of families: 27 respondents (7.5 percent)  Other: 10 respondents (3 percent) Peace Promotion committees Wise Persons committees Local mediation committees Justice & Peace committees Head of amilies Other 33% 24% 19% 14% 7% 3% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 31 MARGINALIZED GROUPS Figure 10. Marginalized groups identified by respondents (N=358)  Pygmies: 76 respondents (22.1 percent)  Ex-combatants: 75 respondents (20.8 percent)  Women victims of sexual violence: 64 respondents (17.7 percent)  Returnees: 38 respondents (10.5 percent)  Displaced persons: 32 respondents (8.9 percent)  Persons living with HIV/AIDS: 30 respondents (8.3 percent)  Women associated with armed groups: 30 respondents (8.3 percent)  Other: 15 respondents (4.2 percent) 22% 21% 18% 10% 9% 8% 8% 4% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 32 KNOWLEDGE OF INTEGRATION STRUCTURES FOR MARGINALIZED PERSONS Figure 11. Knowledge of integration structures for marginalized persons (N=360)  Those with knowledge of integration structures for marginalized groups: 260 respondents (72.3 percent)  Those with no knowledge of integration structures for marginalized groups: 100 respondents (27.6 percent) Yes 72% No 28% Do you know of any integration structures for marginalized people? Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 33 STRUCTURES FOR INTEGRATION OF MARGINALIZED PERSONS Figure 12. Types of structures identified for integration of marginalized persons (N=360)  Peace Promotion Committees: 127 respondents (35.3 percent)  LDCs: 110 respondents (30.6 percent)  Inter-community forums : 59 respondents (16.4 percent)  Other (NGOs, churches): 55 respondents (15.3 percent)  Public power: 9 respondents (2.5 percent) 35% 31% 16% 15% 3% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 34 3.4 SIGNS OF INTEGRATION FOR MARGINALIZED PERSONS Figure 13. Identified signs of integration of marginalized persons (N=360)  Speaking in public: 127 respondents (35.3 percent)  Working with other community members: 120 respondents (33.3 percent)  Holding positions of responsibility in various committees: 54 respondents (15 percent)  Other: 59 respondents (16.4 percent) Speaking in public Working with other community members Holding positions of responsibility in committees Other 35% 33% 15% 16% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 35 ESTABLISHED OR ONGOING SOCIOECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURES Figure 14. Established or ongoing socioeconomic infrastructures (N=350) 97.1 percent of respondents had knowledge of already built or ongoing socioeconomic infrastructures in villages, while 2.8 percent had no knowledge. The following infrastructures were recognized by the 350 respondents who had knowledge of socioeconomic infrastructures built or under construction in their communities:  Schools: 131 respondents (36.4 percent)  Health centers: 113 respondents (31.4 percent)  Peace Paillote/Néhémie center: 72 respondents (20 percent)  Bridges: 33 respondents (9.2 percent)  Other (gutters, medical equipment, etc.): 11 respondents (3.1 percent) Schools Health centers Peace Paillote Bridges Other 36% 31% 20% 9% 3% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 36 SATISFACTION WITH THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STRUCTURES Figure 15. Satisfaction with socioeconomic infrastructures (N=360)  238 (66.1 percent) were satisfied with the infrastructures built by the project  122 (34 percent) were not satisfied with the infrastructures built by the project Figure 15.1 Satisfaction with socioeconomic infrastructures by site (N=360) 66% 34% Are you satisfied with the socioeconomic infrastructures developed in your community? Yes No Kiwandja Kibumba Sake Karuba Mutarule Kalundja Yes No Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 37 SUSTAINBILITY OF THE SOCIOECONOMIC INFRASTRUCTURES Figure 16. Sustainability of infrastructures (N=360) Figure 16.1 Sustainability of infrastructures by site (N=360) 95% 5% Are the socioeconomic infrastructures sustainable? Yes No 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Kiwandja Kibumba Sake Karuba Mutarule Kalundja Yes No Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 38 TYPES OF LEGALLY ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONS Figure 17. Legally established institutions (N=360) 99.6 percent of respondents recognized legally established institution in their communities. The breakdown of legal institutions is as follows:  Local chiefdom: 126 respondents (35 percent)  District chiefdom: 111 respondents (30.8 percent)  Territory administration: 90 respondents (25 percent)  Other: 33 respondents (9.2 percent) Local chiefdom District chiefdom Territory administration Other 35% 31% 25% 9% Legal Structures Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 39 PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS Figure 18. The existence of parallel institutions (N=360) Respondents identified the following parallel institutions:  Head of administrative supervision, intelligence services, army and National Police: 142 respondents (39.5 percent)  District chief: 82 respondents (22.5 percent)  Local chiefs: 59 respondents (16.4 percent)  Territory administrator: 55 respondents (15.3 percent)  Other: 22 respondents(6.1 percent) 40% 23% 16% 15% 6% Army/National police/Intelligence Services/Administrative Supervision District chief Local chief Territory administrator Other Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 40 REASONS FOR PRESENCE OF PARALLEL INSTITUTIONS Figure19. Reasons for the presence of parallel institutions (N=360)  Fragility of the state: 160 respondents (44.4 percent)  Consequences of rebellion: 109 respondents (30.3 percent)  Ethnic intolerance: 82 respondents (23 percent)  Other conflicts: 9 respondents (2.3 percent) Fragility of the state Consequences of rebellion Ethnic intolerance Other conflicts 44% 30% 23% 2% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 41 KNOWLEDGE OF ESSENTIAL LAWS Figure 20. Knowledge of essential laws of the country (N=360)  The Constitution: 176 respondents (48.9 percent)  Child rights: 27 respondents (7.5 percent)  Land law: 15 respondents (4.2 percent)  Mining law: 15 respondents (4.2 percent)  Law on sexual violence: 15 respondents (4.2 percent)  Other laws: 112 respondents (31.1 percent) The Constitution Child rights Land law Mining law Law on sexual violence Other 49% 8% 4% 4% 4% 31% Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 42 SATISFACTION WITH THE PROJECT’S CONTRIBUTION TO PEACE BUILDING Figure 21. Satisfaction with the project’s contribution to peace building (N=360)  Satisfied: 217 respondents (60.2 percent)  Not satisfied: 143 respondents (39.7 percent) Figure 21.1 Satisfaction with the project’s contribution to peace building by site (N=360) 60% 40% Are you satisfied with the Project's contributions to peace building? Yes No Kiwandja Kibumba Sake Karuba Mutarule Kalundja Satisfied Not satisfied Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 43 ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF RECONCILIATION AND PEACE BUILDING STRUCTURES Figure 22. Assessment of the sustainability of reconciliation and peace building structures (N=360)  Sustainable: 242 respondents (67.2 percent)  Not sustainable: 118 respondents (32.7 percent) 67% 33% Are the reconciliation and peace building structures sustainable? Yes No Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 44 ASSESSMENT OF COLLABORATION AMONG PROJECT PARTNERS Figure 23. Assessment of collaboration among project partners (N=360)  Good collaboration: 297 respondents (83 percent)  Average collaboration: 47 respondents (14.5 percent)  Poor collaboration: 16 respondents (2.6 percent) 83% 14% 3% Collaboration among Project partners Good Average Poor Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 45 SENSITIZATION ON PEACE BUILDING Figure 24. Sensitization strategies (N=360)  Folk or traditional dances: 114 respondents (32 percent)  Soccer matches: 89 respondents (24 percent)  Radio messages: 75 respondents (21 percent)  Theatre, play: 64 respondents (18 percent)  Other: 18 respondents (5 percent) 32% 24% 21% 18% 5% Folk/traditional dances Soccer matches Radio messages Theatre, play Other Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 46 APPENDIX B. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 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 Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 47 …………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………… 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? No Yes Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 48 2.9. If yes, which one?  Peacemaking committee initiated by the State  Justice and Peace Commission  Baraza/forum of elders  Peace Promotion Committee  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 ……………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 49 3.2. Is there a structure tackling the integration of such groups into the community? Yes No 3.3. If yes, which one?  Peace Promotion Committee  Development local committee  Public/State power  Inter-community Baraza/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 non-integrated 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)? Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 50 Yes No Why ………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. 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 ……………………………………………………………………………………... …………………………………………………………………………………………….. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 51 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  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 promotion committees? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7.2. Which approach has been most efficient in sensitizing about community cohesion?  Peacemaking radio programs Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 52  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 Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 53 APPENDIX C. DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR FOCUS GROUPS PROPOSED FOCUS GROUPS FOR SEMI-DIRECTIVE 1. Members of mediation committee (not more than 10) 2. Members of the development committees (not more than 10) 3. Some persons having benefited from reintegration (not more than 10) 4. Some project beneficiaries, non-members of various committees 5. Some youth (not more than 10) 6. Some women (not more than 10) 7. Local leaders (not more than 10) 8. The military and police (not more than 5) THEMES FOR DISCUSSION Theme I. 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 II: 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 III: 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 IV: 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? Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 54 Thank you for granting us this interview. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 55 APPENDIX D. INDIVIDUALS MET AND OTHER KEY INFORMANTS MSI AND INTERNATIONAL ALERT MANAGING BOARD 9. Hervé Ballienx, COP 10.Hugh Sarah, Alternate COP 11. Members of staff PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTOF NORTH KIVU 12.Djuma Balikwisha, Planning and Budget Provincial Minister 13.Guillaume Musubao Bulenda, Land Affairs, Transport and Communication Provincial Minister 14.The Chief of Cabinet of the Provincial Minister of Justice TERRITORY OF RUTSHURU 15.Amisi Kalonda, Territory Administrator 16. Mudogo Joël, Assistant Territory Administrator 17.Bugurano Karyala, Rutshuru Deputy National Police Inspector 18.Captain. Baokilo, Police Inspector in charge of operations, instructions and organization TERRITORY OF UVIRA (SOUTH KIVU) 19. Wasinga Singa Zébédé, Territory Administrator 20. Uvira National Police Inspector TERRITORY OF NYIRAGONGO 21.Bokele Djo, Territory Administrator STAFF DE TERRAIN MSI/ INTERNATIONAL ALERT 22.Christian Jacob Katalanya, facilitator Ruzizi 23.Elysée Busimba, facilitator, Mabungo I, Bugara et Bunyezi, Rutshuru 24.Turner Kasereka, facilitator Mabungo II et Ntamugenga I and II, Rutshuru 25.Amos, Facilitator, LDC et LMC, Nyiragongo Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 56 APPENDIX E. SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PROJECT MANAGERS AND OTHER KEY INFORMANTS (LMC, LDC) 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, and village)? The population attacked by armed groups Insecurity caused by bandits Local population harassment by the military, police and local chiefs If there are other events? Please describe: Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 57 ………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………… .………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………… ….………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… 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) 1. Bad management of lands by traditional authorities; 2. Destruction of crops by animal straying; 3. Bad local governance (bad public fund management); 4. The problematic of the acquisition of the Congolese nationality; 5. 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? 1. Conflicts between the authorities and the population due to forbidding the latter to exploit the park. 2. Conflict between the natives and the immigrants considered as foreigners. 3. 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. 4. Land conflict between well-off persons and the poor following the usurpation of their lands. 5. Conflict between breeders and farmers. 6. Other (to be specified): ………………………..…………………………………………………………. 4.2. How were the conflicts resolved with the support of the project? 1. Through the mediation committee (peaceful resolution). 2. Through the assistance of the project coordinators before the court. 3. By force. 4. Through the police or the military. 5. Other mechanisms: ………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………… .………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………… ….………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… 4.3. How did faith-based groups get involved in conflict resolution? 1. Through sensitizing conflicting parties on the basis of the word of God, Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 58 2. Through preaching. 3. Through meetings with conflicting parties. 4. Through projects where conflicting parties are involved in the implementation (beneficiaries). 5. 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? 1. Sincere reconciliation between members of the community. 2. Tendency to reconciliation among members of the community. 3. The increase in agricultural production and breeding through stability (specify the quantities by speculation if possible). 4. Social infrastructure rehabilitation (to be specified by the interviewee). 5. Security and free circulation of persons and their property. 6. Improvement of housing conditions. 7. Other positive effects: …………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………..…………………………………………………………………………… 4.5. Do you think that peace and reconciliation have already been achieved in your community? 1. Yes 2. 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? 1. Conflicts between authorities and the population concerning forbidding the latter to exploit the park. 2. Conflict between the natives and the immigrants considered as foreigners. 3. Conflict between the returned persons and the inhabitants who have remained on the spot and who have been accused of usurping the formers’ property. 4. Land conflict between well-off persons and the poor due to the usurpation of their lands. 5. Conflicts between breeders and farmers. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 59 6. 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? 1. These committees are likely to pursue their work even after the end of the project. 2. 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? 1. Maintain the working strategy with mediation committees. 2. Training of local leaders in matters of local good governance, fair justice and a rule of law. 3. Exploitation of local peace capacities for conflict resolution. 4. Voluntary involvement of key actors in conflict resolution. 5. Promoting the culture of dialogue within and between communities. 6. Promote the sharing of the same economic activities. 7. Fighting corruption. 8. Promote a fair justice for all. 9. 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 NGOs, local NGOs)? ………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………… .………………………………………………………………..…………………………………………… ….………………………………………………………………..………………………………………… Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 60 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 Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 61 APPENDIX F. PHOTOS Picture 1. Debriefing session with IPs Picture 2. Debriefing session with IPs Picture 3. Evaluation team Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 62 APPENDIX G. SCOPE OF WORK USAID/DRC MONITORING AND EVALUATION (M&E) PROJECT MSI AND CRS EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK (SoW) 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:  Promoting Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project (MSI)  Mobilizing Communities for Reconciliation in Eastern Congo Project (CRS) Both MSI and CRS 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 the time period in which they operate, but differ in their programming and in the 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 and 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 require 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. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 63 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. 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: 1. Direct support to the Amani (Kivu) Peace, Security, and Development process, including technical assistance and material support for peace-building activities. 2. 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 – IDPs, refugees and ex-combatants as well as community-based recovery, and care and treatment of victims of conflict. 3. 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)10 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 10 PSCRP COP Herve de Baillenx and DCOP Sarah Hughes were interviewed in preparation for this document. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 64 Kiwandja Hombo Rutshuru Izege Ntamugenga Kamanyola Kingi Mulamba Kibumba Bwegera 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 Promotion Committees and Local Development Committees in target locations. The Peace Promotion Committees were established first. There are some issues concerning the non-elective process by which committee members were selected. The Peace Promotion 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 Promotion 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. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 65 Long-term sustainability will be evidenced through the establishment/strengthening of provincially based NGOs and the ongoing functioning of peace promotion committees after project support ends. Program management provided the following points for consideration in the evaluation: 1. 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. 2. 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 project, but this has declined when they discovered they would not receive special treatment through the program. 3. Reintegration of ex-combatants is not emphasized as a separate activity or goal of the project. 4. 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)11 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:  Ex-combatants no longer threaten local communities with violence, with two intermediate results:  Ex-combatant groups accept non-violence agreements with local communities.  LMCs are engaged in managing sustainable reconciliation processes with ex-combatant groups.  Ex-combatants and returning IDPs and refugees reintegrate non-violently into 18 target communities in southern South Kivu Province, with three intermediate results:  Local conflict-resolution mechanisms are strengthened.  Women, youth, faith-based and other local groups are involved in reconciliation activities. 11 CRS 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 Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 66  18 target communities adopt action plans to ensure the non-violent reintegration of ex-combatants and returning IDPs and refugees.  18 inter-ethnic or religious-identity conflicts have been settled, with one intermediate result:  Ethnic or faith communities in conflict are engaged in dialog for conflict-resolution and reconciliation efforts. CRS works with the Diocesan Justice and Peace Commission (JPC) 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 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 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 JPC 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 identified 138 conflicts. Of these, LMC members confirmed that 127 remain current. The LMCs, with JPC 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 dispute 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 Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 67 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. 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. 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 follow:  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. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 68  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. METHODOLOGY, DELIVERABLES, PLANNINGAND LOGISTICS Methodology Methodologies for this assessment will include: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. Data Collection: To facilitate the collection of quantitative and qualitative data, the following tools will be developed: Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) Focus Group Discussions among committee members (LMCs, Peace Promotion Committees, LDCs) 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 Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 69 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:12  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?  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? Key Informant Interviews 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. 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 12 NOTE: Not all topics are relevant to all committees or to both programs. Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 70 assessment of the future sustainability of these initiatives and what factors may increase or decrease this potential? Community Survey The community survey was conducted 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 includes 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 regard to conflict? 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 Promotion Committee/LDC)?  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? Mid-Term Evaluation Report of the Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 71  Do they know of any theatre 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? 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 JPC 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 of this question than possibly be given in this draft.13 13 For example, a random household survey may not be possible given the 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 Stabilization and Community Reintegration Project 72 DELIVERABLES Expected outputs of the assessment are: Output 1: Detailed documentation of USAID Peace and Stability community reconciliation programming in the Eastern DRC. Output 2: One brief results summary of USAID/DRC Peace and Stability efforts utilizing data collected through the evaluation. Output 3: 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 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