WORK PLAN: YEAR ONE PROMOTING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND PEACE (PCEP)

April 2016

This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It wasNovember prepared by2020 DT GLOBAL. This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DT Global Inc.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) i

WORK PLAN: YEAR ONE PROMOTING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND PEACE (PCEP) Dates: September 30, 2020 to September 30, 2021 Contract: 72066820c00003 PCEP Address: Kololo Road, Juba, next to the Immigration Office Contracting Officer’s Representative: Victor Lako

Submitted to: USAID South Sudan

Prepared by: DT Global Inc.

DISCLAIMER: The authors’ views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Workplan: Year One / Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents iii Acronyms v Introduction 1 PCEP’s Geographic Approach 1 Geographic Focus Areas 2 1. The Western Bahr el Ghazal Cluster 2 2. The Southern Unity Cluster 3 3. The Jonglei Cluster 4 4. The Eastern Equatoria Cluster 5 5. The Upper Nile Cluster 5 6. Working Outside of Priority Counties 6 Proposed PCEP Offices and Staffing in Year One 7 1. Wau Office 7 2. Southern Unity 7 3. Jonglei 8 4. Equatoria/Roving 8 5. Upper Nile 8 6. National Presence 8 PCEP’s Approach to Programming 9 Adaptability and Flexibility 9 Conflict Sensitivity 9 Sustainability 9 Clustering, Layering and Sequencing Activities 10 Gender, Youth and Marginalized Communities 11 Working With Government 12 Learning 12 PCEP’s Approach to Activity Design 12 The Activity Cycle 12 Idea Development (Concept) Phase 13 Pending (Design) Phase 13 Cleared (implementation) Phase 13 Completed (Reporting/Evaluation) Phase 13 The PCEP Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) 13 Open and Restricted Eligibility 14 PCEP’s Approach to the Objectives 14

Objective 1: Local actors are building crossline interdependence and intra-community cohesion to promote peace processes and peaceful co-existence 14 Intermediate Result 1.1: Improved Capacity of a Wide Range of Local Actors to Promote Peace and Peaceful Co-existence 14 Intermediate Result 1.2: Increased Mutual Interdependence Resulting from Infrastructure and Livelihoods Projects 15 Objective 2: Civil society actors are advocating for peace, justice, reconciliation, and reform; and participating in political and civic processes 16 Intermediate Result 2.1: Civil society and faith-based organizations, individuals, and groups work together for effective peacebuilding, civic education, and reconciliation activities that resonate socially and culturally 16 Intermediate Result 2.2: Citizen actors participate in processes supporting transitional justice and enhancing communities’ perceptions of justice that assist formal and informal peacebuilding efforts 18 Objective 3: Key partners are providing trauma awareness services to communities 19 Intermediate Result 3.1: Stakeholders recognize signs of trauma and distress and are able to approach intra- and inter-community engagement and dialogue with increased sensitivity 19 Objective 4: Print, radio, and other media are providing accurate, fair and thorough information to mitigate the destructive impact of rumor and misinformation 20 Intermediate Result 4.1: Community members access independent media outlets and participate in peaceful and purposeful debate, and are able to resist misinformation, disinformation and hate speech 20 Annex 1: Indicative Activities For Year One 22

ACRONYMS

CEC Civic Engagement Centers COP Chief of Party DCOP-STA Deputy Chief of Party-Senior Technical Advisor DDGS Direct Distribution of Goods and Services FAA Fixed Amount Award GPS Grants and Procurement Specialist GUC Grants Under Contract IDP Internally Displaced Person(s) IO In Opposition MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning NAS National Salvation Front PCEP Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace POC Protection of Civilians Site (facility managed by UNMISS for IDPs) PS Program Specialist R-ARCSS Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan RPM Regional Program Manager RRM Rapid Response Mechanism SFD Senior Field Director SPLM/A-IO Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army-In Opposition SSOA South Sudan Opposition Alliance STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance SUCCESS Systems to Uphold the Credibility and Constitutionality of Elections in South Sudan TJWG Transitional Justice Working Group UNMISS United Nations Mission in South Sudan USAID United States Agency for International Development

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) v INTRODUCTION

This Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) Year One Workplan serves as the overarching strategic approach which PCEP will follow in its first fiscal year stretching from September 30, 2020 through September 30, 2021. Activities are expected to commence in approximately January 2021, after USAID has approved this workplan along with other key documents, thus this workplan covers approximately nine months of implementation.

The PCEP program was awarded with the following four objectives: 1) Local actors are building crossline interdependence and intra-community cohesion to promote peace processes and peaceful co-existence 2) Civil society actors are advocating for peace, justice, reconciliation, and reform; and participating in political and civic processes 3) Key partners are providing trauma awareness services to communities 4) Print, radio, and other media are providing accurate, fair and thorough information to mitigate the destructive impact of rumor and misinformation

This workplan identifies PCEPs approach to each of these objectives, as well as the programs approach to geographical targeting, and cross-cutting approaches taken towards individual activities as well as the program portfolio as a whole.

PCEP’S GEOGRAPHIC APPROACH

Currently South Sudan is in a transitional period following the signing of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) on September 12, 2018. The transitional period formally started February 2020 and is meant to continue for 36 months. This agreement formally ended the war between the government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement in Opposition (SPLA/M-IO), and other opposition groups. This agreement has largely ended war-related violence which had plagued much of the country from December 2013 up until the signing of R-ARCSS, although some opposition groups, such as the National Salvation Front (NAS), remain outside of the agreement and conflict between them and the government is an ongoing source of violence in parts of the Equatoria. The IO are now operating as the largest opposition block within the transitional government. The government, IO, and the South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA – a coalition of smaller opposition parties) have split the administration of the country between them, with all of them appointing different numbers of governors, ministers and county commissioners. Communities are still split between loyalty to the IO and the government, as well as other factions – and there remains great communal mistrust throughout the country due to the war. In the absence of large-scale war, cattle raiding and revenge killing have once again taken center stage as the predominant form of inter-communal conflict. Banditry and insecurity are also rife in much of the country, due as much to a poor economy as to the proliferation of small arms.

Based on verbal guidance from USAID, PCEP is to focus the lion’s share of its programming on the 13 priority counties, or focus areas, as per the forthcoming USAID South Sudan strategy. This section will address PCEP’s current understanding of the issues facing these locations and the needs which the program is able to address. The section also contains a description of work to take place outside of

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 1 these 13 counties, PCEP’s plan for setting up offices, and teams to cover all of the work areas given limited resources in year one.

GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS AREAS PCEP intends to address the 13 priority counties by managing its activities in distinct geographic clusters to establish programming presence, whether in the form PCEP staff based on the ground in an office fully managed by PCEP, PCEP staff on the ground who will be based in shared working space with other partners, or through mobile teams on the ground for extended periods or short visits. These clusters as discussed are outlined below.

1. THE WESTERN BAHR EL GHAZAL CLUSTER Anticipated Western Bahr el Ghazal Cluster Activities in Year One Consisting of the priority counties of Wau and  One nine-month partner conducting monthly Jur River, this focus area consists of two of the dialogues/peacebuilding trainings three counties of Western Bahr el Ghazal. Wau,  A small grant supporting a peaceful migration of the state’s capital, falls on the Jur River, which pastoralists into Jur River and Wau Counties separates the two counties, and thus is ideally  Regular film screenings conducted in Wau city positioned as a hub to address both counties.  Support to the Civic Engagement Center as of July

Wau is one of South Sudan’s major population  Trauma Awareness capacity building for local partners and layered with other activities centers, and it has been the sight of significant conflict historically and during the most recent  Three rapid response activities in response to issues that emerge out of dialogue processes civil war. Historically, Fertit and Dinka communities have found themselves on conflicting sides of civil wars in South Sudan and Sudan, leading to a long history of grievance and mistrust. The Luo community in the region has often been left to “straddle the fence” and attempt to stay out of the problems of the other communities, but they have often been drawn in and affected just as badly as the others.

While largely peaceful today, the Fertit population generally mistrusts the government and are aligned politically with the IO, currently the largest opposition block in the transitional government. Many Fertit are living in the Protection of Civilians (POC) site, which United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) is in the process of handing over to the government as an Internally Displaced Person(s) (IDP) site. Fertit widely hold the perception that much of Wau has been illegally grabbed by Dinka elites over the years. For their part, Dinka residents predominantly believe that the land has been legally acquired over the years and that accusations of “land grabbing” are untrue. On top of the existing and historical issues, regular cattle migrations from Tonj and Gogrial in neighboring Warrap state, have led to large-scale violence in recent years, with Dinka pastoralists coming into conflict with the Luo and Fertit farmers native to the region. While the “Marial Bai Agreement” was signed to regulate migration relation issues, some perceive the deal as being biased towards pastoralists – protecting their rights at the expense of the original landowners. In addition, while external actors continue to try and make the Fertit of Wau County a part of the Marial Bai agreement, the actual agreement only regulates cattle movement into Jur River County. Thus, the Fertit believe the agreement is exclusively between the Dinka pastoralists and the Luo of Jur River. As the pastoralists actually do migrate into Wau County, there is a need to address this omission in existing agreements.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 2 Beyond these dynamics, there are a number of other situations to be monitored in Western Bahr el Ghazal and its environs, including potential for conflict between Tambura (Western Equatoria) and Wau Counties based on land and border issues. While these issues are not explicitly addressed in the year one work plan, rapid response funds could be directed towards them as needed.

2. THE SOUTHERN UNITY CLUSTER Anticipated Unity Cluster Activities Encompassing the three southernmost counties of Unity in Year One State – Mayendit, Leer, and Panyijar – the southern unity  One nine-month partner conducting cluster is home to mostly loyal IO supporters, who have monthly dialogues/peacebuilding been badly affected by the recent years of war. Amongst the trainings between Leer and Mayendit major issues is the pressure for households in Bentiu POC  One six-month partner conducting to return to their original homes (many are from Leer and monthly dialogues/peacebuilding Mayendit in particular), with little left for them to return to trainings between Panyijar and Yirol and the potential that they will be the target of criminality as  Regular film screenings conducted in they return home. While being primarily IO supporters, two Leer of the three counties have been apportioned to the  100 radios for each of Leer and government for appointing commissioners, adding to the Mayendit, linked to the formation of potential for disquiet. Each of the communities have radio listening groups fractious relationships between themselves, and with  Trauma Awareness capacity building neighbors on all sides – with the desire to replenish for local partners and layered with diminished cattle herds as a primary driver of inter- other activities communal violence.  Three rapid response activities in response to issues that emerge out of At this time, there is significant potential for reprisals dialogue processes between Panyijar and Mayendit populations related to cattle raids from the previous dry season; currently, there is a forced pause in tensions due to flooding, however once current floods recede, tensions and violence are likely to fare up. In addition, Panyijar youth are likely to come into conflict with their opposing numbers from the counties of Rumbek North and Center, Yirol in Rumbek State, and Tonj in Warrap State, as they resume cattle raiding and cycle of revenge killing. Given the ethnic nature of those conflicts (Dinka-Nuer) this is a key area for intervention to help prevent escalation of violence over the next year.

While potential for conflict is always present, there is also the possibility of encouraging positive relationships between Southern Unity, Lakes and Duk country in Jonglei – as there is a history of successful trade along the Nile River between the three groups, and trade serves as a stabilizing factor in the region.

While outside of USAID’s priority counties, and not in PCEP’s current workplan, there are also significant conflict-lines in northern parts of Unity, including between the Bul Nuer of Mayom County and surrounding groups on all sides; potential explosive conflict related to ownership of the oil fields between Rubkona and Guit counties; and the Ruweng Administrative Area. By operating in Southern Unity in year one, PCEP will be well positioned to respond to conflicts further north, including Bentui, if needed during the lifetime of the program. While not directly overlapping in geographic focus, PCEP will be meeting with and coordinating other key peacebuilding actors working in Unity – including the USAID funded IRC/DRI program working in Koch and Mayendit, and the consortium working in Koch funded by the UNMISS Multi-Donor Trust Fund.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 3 3. THE JONGLEI CLUSTER Anticipated Jonglei Cluster Activities in Encompassing five of the thirteen USAID priority Year One counties, consisting of Duk, Uror, Akobo, Pibor  Two nine-month partners, working on the counties in Jongeli State, and Ulang county in Upper Akobo and Pibor sides respectively, Nile State – this represents the single largest cluster conducting internal dialogues/peacebuilding under PCEP’s mandate. Ulang County, while trainings in pursuit of preparing for inter-tribal technically within Upper Nile State, has been included meetings to address communal violence with the Jonglei cluster as historical experience has  Regular film screenings conducted in Akobo demonstrated that it is easier to access and program  100 radios for each of Akobo and Pibor in Ulang via Akobo than other parts of Upper Nile. Counties, linked to the formation of radio Conflict dynamics are also linked to Jonglie – as the listening groups primary conflict dynamic identified at this time for  Trauma Awareness capacity building for local Ulang, is conflict between the Jikany Nuer and the Lou partners and layered with other activities Nuer of Akobo. While this is the current thinking  Three rapid response activities in response to around support to Ulang, this could change as PCEP issues that emerge out of dialogue processes gains further experience in programming there.

The Jonglei cluster area covers several other volatile relationships, predominantly surrounding cattle raiding and revenge killing, but often descending into incidents of mass violence as was seen earlier in 2020 with large scale attacks by Lou Nuer and Dinka Bor into Pibor. The widespread violence typically involves long-standing patterns between the Lou Nuer and the Murle, and between the Dinka Bor and the Murle. The Murle militias in Sudan’s second civil war largely acted as proxies for the Khartoum government against the SPLA, thus grievances against the Murle have a long historical basis., Dinka and Nuer communities tend to demonize the Murle outside of proportion to the actual situation, and relatively small-scale cattle raids by the Murle are often responded to with massive shows of force.

This entire dynamic is widely believed to have political and military support from Juba, with different elite actors supporting different sides through the provision of small arms. The exact political interest in supporting the different actors is hard to identify, but discussion centers on expansionist attempts by certain groups, and the significant unexplored oil concession that runs through the Pibor Administrative Area. Certain actors appear to be supporting the Murle against other groups – using them as a proxy group to promote their own political interests. While not one of the focus counties, Bor County is closely linked to all these dynamics, and thus if opportunity arises to address Dinka Bor/Murle issues, they must be included in order to achieve anything meaningful.

In addition to the dynamics surrounding the Murle, the Lou Nuer of Akobo and Uror also have longstanding conflict issues with the Jikanky Nuer from Ulang and other parts of Upper Nile. These conflict issues often begin with cattle raiding, but it has also led to intense revenge killing between the groups. Even within the Lou Nuer ranks, there have been extensive revenge killings historically even down to the clan and sub-clan level, to the point where perceived intellectuals have often been targets in seeking “revenge” upon specific groups.

Relative to other relationships in Jonglei, the Lou Nuer and the Bor Dinka from Duk county have always maintained relatively good relationships, characterized by significant inter-marriage between the groups. However, there remains the possibility for cattle-related violence between the groups and this

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 4 relationship could benefit from further strengthening. In addition, PCEP programming could cut across the Jonglei and Unity clusters, with trade programming along the Nile River as mentioned above.

In year one, PCEP anticipates it’s entry point to be working on Lou Nuer/Murle relationships between Akobo and Pibor. While there are many different relationships in Jonglei, financial and operational realities require a more focused target in year one – and there have been several historical successes in supporting peace processes between the Lou and the Murle. Given the likely reality of widespread violence in Jonglei in 2021 – PCEP needs to focus on an area where we can realistically hope to make progress to reduce that violence, rather than being overly ambitious and trying to take on all dynamics at once. In subsequent years, PCEP hopes to greatly expand our reach in Jonglei and being able to target a wider range of dynamics as well as thinking about the big picture of the state involving all groups including the Dinka, Nuer, Murle, and Anyuak. Anticipated Eastern Equatoria 4. THE EASTERN EQUATORIA CLUSTER Cluster Activities in Year One Consisting of the priority counties of Kapoeta North and  One nine-month partners, conducting Budi, the Eastern Equatoria Cluster is also primarily a story internal dialogues/peacebuilding of cattle migration, cattle raiding, and conflict between trainings in Budi and Kapoeta North pastoralists and farmers. In Budi, the Buya pastoralists  Limited support towards peaceful migrate annually through the land of Didinga farmers, which migration processes within Budi often leads to conflict, but also provides opportunities of  100 radios for each of Budi and Kapoeta supporting trade activities that help the communities North Counties, linked to the mutually benefit from the relationship. Similarly, the Toposa formation of radio listening groups from Kapoeta North migrate into Buya areas, creating large  Trauma Awareness capacity building for conflicts annually. The Toposa also have regular conflict to local partners and layered with other the north with the Murle and the Jie over cattle raiding and activities child abductions.  One or two rapid response activities in response to issues that emerge out of Eastern Equatoria has often been underserved by the dialogue processes international community, and it is characterized in part by a rudimentary level of civic knowledge. For example, according to reports, little is known about the current revitalized peace agreement process. Budi and Kapoeta North are both gold rich areas, with artisanal mining camps dotting the countryside that in some ways acts as a stabilizing force as the government informally controls this enterprise and does not want any disruptions in the area. However, mining camps are also known to have serious alcohol-dependence problems that is another potential source of issues.

5. THE UPPER NILE CLUSTER In year one, this cluster is considered to consist of Baliet County and Malakal town. Baliet is the home of annual cattle migrations that bring together cattle keepers of the Lou Nuer, the Jikany Nuer, and the Apadang Dinka of Baliet. As with other migrations, this makes Baliet potentially explosive with cattle raids and revenge killings and thus may require significant support to ensure peaceful migration processes.

Malakal, while technically falling just outside of the 13 priority counties, is a critical base for operating in Upper Nile, and as one of South Sudan’s three largest population centers remains an important location for PCEP and USAID programming. Currently the Nuer and Shilluk populations of Malakal remain almost exclusively in the POC (again being handed over from UNMISS to the government in the days and months ahead). Nuer and Shilluk have few options for “returning home” as most of their homes

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 5 have been occupied by Dinka civilians (mostly moved intentionally by the government to strategic areas in Upper Nile in recent years to create “facts on the ground”) or soldiers. Beyond this immediate issue, there are long-time disputes as to “ownership” of Malakal with both the Shilluk and the Dinka claiming to be the original owners of the town.

Politically the area remains tense, with the president refusing the appointment of Shilluk general Johnson Olony to become governor, leaving the town and the state in a precarious state. There are reports of targeted killings of Shilluk and Nuer intellectuals, who are perceived as being linked to national level conflict issues and the struggle over the governorship. Despite these issues, which are beyond the scope of PCEP to address, there remain opportunities to support community-level resiliency, including repairing relationships and reducing the underlying ethnic tensions among and between area communities.

For mainly financialreasons, PCEP will not plan any work in the Upper Nile Cluster in Year One. We have been unable to identify any potential partners for a cash grant as of this time in Ulang and Baliet counties. While no indicative activities are entered in the workplan, PCEP will still be able and willing to work in Upper Nile using the rapid response fund, should the need emerge.

6. WORKING OUTSIDE OF PRIORITY Anticipated Activities Outside of the COUNTIES 13 Counties in Year One In consultation with USAID, PCEP will support activities  One nine-month partner, conducting outside of the priority counties when they align with key internal dialogues/peacebuilding trainings criteria. These exceptions are expected to fit within one of in Yambio the following categories in year one:  Three rapid response activities in response to emergent needs at the Bordering Counties: When it is impossible to address national level conflict dynamics of some of the priority counties without  One or two rapid response activities in working across borders with other communities. Examples response to emerging issues outside of the 13 counties of this in year one could include supporting activities that focus on peace between the Nuer of Southern Unity and  Civic Engagement Centers – To Be the Dinka of Lakes State; and working across Murle Determined with USAID (Pibor) and Dinka Bor lines in Jonglei.  Anataban/Hagana Festival in Juba  Support to strengthen linkages between National Level Civil Society: Key initiatives to the Civil Society Forum and local civil promote civil society at the national level and help link society groups national level civil society to the local level will still be  Support to Memorialization efforts linked supported as written in the PCEP contract. In year one, to IR 2.2 activities that fit this category could be providing support  Develop and broadcast programing to the Civil Society Forum to better connect with local countering misinformation with Radio Tamazuj, which will be loaded on radios civil society, and support to the Women’s Monthly Forum pre-distribution and the Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG).  Support to the Peace Implementation

Monitoring Mechanism (4th quarter) Civic Engagement Centers: USAID has requested that

PCEP support some of the existing Civic Engagement  Support to the Transitional Justice Working Group (4th quarter) Centers (CECs) in the final quarter of the year. These represent long-term USAID investments in Wau, as well as  Support to the Women’s Monthly Forum (4th quarter) areas outside of the priority counties (Juba, Yambio, Torit,

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 6 Aweil, and Rumbek). PCEP, SUCCESS and USAID will coordinate in the months ahead to determine exactly what support is needed and in which locations.

Media: PCEP anticipates that national level media support will be included in year one, with grants to actors at the national level providing impact at local levels within the thirteen priority counties. This is likely to include support for actors such as Radio Tamazuj and linking it to radio distributions in priority counties.

Response to Conflict: PCEP may work in areas where PCEP and USAID identify the potential to provide targeted inputs but with an elevated chance of heading off potential conflict or reducing existing conflict. Most activities fitting this description would likely fall under the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) and thus not be included in the annual workplan. Work done outside of the priority counties will be limited, and will be done only based on significant engagement with USAID in the development of activities.

At this time, PCEP believes that support to key a key actor in Yambio is warranted within the workplan, based on the situations in each place. In Yambio, USAID had great success in supporting a key local partner in the past, but they are currently receiving no active support despite rumors of growing tensions in the Tambura area. Limited support to that partner could allow them to continue to operate as the primary peacebuilding actor in Western Equatoria over the year ahead, and act as eyes and ears on the ground for PCEP and USAID.

PROPOSED PCEP OFFICES AND STAFFING IN YEAR ONE

1. WAU OFFICE As a major population center, one of USAIDS priority counties and a place where PCEP could potentially implement a wide range of activities, PCEP will establish an office in Wau in year one, inclusive of a Regional Program Manager (RPM), Grants and Procurement Specialist (GPS), Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (M&ES), and potentially a Program Officer (PO). This team will support work in Wau and Jur River Counties and would likely be utilized if there was ever the need for a rapid response elsewhere in the Greater Bahr el Ghazal region encompassing Northern Bahr el Ghazal, Warrap and Lakes States.

Ready to begin programming in January. Office to be established and staffed by end of February.

2. SOUTHERN UNITY Southern Unity offers unique access challenges, and considering the three priority counties identified by USAID, PCEP intends to hire a small team to be based in Leer in year one. PCEP will pursue shared office space, to reduce costs, remain flexible and nimble, and to remove the burdens of running operations heavy offices such as internet, security guards and other concerns. PCEP will start in Leer, as Leer provides road access to Mayendit, and it also has easy road access to Bentiu for coordination purposes. The team will provide limited support to Panyijar in year one for logistics and budgetary reasons. Panyijar has no actual road access to other counties, but it is a hub for supporting peace processes between the Nuer of Southern Unity and the Dinka of Lakes State. It is also a hub for supporting trade activities between those regions and Duk County in Jonglei.

Ready to begin programming in January. Office to be established and staffed by the end of March.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 7 3. JONGLEI Given Akobo’s centrality to five of USAID’s priority counties, PCEP anticipates having a relatively robust Akobo presence, consisting of at least an RPM and a GPS in year one. In addition, PCEP will place a Program Specialist (PS) in Pibor towards the end of year one to support programming there. In Pibor, PCEP will pursue shared office space to support this staff, while in Akobo it is yet to be determined if there are shared office space options or if a stand-alone compound will be needed. Due to DT Global’s long presence and strong ties with international and local organizations in Akobo, PCEP believes that we will be able secure office space if it exists. PCEP believes that the Akobo-based team will be able to support activities in Uror in year one. In addition, while Duk and Ulang (in Upper Nile but accessible by boat from Akobo) are not immediate priorities in year one due to limited budget at staff, PCEP will look to identify good partners to work with in these locations in year one to allow us to begin to build towards strengthened future engagement.

Ready to begin programming in January. Office to be established and staffed by the end of March.

4. EQUATORIA/ROVING PCEP will support work in Budi and Kapoeta North through a “roving team” based in Juba, but with a mandate to support activities in those two counties. In addition, this roving team will provide support to RRM activities as needed around the country and will also manage activities elsewhere in the Equatorias such as in Yambio, if activities are approved by USAID. The roving team may also provide support to Baliet or elsewhere in year one as needed under the rapid response mechanism. PCEP anticipates employing two people in this team in year one.

Ready to begin programming in February. Team to be established in January.

5. UPPER NILE PCEP will not establish an office or have staff based in Upper Nile in year one as mentioned previously. If needed, PCEP will be able to operate in Upper Nile using the Roving team and the rapid response mechanism.

6. NATIONAL PRESENCE PCEP will also have small team of staff working to support the Peacebuilding and Trauma Advisor and the Civil Society and Media Advisor, based in Juba. This team will provide support to partners around the country in developing their own trauma awareness programs, manage grants to national level civil society and media partners, and provide surge support elsewhere as needed.

Ready to begin programming in January. Team to be established in January.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 8 PCEP’S APPROACH TO PROGRAMMING

ADAPTABILITY AND FLEXIBILITY Given the fluidity of the South Sudan context, PCEP will use an adaptive management approach to develop and deliver responsive programming. The staffing and management plan embodies this approach, with offices and staff assigned to each priority region, and available staff and consultants prepared to scale up or down activities as needed. Staff will engage communities in their respective areas to continuously update our understanding of local tensions and grievances, using this information to develop and pilot responsive activities, assess their effectiveness, refine activities, and scale up and/or replicate successful activities and clustering practices. Field staff will also identify opportunities suitable for consideration for support through PCEP’s RRM. In addition, PCEP will take regular opportunities to review the program’s direction with USAID, ensuring we target activities and geographies to achieve the greatest impact. Should South Sudan’s situation change significantly, the PCEP team is also ready to hold in-depth strategy sessions with USAID.

CONFLICT SENSITIVITY To avoid creating or increasing tensions in targeted communities, PCEP will model participation, inclusion, transparency, and accountability in our community engagement and activity design, implementation, and evaluation processes. PCEP will involve representative community stakeholders to develop concepts and design, implement, monitor, and evaluate projects. Being transparent, participatory, and inclusive in this process will help us avoid creating tensions, especially when activities target or benefit only select groups. In addition, we will undertake activities that anticipate and mitigate tensions that could arise from national peace processes, for example helping communities prepare for returns of displaced populations as called for in R-ARCSS or using media interventions to ensure communities have accurate information to avoid exacerbating tensions.

PCEP will use a bottom-up, community-driven approach to developing activities. This approach will allow the program to better identify key issues, encourages grantees to approach staff with ideas, and fosters community buy-in, leading to more sustainable projects. PCEP will ground truth all grant ideas with relevant communities to ensure activities respond to a priority need and benefit the wider community and not just select interests. This participatory approach will continue throughout the grant cycle, as community members help design, implement, and monitor of activities.

SUSTAINABILITY To foster sustainability, PCEP support community-driven activities, work with grantees who are already active and engaged in their communities, invest in grantee capacity, and continue to develop staff skills. At the community level, we will involve representative stakeholders in identifying primary grievances, needs, and opportunities. Together, PCEP staff and communities will design, implement, evaluate, and, if appropriate, scale up community-driven interventions that address conflict drivers and build resilience on a sustainable basis.

PCEP will include a capacity building assessment of each grantee. To build the capacity of grantees, PCEP will continue to provide training tailored to each grantee’s needs, which we will identify through a financial and management capacity assessment. PCEP will also work with partners to build their programming skills, including providing capacity building in for incorporating trauma awareness into their

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 9 programs appropriately. PCEP also looks to equip grantees with durable infrastructure and equipment which will support partners programming even after PCEP support is concluded. Over time, key partners will be able to assume greater ownership of PCEP implementation and partner directly with USAID and other donors. Finally, we will continue to provide comprehensive functional training and mentoring to all staff that will allow them to continuously build the capacity of grantees over the course of PCEP implementation.

During the idea generation stage of the grant cycle, the RPM will include a sustainability analysis in the concept note for each grant. The RPM or teammate will conduct a sustainability analysis, including assessing local ownership and links to other initiatives and funding sources, to be included in the activity design submitted through DevResults if applicable. The sustainability analysis complements the Contractor’s Financial and Management Capacity (FMC) assessment.

During the design and implementation phase, program staff will build the capacity of grantees to continue activities with funding from other sources after PCEP ends. This support could include raising awareness of activities to increase community buy-in, developing community cost-share contributions, building operational and technical capacity, increasing the capacity of grantees to solicit other donor funding, and developing plans for using income effectively, including opportunities to leverage future funding support.

Given the fragile, conflict-prone environment in South Sudan, and the nascent state of many partners in important but remote areas, the PCEP would propose moving forward with certain grants that do not necessarily meet sustainability criteria. For example, certain grants, particularly those awarded through the RRM, will respond to an immediate but temporary need. Illustrative short-term grant activities include providing transportation to civil society members attending national peace talks; cash-for-work programs; and providing lodging to visiting participants in a traditional authority-led reconciliation meeting.

CLUSTERING, LAYERING AND SEQUENCING ACTIVITIES PCEP will encourage staff to take a portfolio approach to work in each conflict zone. When developing a portfolio of mutually reinforcing grants, staff will draw on community input and their own understanding of communities, including on the most appropriate points of entry given local dynamics. For example, in many communities, we will begin by supporting interventions that respond to community-identified grievances, needs, and opportunities, such as the need to mitigate seasonal conflicts over grazing rights. PCEP may then link these efforts to civil society and media activities, for example supporting community radio stations in raising awareness of or reinforcing agreements that emerge from community dialogues. As local reconciliation processes take root and the R-ARCSS advances, PCEP will support the implementation of select transformational aspects of the agreement to prevent backsliding and build citizen engagement in political processes. For example, PCEP may use dialogues to prepare communities for return to their communities or reintegration or radio programming to raise awareness of justice and accountability mechanisms like the proposed hybrid court. At the same time, PCEP will layer in activities to support civil society and media during the R-ARCSS transition period, when confidence building, citizen engagement, transparency, and accountability will be crucial.

PCEP will assess all grant activity ideas for opportunities to build on previous grants or initiatives supported by PCEP or other actors working in either humanitarian or development spheres in order to leverage limited inputs for maximum outcomes. PCEP will coordinate with other stakeholders, such as

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 10 UNMISS, the NGO Forum, or USAID partners, and will cluster activities across objectives in specific regions. As part of its monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) process, PCEP will identify successful activities that could be replicated, and share lessons learned with partners.

GENDER, YOUTH AND MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES PCEP’s commitment to fully inclusive programming is embodied in PCEP’s staffing, training, and activity implementation. PCEP’s approach to engaging marginalized and vulnerable groups starts with building a team that models the diversity of South Sudan. PCEP anticipates hiring staff who speak many local languages, including Arabic, Juba Arabic, Dinka, Bari, Murle, Nuer, and Luo, representing over 85% of South Sudan. Staff will come from across the proposed regions of work, and they will have the knowledge, experience, and relationships to work effectively in communities across the country, including with youth and women’s groups. Moreover, they understand the importance of designing and implementing impartial activities that can begin to address the root social and ethnic inequities of historic tensions.

PCEP believes that a transformative gender integration approach – one which challenges notions of gender that perpetuate violence and undermine equitable participation in community and political decisions-making – is central to achieving PCEP’s goal of a more stable and cohesive South Sudan. PCEP’s plans to implement some female-focused activities, but also to fully integrate gender into PCEP activities at all levels. This is in part because gender dynamics affect all areas of life, including access to education, access to livelihoods, as well as community and family decision-making. In year one, PCEP will focus on developing a better understanding of gender issues in the context, including through the gender and social inclusion assessment to be conducted within the first six months.

PCEP will seek to work with both women and men in all areas, integrating and upholding women’s rights and providing viable alternatives for men who see violence against women – and other men – as their only source of power PCEP will meaningfully integrate gender across PCEP’s design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and staffing, strategies and processes.

PCEP’s Gender and Social Inclusion Specialist will work with our field teams to integrate gender and inclusion across program activities; they will be supported by the DCOP-STA, who has a background in integrating social inclusion approaches into her work. To enhance this capacity, PCEP will provide annual gender and social inclusion training for all staff, which draws on our Gender and Social Inclusion Framework and will teach staff how to ensure equitable participation for all groups in activity design, implementation, and monitoring.

In addition, prior to entering a new community, the PCEP team will carry out a brief mapping of the community, which will include a review of local gender issues, female and male community roles, and traditional structures and social norms. As part of the design, PCEP will consider male and female roles in the problem set and their potential roles in the solution, in consultation with the community itself. PCEP intends to intentionally support activities that empower women’s voices and teach and encourage transformative gender practices from men and women.

PCEP recognizes that unemployed, under empowered, and armed youth represent one of the key challenges to peacebuilding and stability throughout South Sudan. PCEP will address this group in part by ensuring active youth involvement in activities, including ensuring they have an active role in any local

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 11 peace processes or mediations. In particular this means ensuring that the cattle camp youth are provided an opportunity to engage, rather than depending exclusively on elders and traditional leaders to do all negotiation in their stead – a lesson learned throughout the previous VISTAS program as the exclusion of youth was often described as the reason agreements did not survive. Apart from active participation in dialogue processes, PCEP will try to follow-up these processes with peace dividends that will benefit youth constituencies such as livelihoods activities or support for local youth groups.

WORKING WITH GOVERNMENT In keeping with USAID’s guidance, PCEP will not engage with national or state level governments as potential grantees but will engage with them as needed to operate safely around the country. Officials may also attend events which are sponsored by PCEP. In this case PCEP will not provide them transport stipends, but otherwise they will be invited to take part in any meals and refreshments with other participants out of necessity.

At the county, payam and boma levels, PCEP will look for critical areas in which to support government, wherein the entire community may benefit. Of the 13 USAID priority counties, most of them are extremely rural and remote, and they receive limited government services up until today. Small investments have proven effective as peacebuilding and trauma awareness tools in the past, and PCEP will explore this type of support and as well as other community-driven priorities to build resilience. These local level leaders will also be critical to the success of PCEP programming within the counties, so it is expected that they will regular take part in PCEP programming in their areas. In line with USAID guidance, government officials will only participate in activities if it does not increase the overall cost of events.

LEARNING PCEP will be informed by lessons learned from the VISTAS program – specifically the need to ensure coordination and learning across the program. One issue identified by the MSI mid-term evaluation of the VISTAS program was that regions were conducting similar activities but not learning from each other, as no program-wide best practice was being developed. Under PCEP, the DCOP/STA and the two technical advisors will bear the responsibility for ensuring lessons learned are being regularly developed and shared, and that best practices are being supported across the program portfolio.

The MEL team has the responsibility for developing activity evaluations for each individual activity. These evaluations assess success against output and outcome objectives, as well as lessons learned on both the operational and programmatic sides. PCEP intends to review these lessons learned collectively monthly in order to internalize learnings and ensure they are applied program wide.

PCEP’S APPROACH TO ACTIVITY DESIGN

THE ACTIVITY CYCLE PCEP’s detailed approach to the activity cycle and activity management can be found in the PCEP Activity Manual. This section will simply discuss the key phases in the activity cycle. The below refers generally to grants under contract (GUCs), both in-kind and fixed amount awards (FAAs), while full

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 12 details on the short-term technical assistance (STTA) and direct delivery of goods and services (DDGS) modalities can be found in the activity manual.

IDEA DEVELOPMENT (CONCEPT) PHASE Activity ideas can come from many different places, including potential partners, PCEP staff or the USAID mission. In this phase, after an idea has been identified, the program team works with potential grantees to develop an initial idea for a potential grant. This is then presented to senior members of the PCEP team for further input, and then is presented during regular yellow light meetings with USAID for their input and initial sign off. Once it is further refined it is entered into the DevResults system and submitted to USAID for formal approval. Once USAID has approved the yellow light idea, or concept, in almost all cases the idea is likely to move forward to full approval, barring a significant change in context or another significant concern.

PENDING (DESIGN) PHASE Now yellow lit, the programs team vets the grantee using Visual Compliance and against a financial and management capacity assessment – and the FAA checklist if it is for a cash grant. The PCEP team then further co-develops the activity with the grantee, finalizing all details of implementation and the activity budget. This information is then entered into the activity file on DevResults and submitted internally within PCEP for inputs. Once finalized the COP or DCOP-STA will submit the fully developed activity documentation to USAID for approval. USAID approves the activity for green light.

CLEARED (IMPLEMENTATION) PHASE Once USAID has green lit, or cleared, an activity, PCEP then has permission to sign grant agreements with the partner and to begin spending against the approved activity budget. For in-kind grants, PCEP will begin procurement processes as soon as the grant agreement is signed. For Fixed Amount Awards (FAA), partners will complete milestones written into the grant agreement, and then PCEP will provide payments in response. This phase only concludes when all activities approved within the grant are completed, and all in-kind items have been fully delivered to the grantee or end-user. At this stage PCEP moves the activity to “Completed” in DevResults.

COMPLETED (REPORTING/EVALUATION) PHASE During this phase, PCEP ensures that all final payments have been made to the grantee or vendors and ensures all final grant paperwork is completed and filed on DevResults. The MEL team ensures that activity evaluations are completed in line with the individual MEL plans which were drafted as part of the activity file in DevResults. Once all of this is completed, PCEP will ask USAID to approve the closure of the activity. Once USAID approves, the activity moves to closed in DevResults.

THE PCEP RAPID RESPONSE MECHANISM (RRM) In addition to this annual workplan, which forecasts the expected programming over the coming fiscal year, PCEP also includes funds set aside in a RRM that will be utilized to flexibly respond to a range of potential issues throughout the year. Approximately 25% of the expected activity pool will be set aside for the RRM at the beginning of each year. RRM activities could be generated in response to national or local level peace agreements, providing peace dividends in response to resolutions from local peace or migration conferences, civil society dialogues, and other national, regional, or local dynamics. Ideas can be proposed by USAID, all levels of PCEP staff, civil society organizations, grantees, or community

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 13 members. In many cases, RRM actions will act as follow on activities to build upon success of activities conducted as part of the work plan, and to capitalize on windows of opportunity.

Further details on how the RRM operates can be found in the RRM Process guidelines, annex 4 of the Activity Manual. Further details on how PCEP anticipates using the RRM in relation to the program objectives in year one can be found below in “PCEP’s Approach to the Objectives.”

OPEN AND RESTRICTED ELIGIBILITY In line with USAID’s guidance on open and restricted eligibility for grant activities, PCEP will use an approach that is tailored to the South Sudan context and the need to operate in a flexible manner. Over the life of the program, PCEP intends to restrict eligibility to a limited set of partners for “small grants” – those that fall beneath the small acquisitions threshold, and thus allow limited competition so long as it is not limited to a single partner. In other instances PCEP anticipates restricting eligibility in cases of exclusive of predominant capability (when no other partner can be identified in a certain area or for a certain type of work), for new USAID partners, and for capacity-building purposes. Further details on PCEP’s approach to open and restricted eligibility can be found in the Justification for Restricted Eligibility (JRE) Guidelines that are annexed to the Activity Manual.

PCEP’S APPROACH TO THE OBJECTIVES

While PCEP will work across four objectives, we are aware that individual activities do not necessarily have distinct boundaries between them. Those partners who manage local dialogue processes are also members of civil society. Thus, in a single activity, there may be components that involve supporting local peace processes, building civil society, trauma (which will be integrated in most dialogue activities), and perhaps even media components. The section below identifies all objectives, intermediate results, and indicative activities from the PCEP contract, and discusses how each one will be approached in year one.

OBJECTIVE 1: LOCAL ACTORS ARE BUILDING CROSSLINE INTERDEPENDENCE AND INTRA-COMMUNITY COHESION TO PROMOTE PEACE PROCESSES AND PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE

INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.1: IMPROVED CAPACITY OF A WIDE RANGE OF LOCAL ACTORS TO PROMOTE PEACE AND PEACEFUL CO-EXISTENCE This intermediate result will be critical to PCEP’s year one approach – as this will involve identifying key partners who will act as the program’s major partners throughout the first year of the program, allowing the program to establish a foothold on the ground and laying the groundwork for a range of future work. PCEP approaches this intermediate result as primarily “dialogue focused activities”, though with potentially different themes and different actors involved in different types of processes. In year one, PCEP intends to identify key partners who can manage cash awards who will be supported to conduct ongoing dialogues throughout the year. These key partners will act as our eyes and ears on the ground as we begin to roll out the PCEP program, will conduct regular contextual analysis, and they will help to inform future programming.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 14 Indicative activities from the contract: 1.1.1 Provide technical assistance and support to launch and manage community peace and reconciliation processes between communities in conflict

While the design of individual grants will vary, the key point is funding a series of dialogues or meetings that allow for regular opportunities to bring key groups together, rather than “one-off” meetings without follow-up. The exact purpose of these meetings will vary. For example, there is a need for a more formal peace process in Jonglei between the Lou Nuer and the Murle (if this is possible in the current context). This could be a series of meetings between key actors that culminates in a formal agreement on how to resolve outstanding grievances and how they will act going forward. In this instance, if a formal agreement was made, PCEP would support the partner to ensure the agreement is circulated as widely as possible (indicative activity 1.1.4). In other cases, there may not be the need or the possibility of a formal process, but a PCEP partner may focus on “peacebuilding trainings” in which individuals from different groups are brought together, trained in peacebuilding principles, and given a chance to dialogue with others in a meaningful way. Each activity will be carefully co-designed between PCEP and partners to ensure that it is an appropriate response to the context.

1.1.2 Provide technical assistance and support to traditional authorities to mitigate local conflicts

Support to traditional authorities in year one could come in different forms but will likely come once the program has been established on the ground. Trainings on customary law and its application is likely to feature, as is in-kind support to provide materials which can boost traditional authorities as both a key actor in peace dialogues and as administrators of local justice.

1.1.3 Support community dialogues focusing on seasonal migration of pastoralists

PCEP will look to support migration processes in Wau/Jur River as well as in Budi County. These initial grants will be limited in size, but they will be considered as entry points for learning the context and specific dynamics in anticipation of increased support as needed in the future.

1.1.4: Support dissemination of resolutions/outcomes which emerge from community peace processes and migration dialogues

As mentioned above, this type of activity is only likely to happen in response to positive outcomes through the above activities. As such this is not included in the initial workplan but will come out of the RRM during the course of year one if needed.

INTERMEDIATE RESULT 1.2: INCREASED MUTUAL INTERDEPENDENCE RESULTING FROM INFRASTRUCTURE AND LIVELIHOODS PROJECTS This intermediate result follows on from positive experiences gained in the VISTAS program, in which mutually beneficial trade relationships were fostered between communities with a history of conflict. PCEP will likewise look for key opportunities to foster positive relationships through trade and livelihood type programs. This intermediate result is likely to have less emphasis in year one, as infrastructure will be delayed until year two due to the timing of the program startup relative to the rainy season, and as the program needs time to properly determine needs and where these activities will be most beneficial.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 15 1.2.1: Provide key infrastructure investments in support of cross-border trade relationships which support positive interdependence between communities

As stated above, infrastructure is unlikely to occur in year one, due to the start-up period relative to the rainy season. Experience has shown that identification and initial environmental and land assessments with communities should start in the dry season, and the design and contracting process needs to begin in approximately July/August, in order to successfully carryout infrastructure activities during the following dry season. Thus, infrastructure is likely to come in PCEP year two.

1.2.2: Support cash-for-work or other mechanisms to encourage communities working together

Cash-for-work activities will take place under the RRM, if it emerges as a key request coming out of other dialogue-focused activities. Cash-for-work will only take place when it has a broader purpose than purely economic – such as using it as a means to unite youth from different communities.

1.2.3: Support livelihood skills training which will contribute to mutual interdependence within communities

As with cash-for-work, in year one livelihood activities will come from the RRM in response to key requests emerging from dialogue activities. Anticipated activities include supporting communities in the focus counties with fishing equipment and training – an activity that has been highlighted in the past as something that keeps youth occupied and away from cattle raiding for their economic activity. This and similar activities are anticipated in year one, but relatively small grants in this period.

OBJECTIVE 2: CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS ARE ADVOCATING FOR PEACE, JUSTICE, RECONCILIATION, AND REFORM; AND PARTICIPATING IN POLITICAL AND CIVIC PROCESSES

INTERMEDIATE RESULT 2.1: CIVIL SOCIETY AND FAITH-BASED ORGANIZATIONS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS WORK TOGETHER FOR EFFECTIVE PEACEBUILDING, CIVIC EDUCATION, AND RECONCILIATION ACTIVITIES THAT RESONATE SOCIALLY AND CULTURALLY This intermediate result focuses on both promoting civic engagement and supporting the development and capacitation of civil society actors. It contains extensive overlap with objective one, as dialogue- based activities are largely run by local civil society actors and are forums for civic engagement even if informally.

Under this objective PCEP will focus efforts on strengthening linkages between national level and local level civil society. This in turn will benefit civil societies efforts to monitor and advocate surrounding all parts of R-ARCSS; as stronger networks will add additional means for monitoring implementation around the country, while also lending greater weight to all advocacy efforts.

2.1.1: Support local-level film, theater, music, and sports initiatives which bring together South Sudanese of diverse backgrounds to promote peace and reconciliation

In year one, PCEP will support the Hagana Festival in Juba, an annual art festival that the US government supported for the last four years. It is the only event of its kind in South Sudan, which brings together

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 16 musicians, comedians, visual artists, fashion designers and the like. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Hagana Festival will take place in a different form than in year’s past, but exact details are still being discussed. However, it will only go forward in a safe manner appropriate to the moment. In addition, in year one PCEP will pilot cinema programming in multiple locations, in which a grantee will be provided with a cinema kit and a collection of South Sudanese and relevant educational films, and will provide regular screenings and ensuing discussions in communities. Other activities in this realm are anticipated in year one, most of which will be low budget activities, but which are effective at uniting communities and celebrating peace processes.

2.1.2: Support civic engagement forums and civic-awareness campaigns around issues such as reform, good governance, reconciliation, and accountability

In year one, activities designed specifically for this purpose are anticipated to come via the RRM, if it is determined that there is a specific need. In truth this indicative activity overlaps greatly with what will take place under intermediate result 1.1, as civic-awareness is built into the majority of dialogues in some way, educating communities about R-ARCSS and other issues. In addition, civic education programming will be included with shortwave radios distributed under objective four.

2.1.3: Build the capacity of and support youth, women, and minority groups to encourage engagement in local peace processes and advocacy efforts

In year one PCEP will take over support for the Women’s Monthly Forum in Juba in the fourth quarter, once support from the USAID-funded Systems to Uphold the Credibility and Constitutionality of Elections in South Sudan (SUCCESS) program concludes. In addition, support for specific women, youth and minority groups will emerge throughout the year as a response to dialogue activities and the identification of specific groups and needs which PCEP is well positioned to support. Typical grants to women or youth groups is likely to be in-kind support to help them get established, with provision of office furnishings, computers, stationary and the like.

2.1.4: Support operations and sustainability of Civic Engagement Centers (CECs)

In the fourth quarter, PCEP will take over support for some or all of the six CECs currently supported by SUCCESS, pending further USAID guidance. CEC’s are currently located in Aweil, Wau, Rumbek, Yambio, Torit and Juba. PCEP support is likely to involve salary, internet, and supplies. The program hopes to move the CEC’s on to cash grants to build their capacity to manage funds and seek other sources of income for the future.

2.1.5: Support local and national civil society networks to ensure coordinated advocacy initiatives

This activity is likely to be restrained in year one, due to budget limitations, but PCEP will support the Civil Society Forum to try and better link them with local partners around the country. The exact nature of support will be determined via co-design process between PCEP and the Forum.

2.1.6: Facilitate civil society actors’ participation in regional and international meetings

This support will emerge from the RRM if there is a need throughout the course of year one. Requests could emerge from the Civil Society Forum, USAID or elsewhere.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 17 2.1.7: Support civil society monitoring of peace processes and ceasefire mechanisms

In the fourth quarter, PCEP will take over support for the Peace Implementation Monitoring Initiative (PIMI) from the SUCCESS program. PIMI, which is managed by the Voluntary Civil Society Taskforce on the Implementation of the Peace Agreement, provides evidence-based reports on peace deal implementation, informed by 60 peace monitors throughout the country.

INTERMEDIATE RESULT 2.2: CITIZEN ACTORS PARTICIPATE IN PROCESSES SUPPORTING TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE AND ENHANCING COMMUNITIES’ PERCEPTIONS OF JUSTICE THAT ASSIST FORMAL AND INFORMAL PEACEBUILDING EFFORTS This intermediate result will be the most limited in the first year of PCEP, for financial and programmatic reasons, but the program will still be able to provide important support to a couple of key actors. Support in year one will focus on activities which are working towards long-term transitional justice goals.

2.2.1: Develop innovative systems to effectively and safely document and collect information on violations of civil liberties

PCEP will look to support one partner in year one, who will focus on memorialization efforts. While PCEP will look to work with a diversity of partners in subsequent years, in year one, memorialization efforts appear to be under-funded relative to other elements of transitional justice programming, thus PCEP will focus attention there.

2.2.2: Build the capacity of individuals, organizations, networks, and initiatives working to expand civil liberties

Due to budget constraints, there will be no capacity building activities for this immediate result in year one. For this reason, only actors who already show sufficient ability in data collection will be supported this year.

2.2.3: Support citizen engagement and awareness on transitional justice and civil liberties issues

In the fourth quarter of year one, PCEP will take over support for the Transitional Justice Working Group (TJWG) from SUCCESS. The TJWG collectively works to raise awareness of transitional justice issues and mechanisms among the South Sudanese people. PCEP hopes to support them in expanding an understanding of transitional justice around the country, including in the focus counties. This will be developed in partnership with the SUCCESS program over the months ahead, before PCEP takes over support for the TJWG.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 18 OBJECTIVE 3: KEY PARTNERS ARE PROVIDING TRAUMA AWARENESS SERVICES TO COMMUNITIES

INTERMEDIATE RESULT 3.1: STAKEHOLDERS RECOGNIZE SIGNS OF TRAUMA AND DISTRESS AND ARE ABLE TO APPROACH INTRA- AND INTER-COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND DIALOGUE WITH INCREASED SENSITIVITY While the trauma awareness portfolio is a small part of the PCEP activity budget, its impact is expected to be far greater by intentionally linking it to other activities. Trauma affects all facets of life, and almost the entire population of South Sudan has experienced traumatic events in their life. Trauma has the potential to negatively influence all elements of life including the ability to trust neighboring communities, the willingness to invest in trade or agriculture, and the ability to properly raise a family. PCEP’s trauma awareness programming (using the Morning Star materials developed by the VISTAS program) aims to help individuals overcome their personal trauma and be better able to engage with their families and communities.

While it is a small body of programming, PCEP will use trauma awareness activities to complement and amplify the effects of other programming. A prime example – providing trauma awareness sessions to two sets of individuals who will be entering into a peace dialogue the following week. This model has proven effective in South Sudan previously, preparing groups for the peace talks to follow by helping them understand the victim-perpetrator cycle, and figuring out how to step outside of it. PCEP is aware that ideally trauma awareness work is linked to referrals for clinical care as needed. In the South Sudanese context, this is rarely available with certain exceptions. When possible, PCEP will link to referral services, and will build relationships with actors providing psycho-social support and clinical care towards the end of connecting trauma awareness activities when needed. However, the Morning Star materials were developed, tested, assessed, and revised based on do-no-harm principles to minimize any chance of retraumatizing or triggering buried trauma in participants lives. PCEP will continually reassess trauma awareness activities to ensure best practice is being followed given contextual limits.

3.1.1: Train individuals to engage communities in trauma awareness

In year one, PCEP intends to use an STTA activity as its primary trauma awareness action. Under this activity, PCEP will pre-vet a set of Master Trainers who are skilled implementers of the Morning Star tools developed under the VISTAS program. These Master Trainers will then support the program in adapting existing materials to better fit within partners’ peacebuilding programs and create ‘modules’ that will be incorporated into other PCEP activities, such as peace dialogues and livelihood activities. They will also support partner organizations to better integrate trauma awareness into their activities in an informed (do no harm) manner.

PCEP intends to have a second activity as a grant to a local organization who already demonstrates high capacity in utilizing trauma awareness tools, and who can help support other grantees and activities with trauma awareness activities by strengthening and streamlining their trauma awareness methodology and tools.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 19 3.1.2: Support innovative community-based trauma awareness initiatives

There will not be a distinct activity of this nature in year one, as it is all combined in the first activity mentioned under 3.1.1 – where-in the same activity will support developing and adapting new materials with the actual provision of training and capacity building partner organizations.

3.1.3: Produce and disseminate materials promoting trauma awareness in partnership with other organizations working in this sector on the ground, as necessary and feasible

PCEP anticipates these activities to take place from year two onwards, given year one financial considerations.

OBJECTIVE 4: PRINT, RADIO, AND OTHER MEDIA ARE PROVIDING ACCURATE, FAIR AND THOROUGH INFORMATION TO MITIGATE THE DESTRUCTIVE IMPACT OF RUMOR AND MISINFORMATION

INTERMEDIATE RESULT 4.1: COMMUNITY MEMBERS ACCESS INDEPENDENT MEDIA OUTLETS AND PARTICIPATE IN PEACEFUL AND PURPOSEFUL DEBATE, AND ARE ABLE TO RESIST MISINFORMATION, DISINFORMATION AND HATE SPEECH In year one, PCEP will focus media efforts on increasing rural media access and literacy in USAID’s priority counties. The effort will be based around the distribution of 600 shortwave radios in six of the priority counties. The bulk of the radios will be provided based on the formation of listening groups of 10 individuals who commit to coming together once per week to listen to the news and discuss. PCEP will seek the support of Internews in developing appropriate methodologies for radio distributions and the formation of listening groups. The radios will be pre-loaded with content such as peace dramas, discussions of the peace deal, and information on how to identify misinformation and fake news. The content to be used will come from sources such as BBC Media Action and Internews. Grantees will provide instructions to every radio recipient on how to use the radios, play the pre-loaded content and how to access all relevant broadcasts for the region – including Eye Radio and Radio Tamazuj shortwave broadcasts. These broadcasts are available throughout the country and are the only available source of external news (if shortwave radios are present) for counties such as Budi, Panyijar and Akobo they.

The program will engage with a trusted partner to develop programming that addresses misinformation and fake news, which will be included with the radios that are distributed. In addition, PCEP hopes to identify two appropriate communities in which to install a “radio in a box”. These community radio stations have a demonstrated level of sustainability and will be the only source of local information available in their communities. They will be used to counter misinformation, allow for an early warning system in the event of potential conflict, and will be an effective tool for educating the public. As South Sudan is no longer in active civil war, rural violence is largely related to cattle theft and revenge killing. The majority of those in the community are against this violence, but it can easily escalate if allowed to get out of control. Providing means for community leaders to engage with citizens is critical to reducing conflict in these communities. Critically, radios will also be used to share the outcomes of any PCEP or other partners dialogue and peacebuilding programs. PCEP will look to lay the foundation of a strong media program in year one, while refining plans for a larger media budget in year two.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 20 4.1.1: Support independent journalism from radio and print media houses

In the first year, PCEP intends to support at least one partner with national reach to develop additional programming regarding specifically addressing misinformation and how to identify it. This will be linked to radio distributions under 4.1.5.

PCEP will also look to provide two “Radio in a Box” units to partners in communities who do not currently have any form of community radio. These small units can be set up inside any existing structure and outfitted with PV systems to ensure cost free community radio going forward, with the exception of limited repair and replacement of equipment. One such unit was installed by Viable Support to Transition and Stability (VISTAS) in Pochalla two years ago and is still running successfully with no regular financial inputs.

4.1.2: Support journalists unions and media advocacy bodies to protect journalists, conduct media sector analysis and advocacy, support free speech, and strengthen private investment in the media sector

In the fourth quarter of year one PCEP will provide support for the Association for Media Development in South Sudan (AMDSS), taking over from the ISTREAM program. PCEP will support AMDSS’s Media Development Institute as it offers university level journalism degrees. Apart from this program, AMDSS is currently positioned as the best advocacy body for journalists and the media sector in South Sudan and is thus a key partner. PCEP will coordinate closely with Internews in taking over support to AMDSS.

4.1.3: Disseminate information on peace processes

Any activities of this nature will be conducted using the RRM. This could include support for radio programming to share about national level issues, or other means of sharing information. The two community radio stations installed (radio in a box) will be utilized to share information on any other programming PCEP and USAID partners are conducting in the area.

4.1.4: Provide physical infrastructure investments in media houses

No infrastructure activities will take place in year one of the program as explained previously.

4.1.5: Expand media access and media literacy

PCEP will provide short-wave radios to targeted communities towards the end of year one. These radios will be pre-equipped with peacebuilding content and will be given out with instructions on how to use the radios and how to access shortwave and FM (where applicable) radio broadcasts. Radios will be given out on the condition that listening groups are formed, and these groups will be given guidance on how to operate as a listening group per the guidance developed by Internews. Regular feedback from listening groups will be collected regularly by PCEP and partners to gauge the success of radio distributions and listening groups.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 21 ANNEX 1: INDICATIVE ACTIVITIES FOR YEAR ONE

PCEP Year One Activities Objectives and Intermediate Results Activity Group Indicative Activities Estimated # Activities and budget Objective 1: Local actors are building crossline Community Peace and Wau: Dinka‐Luo‐Fertit $70,000 interdependence and intra‐community cohesion to Yambio: Intracommunal issues $50,000 promote peace processes and peaceful co‐existence Kapoeta: Toposa‐Didinga‐Buya $50,000 Unity: Panyijar‐Yirol $70,000 Unity: Leer‐Mayendit $70,000 IR1.1: Improved capacity of a wide range of local actors to Akobo: Intra‐Communal Revenge Killings $70,000 engage constructively and to usccessfully mitigate Akobo‐Pibor: Peace Process $70,000 perceived conflict issues Traditional Authorities RRM

Migration Support Wau: Support to Migration $45,000 Budi: Support to Migration $45,000

Dissemination RRM or within other activities

Infrastructure No Infrastructure in Year 1 Cash for Work RRM in Year 1 IR1.2: Increased mutual interdependence resulting from Livelihood Skills Training RRM in Year 1 infrastructure and livelihoods projects $540,000 Objective 2: Civil society actors are advocating for peace, Film/Theater/Art/Music/Sport Ana Taban $100,000 justice, reconciliation, and reform; and participating in Wau: Film Screenings $25,000 political and civic processes. Akobo: Film Screenings $25,000 Unity: Film Screenings $25,000

IR2.1: Civil Society and faith‐based organizations, Civic Engagement RRM individuals, and groups work together for effective peacebuilding, civic eduation, and reconciliation activities Youth, Woman, Minority Groups Women's Monthly Forum $20,000 that resonate socially and culturally. RRM Civic Engagement Centers Wau: Civic Engagement Center $25,000 Aweil: Civic Engagement Center $25,000 Rumbek: Civic Engagement Center $25,000 Yambio: Civic Engagement Center $25,000 Torit: Civic Engagement Center $25,000 Juba: Civic Engagement Center $25,000

CS Networks/National & Local Civil Society Forum $50,000

Regional Participation RRM

Peace Process Monitoring PIMI $25,000

Memorialization Partner 1 $75,000

Capacity Build HRD Not in Year One IR2.2: Citizen actors participate in processes supporting Citizen Engagement on Transitional TJWG $25,000 transitional justice and enhancing communities' perceptions of justice that assist formal and informal Total Objective 2 peacebuilding efforts $520,000

Train Individuals to Engage CommunitSTTA Activity $100,000 Objective 3: Key Partners are providing trauma awareness Local Organization $50,000 services to communities Community Trauma Awareness Takes place within the STTA activity above Total Objective 3 IR3.1: Stakeholders recognize signs of trauma and distress $150,000 and are able to approach intra‐ and inter‐community Produce/Disseminate Materials Not in Year One engagement and dialogue with increased sensitivity Media Houses Radio Tamazuj $100,000 Radio‐in‐a‐Box 1 $45,000 Radio‐in‐a‐Box 2 $45,000 Objective 4: Print, radio, and other media are providing accurate, fair and thorough information to mitigate the Unions/Advocacy Bodies AMDSS ‐ Media Development Institute $25,000 destructive impact of rumor and misinformation

Disseminate Peace Processes RRM only IR4.1: Community members access independent media outlets and participate in peaceful and purposeful debate, Physical Infrastructure Not in Year One and are able to resist misinformation, disinformation and hate speech Media Access/Literacy (Radios) Radio Distribution ‐ 600 $70,000 Total Objective 4 $285,000 Rapid Response Mechanism Addressing new opportunities as they All arrive, i.e. peace dialogue after clashes in $500,000 the PoC, dissemination of resolutions, etc. Activities in this table are all "indicative" ‐ the type of activities PCEP intends to engage with in year one, but as the program rolls out, specific activities may change to target different relationships or geographies than the specific ones listed here.

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 22

U.S. Agency for International Development

www.usaid.gov

Work Plan: Year One | Promoting Civic Engagement and Peace (PCEP) 1