FINAL EVALUATION Our Country, Our Future: A Community Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi SEPTEMBER 30, 2016
Lead Evaluator: SFCG Regional Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Associate Olivia Russell Research Team: SFCG-Burundi DM&E Assistant Janvier Ndagijimana Data collected: August 2016
Floride Ahitungiye Adrienne Lemon Country Director Senior DM&E Regional Specialist Search for Common Ground Search for Common Ground
32, Avenue Kunkiko, Rohero II 32, Avenue Kunkiko, Rohero II Bujumbura, Burundi Bujumbura, Burundi +257 22 219696 +257 22241946 [email protected] Search for Common Ground | [email protected]
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 2 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...... 2 Acknowledgements ...... 3 Abbreviations ...... 3 Executive Summary ...... 4 Project background ...... 4 Methodology ...... 4 Limitations ...... 5 Key Findings ...... 5 Recommendations ...... 8 1. Background Information ...... 10 About Search for Common Ground ...... 10 Project Overview ...... 10 2. Methodology ...... 12 Evaluation Objectives ...... 12 Data Collection and Analysis ...... 12 Limitations ...... 15 3. Findings ...... 16 Contextual dynamics ...... 16 Effectiveness ...... 22 Impact ...... 45 Sustainability ...... 51 4. Conclusions ...... 53 5. Recommendations ...... 55 6. Appendices ...... 57
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 3 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, this evaluation would not have been possible without the engagement and insights provided by the participants and non-participants who dedicated their time and energy to take part in the survey, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews.
A special thanks to the research team for all of their hard work and dedication during the final evaluation process: Goreth Kamikazi, Désiré Nsanzamahoro, Christa Nkurunziza, and Arcade Habiyambere.
Many thanks to SFCG-Burundi DM&E Assistant Janvier Ndagijimana who managed all logistics as well as translated and co-facilitated the focus group discussions and key informant interviews. His energy, dedication and attention to detail were key ingredients to the success of the planning and data collection processes. Thanks to SFCG-Burundi M&E Coordinator Dieudonné Murangamizwa for his guidance and input as well.
The time, energy and many insights of SFCG staff members and partner organizations were also greatly appreciated. Abbreviations
CSO U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations
FGD Focus Group Discussion
ILT Institutional Learning Team
KII Key Informant Interview
MSC Mixed Security Committees
OMAC L'Organisation des médias d'Afrique centrale
PTI Partners Trust International (PTI)
RFI Radio France Internationale
RPA Radio Public Africain
RTNB Radio Télévision National du Burundi
SFCG Search for Common Ground
VOA Voice of America Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 4 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Executive Summary
Project background
The project “Our Country, Our Future: A Community Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi” was implemented by Search for Common Ground (SFCG), in collaboration with Partners Trust International (PTI) and L'Organisation des médias d'Afrique centrale (OMAC). The project was funded by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) with the goal to support local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi. Project activities were implemented over 19 months in line with the project’s two specific objectives:
1. Support key individuals and community networks to de-escalate disputes; and 2. Foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue.
Methodology
The final evaluation was conducted in August 2016 by an internal evaluation team. Following a document review, data was collected in all five intervention provinces: Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural, Bubanza, Kirundo and Makamba. Data was collected in two communes in each province. Key informant interviews (KII) and surveys were conducted in both communes, while focus group discussions (FGDs) were conducted in just one. In total, the evaluation team conducted 20 focus groups (73 women and 70 men), 20 key informant interviews (8 women and 12 men), and 520 surveys (283 women and 237 men).
Finally, as the baseline was conducted via SMS, indicator progress was confirmed in this report using baseline data and data collected in the June 2016 SMS report. Data from the final evaluation surveys, FGDs and KIIs mentioned above were used to contextualize and deepen understanding of this progress and overall project impact.
This final evaluation had three key objectives: 1. Internal and External Context Analysis: How the program was affected by both internal and external factors, and strategies used to respond to the changing context. 2. Progress towards results: A full review of the project outcome and output indicators to date, and comparison with baseline indicators to measure the change brought about by the project. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 5 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
3. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Lessons learned from the program and recommendations for the development of future initiatives to support inclusive dialogue and tolerance in the Burundian context.
Limitations
Key limitations of the evaluation were linked to data representativeness and participant confidence level. While survey data was collected in 10 communes, FGDs took place in only five (one in each province). Therefore, the FGD data may not fully represent the provinces of intervention. 520 surveys were conducted in total, allowing for a 95% confidence level with a 10% margin of error in all five provinces. Additionally, due to the sensitivity of questions, some respondents (in FGDs, KIIs and surveys) were hesitant to respond or give full responses.
Key Findings
Overall, the evaluation found that the project was effective in supporting local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi. This was accomplished, despite a challenging and changing implementing environment, by providing key individuals with new skills to de-escalate disputes, as well as providing spaces for inclusive dialogue and building skills in non-violent expression which enhanced political tolerance. The commitment to conflict resolution and tolerance at the individual level and capacities built within partner organizations suggests sustainability of the project results.
Contextual dynamics
2015 was a tumultuous year in Burundi. The elections were mired in protests, tension and violence. In 2016, violence decreased but did not disappear, and the economy suffered. As prices and unemployment rose, the Burundian currency value tumbled and environmental like heavy rains challenges threatened livelihoods. Some Burundians have fled, remaining abroad, while others have begun to return. Despite these changes, ethnic and political cohabitation were reported as good, although political discrimination remains a challenge.
The biggest contextual challenge noted in terms of project implementation was difficulty cooperating with the local government administration. In some cases the administration’s hostility and suspicion also impacted participants’ ability to share the messages they had learned because the administration was hesitant to approve organized gatherings. There were also participants that felt that members of the administration were not appropriate facilitators of Town hall meetings because they are not seen as completely neutral. The economic deterioration also presented a challenge. Some participants mentioned that the Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 6 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi stipends provided to attend the trainings were not enough. Listening to the radio was reported to be difficult in some cases because not all could afford radios, batteries and/or electricity. Additionally the radio program confronted challenges associated with radio station closures and censorship (linked to the political crisis and ensuing climate of tension).
Effectiveness1
Objective 1: To support beneficiaries2 to resolve disputes peacefully
The project effectively supported beneficiaries to resolve disputes peacefully through trainings preparing them to mediate conflicts non-violently. The evaluation found that the trainings helped participants to expand their understanding of the process of non- violent conflict resolution to include new concepts, besides mediation, like compromise and collaboration. While the number of people that reported mediation was “the best method that is often used in conflict or dispute resolution” decreased, those reporting compromise was increased considerably. In July 2015 compromise was reported as the preferred method by 1% of beneficiaries and in June 2016 by 25%. Therefore, while there was a reduction in those reporting mediation as their preferred method of non-violent conflict resolution, rather than signaling a failure, this highlights the participants’ acquired skills to resolve disputes peacefully.
This success is underscored by participants’ performance in post-training knowledge tests: 75% of the trainees passed the post-test, well above the 65% required by the target. Furthermore, these gains in knowledge and skills clearly translated to action: participants regularly managed conflicts on a wide range of domestic and political issues with a consistent success rate of 65% or higher.
Objective 2: To foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue
As the political violence decreased in Burundi, the “hot” conflict was replaced with careful self-censorship on the part of Burundian citizens. While at the beginning of the project 44% of participants reported feeling comfortable to express themselves on
1 OECD (DAC) Evaluation Criteria for conflict prevention and peacebuilding activities was employed in this evaluation. “Effectiveness” responds to the following questions: “To what extent were the objectives achieved? What factors contributed to achievements?” “Impact” responds to the following questions: “What happened as a result of the conflict prevention and peacebuilding activity? Why? What were the positive and negatives changes produced, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended?” And finally, “Sustainability” responds to the questions: “Will benefits be maintained after donor support has ended? Has the intervention addressed the role of “spoilers” (those who benefit from on-going conflict) or attempted to engage the “hard-to-reach” (combatants, extremists, men, etc.)? Do locals have ownership of the activity or programme, where possible? Have durable, long-term processes, structures and institutions for peacebuilding been created?” 2 “Beneficiary” refers to project participants. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 7 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi national debates, by the end of the project 41% did. Given the drastic change in context, this relative stability of the indicator could indicate that the project boosted participant resilience to the deteriorating free speech environment. Furthermore, if participant rates (41%) are compared to non-participant rates (38%), there is a modest difference. Finally, it seems that some nuances may not have been captured by this indicator. For example, some participants expressed that they did not feel comfortable expressing their political views generally, but that they were able to express themselves during the training despite being in front of those who they would ordinarily see as adversaries.
While the trainings provided a small space for inclusive dialogue, their main goal was to prepare the participants to address conflicts non-violently. In this respect, the project was a success. While in the beginning of the project 59% of participants reported feeling comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently, by the end 69% did. This result was further demonstrated by the conviction with which they spoke about their abilities during FGDs and KIIs, responding without hesitation that they were capable (compared to non- participants who said things like “I could try”). Finally, while participants clearly felt capable, they reported facing certain challenges. But, the challenges they raised were largely inherent to mediation, rather than tied to lack of sufficient training, support, etc. Lack of confidence in the mediator of the parties in conflict was considered the biggest challenge, followed by meddling of external parties.
Project results were not restricted to those who attended the trainings. Other project activities (radio program, peace events and comic book) reached 20% of those surveyed in the areas of intervention: roughly one in five. Given the closure of the main private radio stations, this should be considered an achievement as it demonstrates SFCG’s ability to adapt its dissemination strategy to the changing context, forging new and fruitful partnerships (for example with Voice of America (VOA) and launching an active Facebook presence (more than 36,000 likes as of this writing). Both training participants and those reached by the project in other ways shared what they learned, expanding the project’s impact. 100% of those who attended trainings spoke with their families about non-violent conflict afterwards compared to 44% of non- participants who had been exposed to project activities.
Impact
Overall, the project had a positive impact on the participants’ abilities and confidence to address conflicts. Project activities also boosted tolerance for other political opinions, building bridges between and among local leaders, religious leaders and community mobilizers. These links and enhanced tolerance served to carve out a safe space for freedom of expression during trainings and other project events, and these impacts were Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 8 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi amplified by participants’ ongoing efforts to share their new knowledge, skills and outlook with others in their community.
The project’s radio program had an impact on freedom of expression on a higher level, boosting the neutrality of VOA programming in Burundi and elevating examples of non- violent dialogue between members of differing political parties. These examples served to break down intolerance of other political leaders who listened, priming them for future interactions with those of other parties or opinions.
Mediation entails risks, and this project was no exception. The project activities carried risks inherent to mediation and conflict resolution work, namely that parties in conflict could verbally or physically harm mediators. Unfortunately, many project participants reported being verbally abused while mediating a conflict and six reported having been physically harmed by a party in conflict (in all ten focus group discussions with 65 participants in total or 9%). Fortunately, no serious injuries were reported. These risks are unavoidable in conflict mediation work, but were mitigated by underlining safe approaches to mediation during the trainings (for example, speaking to each party in conflict separately or not working with people when they are intoxicated).
Sustainability
A majority of participants surveyed reported being committed to conflict resolution and efforts to share their new skills and knowledge with others. Participants pledged to continue sharing what they had learned with others through trainings and discussion. Given that the participants have been using their own means to raise awareness in the communities throughout the project, especially via channels and audiences that are readily available to them (their students, congregations and fellow association members, as mentioned in the preceding section), it seems that this is likely, or at least feasible, to continue after the end of the project. Additionally, the project served to build capacity of both partner organizations PTI and OMAC, further improving the prospects for sustainability.
Recommendations
1. Given the sensitivity of political dialogue and the growing self-censorship, ensure sustainable impact on tolerance, non-violent expression and inclusive dialogue by: • “Laying the groundwork” for frank dialogue in Town hall meetings by holding a series of precursor events, like sports matches or sessions focused on non- sensitive subjects, with the same invitees to create a climate of trust among them. • Building on the positive dynamics related to ethnic tolerance and resilience, encouraging continued collaboration, peaceful coexistence, and social cohesion. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 9 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
• Selecting neutral facilitators for Town hall meetings or other dialogues, who are not part of the administration (although the administration should be invited to participate), and training them on facilitation and specifically techniques to create an environment of trust in the room. • Creating fixed frameworks for dialogue and exchange among the project participants with scheduled meetings and staff support to continually build on the progress made during trainings. • Developing a monitoring system better able to detect and understand incremental impacts on tolerance and inclusive dialogue. 2. Improve cooperation with the local government by: • Creating provincial or communal SFCG antennae that work throughout the duration of the project with the local administration to appeal to their interests and show them how the results of this type of work benefits them as local authorities, building shared interest and ownership. 3. Enhance impact of radio programming by: • Improving marketing strategies to promote the radio program by informing participants about the radio program systematically and asking them to promote it in their community. • Organizing and budgeting for “listening centers” (centres d’écoute”) to reach those without radio access, as well as to gain regular feedback on radio program content with target groups. • Tailoring radio programming to a clearly defined audience (youth, religious leaders, etc.) to avoid the pitfall that programming aimed at everyone speaks directly to no one. 4. Ensure the highest standards of “Do No Harm” by: • Ensuring that training emphasizes steps in the mediation process that are designed to protect the mediator (e.g. never mediate a conflict where one or more of the parties in conflict are intoxicated). • Reminding participants in the training that their safety is paramount, that they should assess the risk to their safety before beginning mediation in any conflict and provide tools or steps for how they can assess this themselves.
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 10 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
1. Background Information
About Search for Common Ground
Search for Common Ground’s (SFCG) Figure 1: Map of intervention provinces mission is to transform the way individuals, organizations, and governments deal with conflict, away from adversarial approaches and towards collaborative solutions. Headquartered in Washington DC, USA, and Brussels, Belgium with field offices in 35 countries, SFCG designs and implements multifaceted programs that aim to transform conflict. SFCG seeks to help conflicting parties understand their differences and act on their commonalities. SFCG has been working in Burundi since 1995, where it collaborates with local partners to build communities’ resilience to violence and strength of local peace actors across the country.
Project Overview
In early 2015, as the July 2015 elections drew closer, the political climate in Burundi became increasingly tense with radical rhetoric, the creation and mobilization of “youth wings” of political parties, and increasing political violence, alarming regional experts, the United Nations and neighboring countries. On the ground observers warned of an impending crisis, while Adama Dieng, U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, warned that greater political openness and dialogue between political actors was necessary if Burundi was to “avoid the worst.”
In response to the growing crisis, SFCG, in collaboration with Partners Trust International (PTI) and L'Organisation des médias d'Afrique centrale (OMAC) developed “Our Country, Our Future: A Community Empowerment Approach for Non- Violence in Burundi.” Funded by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) and implemented over 19 months, the project aimed to support local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi. The theory of change was that if Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 11 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi diverse local leaders have the opportunity, resources and credible platform for engagement, then their collective action can reduce the risk of violence.3
The project began in March 2015 and concluded in September 2016. A series of activities were implemented in five provinces: Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural, Bubanza, Kirundo and Makamba (See Figure 1). The five were chosen based on their history of violence and political significance, and because of ongoing SFCG youth and peacebuilding projects in those areas. Some of the project activities focused on provincial capitals to target provincial political and religious leaders, while others directed at the commune level sought to empower local community leaders.
The project had two specific objectives:
1. Support key individuals and community networks to de-escalate disputes; and 2. Foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue.
The project attempted to achieve these objectives through multiple initiatives:
• Media programs (TV and radio spots, radio roundtables, radio plays, a comic book); • Media monitoring with OMAC; • Community engagement activities: “town halls”; • Peace initiatives (cultural events, concerts, and marches for peace); • Personal and communal peace empowerment through workshops on conflict management with provincial, religious, and communal leaders; and • Monitoring activities
The expected results were:
• Local leaders from diverse backgrounds have increased skills and opportunities to transform conflict and prevent violence; • Local peace initiatives and dispute resolution mechanisms are strengthened within targeted communities; • Safe spaces for constructive public dialogue are created at the community level; and • Attitudes favorable to tolerance, pluralism, and non-violence are reinforced in media throughout the country.
3 This theory is informed by the “Healthy Relationships” and “Public Attitudes” theories of change, which hold that the establishment of communications channels between groups in conflict can effectively reduce tensions, and that shifting public attitudes can create an environment that reinforces local peace actors to propose alternatives to violence. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 12 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
SFCG and PTI worked with religious, traditional, and community leaders, including women and youth, to mobilize and support them to peacefully transform conflict while creating safe spaces for nonviolent expression. 2. Methodology
Evaluation Criteria and Objectives
The evaluation criteria are effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The evaluation focused on the following key objectives:
1. Internal and External Context Analysis: How the program was affected by both internal and external factors, and strategies used to respond to the changing context. 2. Progress towards results: A full review of the project outcome and output indicators to date, and comparison with baseline indicators to measure the change brought about by the project. 3. Lessons Learned and Recommendations: Lessons learned from the program and recommendations for the development of future initiatives to support inclusive dialogue and tolerance in the Burundian context.
Data Collection and Analysis
Evaluation Team
In consultation with CSO, SFCG decided to conduct an internal evaluation given the sensitivities and instability of the Burundian context as well as to maximize the focus on learning. This evaluation was led by SFCG’s Design, Monitoring and Evaluation (DM&E) team, in collaboration with SFCG-Burundi staff. The evaluation was supervised by Senior DM&E Regional Specialist Adrienne Lemon and designed and conducted by SFCG’s DM&E Regional Associate Olivia Russell. Fieldwork and logistics were supported by SFCG-Burundi DM&E Assistant Janvier Ndagijimana. Survey data was collected by a team of four externally recruited enumerators: Goreth Kamikazi, Désiré Nsanzamahoro, Christa Nkurunziza, and Arcade Habiyambere. Both gender and ethnicity were taken into account in the selection of enumerators.
Locations and Timeframe
The data was collected in all five provinces of implementation: Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural, Bubanza, Kirundo and Makamba. In each province data was collected Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 13 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi in two communes4 chosen for prevalence of program activities. The communes selected were5:
• Bujumbura Mairie: Ntahangwa*and Muha communes; • Bujumbura Rural:6 Bugarama* and Mukike communes; • Bubanza: Bubanza* and Gihanga communes; • Kirundo: Kirundo and Busoni* communes; and • Makamba: Makamba* and Nyanza-Lac communes.
The baseline evaluation for this project was produced in July 20151. This final evaluation was conducted in August 2016.7
Data Collection Methods and Target Groups
A mixed methods qualitative and quantitative approach was employed:
• Document review: Project documents were analyzed: baseline report, activity reports, monitoring reports, databases, radio broadcasts, comic books, etc. • Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) with: o Leaders (religious and local) and community mobilizers who have received SFCG training in conflict de-escalation (2 per province, 10 total) o Leaders (religious and local) and community mobilizers who have not received SFCG training (2 per province, 10 total) o Partners/Collaborators (1 PTI, 1 OMAC; 2 total) o Search staff (2 total) • Focus groups discussions (FGDs) with: o Male participants8 in SFCG project activities (1 per province; 5 total); o Female participants in SFCG project activities (1 per province; 5 total) o Male community members with no prior experience with the project activities;9 (1 per province; 5 total)
4 Burundian administrative districts are divided into Colline, Commune, Zone and Province (Province being the largest). 5 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and surveys took place in both selected communes in each province. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted in one of two communes in each province. Asterisks indicate the communes where focus groups were conducted. The selection of FGD communes was done randomly. 6 Due to re-zoning, which took place after the project began, Bugarama is now part of a new province called Rumonge. However, for the sake of simplicity, this report uses “Bujumbura Rural” to refer to both Bugarama and Mukike. 7 For detailed schedule see Annex 4. 8 In this report “participants” refers to those that took part in the training portion of the project. There are three categories: religious leaders, local leaders and community mobilizers. Those who were exposed to one or more public activities (ex. Radio programming or a peace initiative) are not considered “participants” in this sense. 9 In some cases non-participants had attended a public event (peace initiative or Town hall) or listened to the radio program. However, none had received training from SFCG or PTI. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 14 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
o Female community members with no prior experience with the project activities (1 per province; 5 total) • Household surveys10: Quantitative data was gathered through household surveys (104 per province) in all five provinces (520 in total).
The table below summarizes all data collection activities by gender and province.
Table 1: Data collection activities by gender and province11
Tool Bujumbura Bujumbura Bubanza Makamba Kirundo Totals Mairie Rural M F M F M F M F M F M F Key Informant 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 0 2 2 12 8 20 Interviews Focus Group Discussions 12 12 17 14 16 16 13 15 15 13 73 70 participants 143 Household 56 48 45 59 46 58 48 56 42 62 237 283 520 surveys Total 70 62 64 75 64 76 65 71 59 77 322 361 554
Data collection tools were developed by the DM&E Regional Associate and reviewed by the Senior DM&E Regional Specialist. All data collection tools (the semi-structured KII guide, the FGD guide, and the household survey) were written in English, and then reviewed and translated into Kirundi by the SFCG Burundi team. This ensured that no cultural or linguistic errors were made. The KII guide, FGD guide and household surveys were pre-tested in Bujumbura Mairie prior to data collection to ensure the tools were clear and understandable to targeted respondents. The tools were adjusted following field feedback from staff and enumerators.
Finally, as the baseline was conducted via SMS, indicator progress was confirmed by comparing baseline data and data collected in the June 2016 SMS report. Data from the final evaluation surveys, FGDs and KIIs12 were used to contextualize and deepen understanding of this progress and overall project impact.
Data Analysis and Recommendations
DM&E Regional Associate analyzed the data and drafted the preliminary final evaluation report. Senior DM&E Regional Specialist reviewed the report, along with program staff and Regional Program staff. Both FGD and KII responses as well as the survey data were
10 See Annex 1 for full data on survey respondents (gender, age, education level and occupation). 11 For tables presenting a full breakdown of KIIs and FGDs see Annex 2. 12 For more a more detailed description of the sampling, tools and approach used in the FGDs, KIIs and surveys see Annex 6. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 15 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Recommendations were jointly produced during a workshop with local staff and partners.
Limitations
Data Representativeness
While survey data was collected in 10 communes, FGDs took place in only five (one in each province). Therefore, the FGD data may not fully represent the provinces of intervention. The collines were selected randomly from among those closest to the commune chef lieu. This was done to ensure a better understanding of the population’s participation in and exposure to project activities, which is determined, to a certain extent, by physical proximity to the location of activities (the chef lieu)13. Finally, 104 surveys were conducted in each province for a total of 520 surveys. This allowed for a 95% confidence level with a 10% margin of error in all five provinces. To allow for a 5% margin of error, more than 300 surveys would have been required in each province (1,500 total), which was not possible with the budget available.
Participant confidence level
During the pilot phase of data collection it became evident that questions related to recent changes (economic, social and political) as well as those relating to comfort level with regards to freedom of expression were sensitive. During the course of the research some respondents (in FGDs, KIIs and surveys) seemed hesitant to respond or give full responses. In the case of the FGDs, this seems to have been exacerbated by the mixed political make-up of the groups (there were those affiliated with CNDD-FDD as well as many opposition parties all in one room). While this approach was necessary given budgetary constraints (separate FGDs could not be run for every category) and the need for diverse opinions, it may have impacted participant responses. In some cases (notably in Makamba and Bubanza) participants seemed hesitant to respond. While this was the exception rather than the rule, it may have impacted the reliability of data on these topics. To address this, where necessary the data collection team used innovative methods to obtain more honest responses (for example, having participants raise their hands for certain responses with their eyes closed).
13 “Chef lieu” literally means “head place” or “chef place”. The chef lieu of a commune is the town center where the administrative buildings for the commune are found. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 16 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
3. Findings
Overall, the evaluation found that the project was effective in supporting local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi. This was accomplished by providing key individuals with new skills to de-escalate disputes, as well as providing spaces for inclusive dialogue and building skills in non-violent expression which enhanced political tolerance. The commitment to conflict resolution and tolerance at the individual level and capacities built within partner organizations also demonstrated the sustainability of the project results. This section presents the evaluation findings in the following order: contextual dynamics, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
Contextual dynamics
This section presents the contextual dynamics in which the project was implemented as well as provides a discussion on how the context impacted the project, and how project staff and participants reacted to accommodate this. The section begins by presenting key economic, social and political changes observed during the course of the project (March 2015 – August 2016) as reported by discussants and interviewees in FGDs, KIIs, and surveys.
Economic changes14
Image 1: Word cloud representing economic changes mentioned in FGDs 2015 was a tumultuous year in Burundi. The elections were mired in protests, tension and violence. In 2016, violence decreased but did not disappear.15 The main economic consequences of the crisis identified in FGDs and KIIs in all five provinces of
14 The word cloud was constructed using Wordle. The size of each word corresponds to the amount of times it was referenced during KIIs and FGDs with both participants and non-participants. 15 See ACLED: http://www.crisis.acleddata.com/update-burundi-local-data-on-recent-unrest-26-apr-2015- 19-june-2016/ Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 17 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi intervention were: 1) increased prices, 2) increased poverty, 3) currency devaluation, 4) increased unemployment, and 5) poor harvests.16
Many spoke of the causal relationship between the crisis and “Before, most families ate 3 times, the economic downturn, underlining now there are eating once a day or key factors which have driven the not at all.” prices up, including but not limited to: the fact that many farmers have - Male non-participant, fled the country reducing the harvest Bujumbura Mairie yield, speculation (due to uncertainty caused by the crisis), higher taxes (due to government financial crisis) in turn leading vendors to increase their prices, and embargos on goods from neighboring countries. In some places, discussants claimed prices had more than doubled: “It used to be 300 or 400 BIF for a sack of manioc, but now it is 900 BIF.”17
Natural factors were also reported to have contributed to the rise in prices and general economic downturn. These included heavy rains destroying crops, drought, crop illnesses which have affected crop yield (ex. for manioc and bananas), reduced soil productivity, and low fishing yields. As prices increase, and the BIF devalues, buying power for the average Burundian is greatly diminished. These changes have led to increased hunger, poverty, unemployment and crime, according to the discussants.
Social and political changes
Nearly all social changes reported were couched as direct or indirect results of the crisis.18 The most commonly cited change was migration and displacement due to rumors and fear. Discussants in all five provinces mentioned people had fled the area due to the crisis (22 mentions). They mentioned people returning half as often (11). When asked whether conflicts had resulted from people returning, discussants were adamant that they had not. They asserted that those who had left were able to easily reclaim their homes and land.19
Ethnic and political cohabitation were brought up by many of the groups. In all provinces of intervention besides Kirundo discussants asserted that ethnic cohabitation was “good.”20 Political cohabitation was also said to be good in Bubanza21, Bujumbura Mairie
16 See Annex 2 for a table with all economic changes mentioned. 17 Female participant, KII, Kirundo commune, Kirundo province 18 See Annex 2 for table with all cited social changes disaggregated by province. 19 There was one exception. Batwa in Busoni commune, Kirundo province had been destroyed. 20 However, some in Bujumbura Mairie also mentioned poor ethnic cohabitation and some in Kirundo ethnic distrust. 21 However, others in Bubanza mentioned political distrust. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 18 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi and Bujumbura Rural. In Bujumbura Rural a discussant explained, “Before you wouldn’t ever see people from different political parties attending the same events (weddings, funerals, etc.), but now that it is getting better, they do.”22
Other negative consequences of the “In 2015 during the protests, there crisis and economic downturn was distrust between different mentioned were: school drop-outs, parties. But now, as people don’t increased divorce rates and reduced show their political colors, there domestic trust, polygamy,23 families isn’t the same problem.” separated, non-legalized marriages, and unwanted pregnancies. The - Female non-participant, Bujumbura Mairie crisis separated many families, leading to increased adultery and polygamy as men found themselves separated from their wives for long periods of time. Furthermore, in periods of poverty, young women were said to be more likely to seek out a man to provide for them, contributing to this phenomenon.
Somewhat paradoxically, men were said to be more likely to take a second wife or girlfriend during times of good harvest or economic prosperity when they can afford to provide financially for a second wife or mistress. Reduced rents (due to population displacement) was also said to have contributed to polygamy (cheap housing made it easier to pay for a place for a second wife or mistress).
Finally, non-legalized marriages were reported to have increased due to the economic downturn and high costs of a wedding: “The poverty means there are a lot of non- legalized marriages because it costs less money to do this (a dot24 is expensive and there are other costs).”25 More non-legalized marriages mean more polygamy and adultery, according to the discussants, as an non-legalized marriage is not binding, so the woman and children are not protected legally (especially in terms of child care). Overall, polygamy/adultery was revealed to be a complicated and relevant issue that affects social cohesion in these five provinces.
Political cohabitation and discrimination
As noted above, in several provinces political cohabitation was reported to have improved. Discussants in several locations reported that the administration had played a key role in this by holding discussions with the population on topics of peaceful
22 Female participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province 23 Polygamy was only mentioned twice in this part of the discussions, but it was discussed at length during the discussion on local conflicts. 24 The dowry ceremony usually held before a couple is married. 25 Male non-participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 19 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi cohabitation and non-violent communication after the elections, which was reported to have had a positive impact especially in Makamba and Bubanza provinces.
However, while political cohabitation seems to have improved generally, political discrimination remains a challenge. This manifests specifically in the work place, schools and with regards to freedom of assembly. Discussants in Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural and Bubanza all mentioned challenges associated with finding a job if you are not part of the right political party. In schools, teachers confront similar challenges. They are often treated differently, depending on their political affiliation. For example, one participant explained, “when they select teachers to work in the most remote parts of the country, if you are not part of [the right political party], you will always be sent there.”26 Students may also experience this kind of discrimination. If “the teacher knows that you are from a certain party… you won’t be treated like the others.”27 In Kirundo the discussion focused on restrictions to the freedom of assembly of some political parties. One woman explained, “One party dominates here. The other parties are not allowed to organize their meetings, but for the party in power, there is no problem.”28
During the course of the evaluation, discussants and interviewees were also asked about what kinds of conflicts are common in their communities and how they are managed. This investigation helped to inform the analysis. For a detailed discussion of this including data and graphics, see Annex 5.
Context-project interaction and mitigation
This section examines how the context has impacted the project implementation, and how project staff and participants reacted to accommodate the evolving context.
Challenges cooperating with the administration
The biggest challenge noted in terms of project implementation was difficulty cooperating with the new members of the administration in provinces of implementation. This was especially true in Makamba, Kirundo and Bujumbura Rural provinces. For example, during the course of a monitoring workshop in Makamba, the governor arrived with the police saying, “I heard you are talking about politics here.”29 In this example the tension was easily defused,30 but it serves to represent a lack of trust by the local
26 Female participant, KII, Kirundo commune, Kirundo 27 Female non-participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province 28 Female non-participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 29 Staff interview (SFCG) 30 In Mugongo-Manga commune (Bujumbura Rural province) this was not the case. A peace initiative was cancelled because the communal administrator said it would only involve MSD (which was not accurate). Staff interview (SFCG) Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 20 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi administration. In Kirundo, the communal administrator was afraid to grant permission for activities saying, “Have you spoken with the governor?”31
To address this issue, the staff ensured that permission was received from the governor first in all provinces, before discussing activities with communal or colline level officials. Additionally, staff were required to relocate one peace initiative (Bujumbura Rural) to another commune because the communal administrator was not accommodating.
This also affected project partners as in some communes, such as Mabanda (Makamba province and Gitobe (Kirundo province), the authorities accused PTI of being involved in political activities.32 Furthermore, in some cases, the administration’s hostility and suspicion also impacted participants’ ability to share the messages and skills they had learned. One participant explained, “The administration was afraid to bring together many people at once for big events. So, if we ask to bring a big group together to train them/sensitize them on non-violent management of conflict or something, the administration will often be hesitant and will give us a lot of conditions. This makes it difficult to disseminate the message.” “But,” she said “as there are certain local leaders that were trained by Search, if you are lucky enough to be in a colline where the leader was trained by Search that makes it easier.”33 Another explained, “If you do a sensitization, just bringing a random group of people together, they will say what are you doing? Are you opposition?”34
Economic challenges
Some participants mentioned that the stipends provided by SFCG to attend the trainings were not enough to cover their travel expenses to and from the trainings. However, it was not possible to verify if this was because they feel they need extra money (because the economy has gotten worse) or if they genuinely needed more money to cover the costs of the journey. It seems the former is more likely as it was a small minority who mentioned this issue, and they usually did so while referencing the economic downturn and poverty, rather than specify the prices of a bus journey or moto taxi. Additionally several discussants mentioned that listening to the radio in this context has become more difficult because “not many have access to the radio and those that do don’t have electricity and have to buy batteries. But, today, before they will buy batteries, they need to buy basics like manioc flour.” As an alternative, these discussants suggested using community theatre to share the themes.35 Finally, many participants and non-participants alike
31 Staff interview (SFCG) 32 Q4 narrative report 33 Female participant, KII, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 34 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province. 35 Female non-participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province; April-June 2015 report PTI Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 21 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi praised the project’s focus on mediation as it is a “cost effective” means of managing a conflict (compared to court), something that is crucial in this economic context.
Social challenges
As noted above, during the course of the project there was considerable population movement. This meant that there were some participants that “were trained and then fled, so they weren’t able to put in place what they had learned.”36 The fear of violence that caused these people to flee also meant some participants were afraid to attend events/trainings or were unable to reach certain locations (especially in Bujumbura).37 To address this, the project staff selected locations and dates for project activities strategically.
Restricted space for dialogue
Radio stations closure and censorship
During the political crisis of 2015 many radio stations including Radio Isanganiro, RPA, Rema FM, Radio-Television Renaissance, Humuriza FM and Bonesha FM were destroyed or shut down. This meant that the project’s radio programs could only be broadcast nationally via RTNB38, and locally via community radio partners.39 This was further complicated by the fact that RTNB engaged in censorship, rejecting five of the programs produced because “[SFCG] had invited certain guests” 40 who were affiliated with the opposition.
To address these challenges, SFCG began working with VOA41, which was able to broadcast nationally: “The programs that weren’t accepted at RTNB, we sent to VOA.”42 Working with VOA had an additional benefit given that “some people don’t trust what is said on local radio, but trust VOA.”43
36 Male participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 37 Male participant, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie; Q2 narrative report 38 State-run radio and television 39 Staff interview (SFCG) 40 Staff interview (SFCG) 41 Voice of America (VOA) is a United States government-funded multimedia news source and the official external broadcasting institution of the United States. VOA provides programming for broadcast on radio, television, and the Internet outside of the U.S., in English and some foreign languages. VOA is active in Buundi, broadcasting in Kirundi. 42 Staff interview (SFCG) 43 Staff interview (SFCG) Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 22 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Effectiveness
The section aims to assess, based on a series of indicators, the extent to which the results observed have contributed to the achievement of project-specific objectives.
Review of project indicators
A full review of progress on all indicators can be found in the table below.44 The key outcome indictors discussed in this section are:
Objective 1: To support beneficiaries to resolve disputes peacefully
1) Percentage of people who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes 2) Percentage of trainees who pass a basic dispute resolution skills test45 3) Ratio of number of disputes successfully managed/number of disputes addressed by trainees
Objective 2: To foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue
1) Percentage of people that feel sufficiently in security to express themselves on national debates 2) Percentage of population in target areas that self-report they are comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently 3) Percentage of people who have been exposed to SFCG activities (radio, comic book, peace activities) who have spoken with their families at home about non- violent conflict 4) Percentage of people who have listened regularly to a SFCG radio show, participated in a peace event or read a comic book 5) Percentage of people that believe they have the opportunity to engage in inclusive dialogue within their community 6) Percentage of people that choose a tolerant response when asked how they would respond when faced with opinions contrary to their own
Objective 1: To support beneficiaries to resolve disputes peacefully
44 Outcome indicators were confirmed using SMS Monitoring Report June 2016. The baseline used the project participants only as their target so the same target was used to track progress. These results were contextualized and explained using data from the FGDs, KIIs and surveys conducted during the final evaluation. 45 Passing scores are 75% and above. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 23 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Indicator: Percentage of people who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes
While this indicator decreased from 83% to 59% over the course of the project, rather than increased by 25% as required by the target, this reduction requires further explanation. Given the formulation of the question used to measure this indicator, it is not surprising that it changed unpredictably. Respondents were asked: “According to you, what is the best method that is often used in conflict or dispute resolution in your community?” The way the question is framed means that by reporting any method other than mediation as the “best method often used,” respondents were not saying mediation does not work, but rather that another method is the best.
Graph 1 below shows that while mediation decreased as the preferred method, compromise increased considerably. In July 2015 it was reported as the preferred method by 1% of respondents and in June 2016 by 25%. As both methods are positive means of resolving conflict this should be seen as a divergence rather than a failure. Furthermore, compromise, collaboration and mediation were all taught in the training as steps in a process,46 so this change also reflects participants’ acquired knowledge. The category of “other” also increased from the beginning to the end of the project. The majority of respondents reporting “other” specified that this referred to court, which is also a positive approach (when compared to violence).47
"According to you, what is the best method often used in conflict or dispute resolution in your community?"
83%
52% July 2015
25% June 2016 13% 6% 11% 1% 1% 0.5% 5%
Mediation Violence Collaboration Compromise Other
Graph 1: Indicator: Percentage of people who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes
46 “Compromise” constitutes an agreement where each party concedes something (a 50/50 solution) while “collaboration” aims to find a win-win situation. Whereas compromise and collaboration are attempted between the two parties themselves, mediation is conducted by a third party. Q3 narrative report 47 It should also be mentioned that “violence” increased modestly as a preferred method from 1% to 6%. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 24 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
During FGDs and KIIs in all five provinces participants and non-participants alike reported that mediation “works” as a method to resolve disputes.48 Only in Bubanza did one group of non-participants report that the “level of success is weak.”49 When asked what the advantages or benefits of mediation were, participants and non-participants had similar responses. The most common responses were it is free or low-cost (compared to other methods) and that it “keeps the love” between the parties meaning they “don’t hate each other after” (see Annex 2 for full list).50
Additionally, during the course of the evaluation a survey of the general population in the areas of intervention found that a higher percentage (97%) of those exposed to SFCG programming at least once (listened to a radio program, attended a peace initiative or town hall, or read a comic book) felt that mediation “worked”, than those who had never been exposed (92%).
"Does mediation work to resolve disputes?" Exposed to SFCG 97% programming 92% Not exposed to SFCG programming
2% 7% 0.99% 0.94%
Yes I don't know No
Graph 2: Percentage of general population who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes, Disaggregated by exposure to SFCG programming
Indicator: Percentage of trainees who pass a basic dispute resolution skills test (passing scores are 75% and above)
48 Similarly, in the final evaluation, the general population was asked, “Do you believe that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes?” 94% surveyed responded “Yes, always” or “Yes, sometimes.” 49 Female non-participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province 50 Participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 25 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
This indicator target required 65% of trainees to pass a basic dispute resolution skills test. On average, 75% of the trainees passed the post-test. During the FGDs and KIIs, Lessons learned: Non-violent conflict resolution trainings
• Trainings should be decentralized to reach more people and ensure that mediators are dispersed. • The training should be broken up into theoretical and practical components and at least equal focus should be given to the latter component. They should also be longer to allow more time for concepts to be understood and internalized. • All participants should be required to report on post-training efforts/initiatives to encourage participants and hold them accountable. • The trainings covered mediation generally, but did not specifically prepare participants for negotiations with police over people (usually youth) that were arrested. These interactions can be dangerous and so participants should be prepared for this. participants shared what they had learned during the course of their trainings. They mentioned learning about non-violent conflict resolution, tolerance, the cost-effectiveness of mediation, approaches to listening (especially separating the parties first to listen to each in turn), how to foster ownership of the mediation process in the parties in conflict (helping them to find their own solution), win-win solutions, and conflict analysis.
Indicator: Ratio of number of disputes successfully managed/number of disputes addressed by trainees
During the course of the baseline a target was not set for this indicator. In July 2015 the participants reported that 70% of disputes were managed successfully (663 of 952) and in June 2016 they reported 67% were (109 of 164). During FGDs and KIIs, participants reported addressing conflicts related to polygamy, domestic, political, land, disputes in associations, and those related to what they felt were arbitrary arrests.51 While some were referred conflicts, others encountered them directly in their everyday life, deciding to take action:
We [the participants] get involved in conflicts as mediators. When someone addresses us, we try to help them find a solution to the conflict. But, sometimes if someone doesn’t address the conflict to you, you can just see that there is a conflict and can get involved before the conflict gets out of hand.52
Many were involved in conflicts in their immediate circles:
51 This generally took the form of efforts to negotiate the release of youth who were arrested without clear cause. 52 Female participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 26 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Conflicts in my association are the main ones I addressed. They always have conflicts. I tried to manage them…. I have about an 80% success rate.53
Some even used their new skills to manage conflict to which they were a party:
From the training, I had a new spirit of reconciliation. I had a conflict with my neighbors previously about the borders of my land. It wasn’t an easy situation because some people from the other party armed themselves with machetes. But, I remembered the training, and so I accepted to lose something and my neighbor did too. So we managed the conflict without violence, without fighting.54
Objective 2: To foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue
Indicator: Percentage of people that feel sufficiently in security to express themselves on national debates
The target for this indicator was a 25% increase in the number of people that felt “sufficiently in security to express themselves on national debates.” While 44% of participants reported feeling comfortable to express themselves on national debates in the baseline, at the end of the project 41% did. Therefore, the indicator remained relatively stable throughout the project. Given the drastic change in context in Burundi from when the baseline was conducted (July 2015) to the evaluations (June-August 2016), it is logical to assume that the percentage of those who felt at ease to express themselves on national debates should have significantly deteriorated, rather than remained stable. The intervention may have been responsible for the stability of this indicator, but this is not possible to verify without a control group.
If the participant data is compared to non-participant data collected during this final evaluation there is a modest difference. Only 38% of non-participants reported feeling comfortable to express themselves on national debates (compared to 41% for participants).
This is reinforced when the survey data is disaggregated by exposure to project activities (radio program, peace events and comic book). Those that have been exposed to at least one SFCG activity are more likely to report they felt at ease (43%) than those who were not (35%) (see Graph 4 below).
53 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province 54 Male participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 27 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
"Do you feel comfortable expressing yourself on national debates in public?"
52% 51% 43% 35% Exposed to SFCG programming 13% Not exposed to SFCG 4% programming 0.5% 1.3%
No Yes I don't know Refused to respond
Graph 3: Percentage of people that feel sufficiently in security to express themselves on national debates, disaggregated by exposure to SFCG programming In the majority of FGDs and KIIs, most discussants and interviewees reported that they did not feel at ease. However, in 8 of 20 FGDs with project participants and non- participants, at least one person claimed to be at ease and in 7 “I’ve developed a strategy to live with of 20 KIIs the interviewee everyone. If I am with people from CNDD- claimed to be at ease. FDD I remember that. If I’m with people from FRODEBU, I remember that. I am There were no relevant strategic.” differences in terms of province55 or participant vs. - Male participant, Bujumbura Mairie non-participant status in FGDs and KIIs, but it is clear that men felt at ease more often than women. Of the 15 KIIs and FGDs where someone claimed to feel at ease, 12 were male and only 3 female. This suggests that overall there are less women that feel at ease expressing themselves on national issues. The survey data somewhat reflect this divergence: 33% of women surveyed felt at ease compared to 44% of men.
In the majority of the cases where someone stated they were “at ease,” when asked follow-up questions like, “Would you feel comfortable criticizing the government?” or, “Would you be able to express disagreement with the third mandate in public?” their responses often revealed a different picture. For example, one participant said, “The liberty of expression is 100% per cent here – everyone says what they think.” But, he
55 It was not possible to compare the data from the beginning and end of the project on this indicator by province because data collected by Frontline SMS in June 2016 cannot be disaggregated geographically because of the database constraints. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 28 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi later offered the following contradictory statement that, “To criticize the government isn’t good. We can’t criticize the government.”56
This characterization was also common among those who did not feel at ease. It seems that, overall, whether or not people feel at ease expressing themselves on national issues depends on a number of factors.
“It depends on…”
Participants and non-participants emphasized through their responses that whether or not they feel at ease speaking about national issues depends on several key factors: 1) Their location/who their interlocutor is, 2) The content of what they say, and 3) Who they are (political affiliation, ethnic group, nationality, gender, etc.) Table 5 below presents the number of mentions of each qualification by participants, non-participants and overall.57 Overall, whom someone is with and what they want to say are the strongest factors determining whether they feel at ease discussing national issues.
Table 2: Participant and non-participant FGD mentions
Participant Non-participants “It depends on…” Total mentions mentions Your location/who you are with 29 18 47 What you say 20 11 31 What group you are part of 6 2 8
Your location/who you are with
The most important factor determining whether someone feels at ease is where they are or whom they are with. This was mentioned nearly 50 times during the course of FGDs and KIIs by participants and non-participants alike. For example, in Busoni the majority of participants said they felt at ease but as the conversation progressed one participant offered,
“If it is a meeting by SFCG or another organization, yes [I feel at ease]. But, if it is in a cabaret, or on the road, it is not easy to express myself on the issues of opposition; I could be seen as a traitor/opponent.”58
Another who stayed on after a FGD to provide further private details offered, “I couldn’t say what I am saying here in front of the others [in the FGD].”59
56 Male non-participants, KII, Nyanza lac commune, Makamba province 57 There does not seem to be a clear difference between those mentioned by participants and non- participants. 58 Male participants, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 29 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Women’s voices echoed those of male participants saying they were at ease expressing themselves, “In this room yes, but not outside it,”60 or “in your own house or in whispers, that’s it.”61 This suggests overall that it is difficult for both men and women to express themselves in public spaces while in private, people feel at ease. However, for some women it seems nowhere may be safe: “The women are not listened to in the same way as the men. Even in a family, if the man is an opposition party member then the woman must also be opposition.”62
Where you are is essentially tied to whom you are with. Much focus was placed on the possibility of being “denounced” by someone after saying something: “Before saying something we look around to see who is there because someone could denounce us.”63 It was considered especially dangerous to express yourself among members of another political party: “If we try to express ourselves with others from different political party, we could be followed or killed if they have different opinions.”64
What you say
Whether or not Burundians feel comfortable expressing themselves is also contingent on what they want to say. One participant explained, “I can speak about politics, but not say anything I want. There are taboo subjects.”65 What was considered “taboo” depended on the person, but seemed to revolve around the notion of “criticism of the government” One man said, “There is no liberty of expression. If you make a good comment about the party in power, it is ok. But if you say something bad, you are arrested.”66 This “taboo” extended to policies or positions supported by the party as well: “on the protests against the UN police, if we are against it, it is ok, but if we are for it, it is not ok.”67
Your political party affiliation
Just as audience and content are important in determining one’s comfort level, so is their identity. One discussant said whether or not you feel at ease depends “on the group you are in, opposition or government.”68 Essentially, if you are “from one party it is easy, but for those not party in that party it is not possible.”69 Nationality was also mentioned by
59 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province. 60 Female participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province. 61 Female participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province. 62 Female participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province. 63 Female participant, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province 64 Female non-participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province 65 Male participant, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province 66 Male non-participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province 67 Male non-participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province 68 Female participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province. 69 Male participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 30 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi one discussant who said that, “If you come from Rwanda, you don’t have the right to say anything.”70
Consequences
Image 2: Word cloud representing consequences to free speech mentioned in FGDs Those discussants and interviewees that were not at ease were also asked why that was the case. The responses were varied, providing a map of possible consequences for free expression in Burundi. The most common potential consequences mentioned were being: 1) followed, 2) arrested or imprisoned, and 3) denounced.71 Overall, participants and non- participants shared similar fears.
Finally, many of the discussants seemed to agree that freedom of expression had deteriorated since the elections and protests.72 They felt that, “During the elections it was easy to say ‘I’m part of this party or this party’ but after the elections, it is difficult […] there could be consequences.”73 Another said, “During the protests you could say anything. But now, you have to manage your speech. You don’t know where your real enemy is.”74 It seems during the elections and protests there was some room for political competition and debate, but afterwards the space was constricted making it difficult to express opposition views in public. The elections and protests were a time of flux. Today, the status quo has solidified, constraining space for frank dialogue. In the volatile Burundian context, with elements of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and arbitrary arrests, the project was understandably unable to affect the prevailing climate of fear and self-censorship.
70 Male participant, KII, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 71 This implies potential secondary consequences. For a full list of potential consequences mentioned see Annex 2. 72 Not all groups were asked this. 73 Female participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province. 74 Female non-participant, KII, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 31 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Indicator: Percentage of population in target areas that self-report they are comfortable75 resolving conflicts non-violently
This indicator target required an increase of 25% from the baseline. At the baseline 59% participants reported feeling comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently. By the end of the project that number had increased to 70% (an increase of 18%). During the final evaluation this question was also included in a survey of the general population in the provinces of intervention. The survey found that 79% of those polled felt capable of resolving a conflict non-violently, slightly more than the participants (70%).
"Are you capable of resolving conflicts non- violently?" 1%
20% Capable Not capable I don't know 79%
Graph 4: Indicator: Percentage of population in target areas that self-report they are comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently However, when this data is disaggregated by those who have been exposed to SFCG programming at least once (listened to a radio program, attended a peace initiative or town hall, or read a comic book) and those who have not, a difference emerges. Those who had been exposed to SFCG programming were more likely to feel capable of resolving conflicts non-violently (81%) than those who were not (78%).
75 The word “capable” was used in the baseline survey, so this was used in the final evaluation as well for consistency. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 32 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
"Are you capable of resolving conflicts non-violently?"
81% 78%
Exposed to SFCG programming Not exposed to SFCG 21% 19% programming
0% 1%
Capable Not capable I don't know
Graph 5: Percentage of population in target areas that self-report they are comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently (disaggregated by project exposure) The FGDs/KIIs reinforced this picture. In nine out of ten FGDs with participants, the participants who were asked this question answered assertively and unequivocally that they were capable. But, in six out of ten FGDs with non-participants discussants offered qualified responses which lacked confidence, using phrases like “I could try,” “it depends,” or saying that this would require approval from the local authorities: “If we are called by the local authorities in the colline, we can, but if not, no.”76
Other non-participants in Makamba, Kirundo and Bujumbura Rural underlined their need for training and capacity reinforcement: “Me, not really. But, if the project could reinforce me in my ability, maybe I could resolve conflicts in a non-violent way.”77 Finally, there were those that said “it depended” on the type and complexity of the conflict and/or whether the person they are mediating for had confidence in them: “My entourage has confidence in me, but if it was somewhere else, maybe not.”78 These kinds of responses were not given by participants, which suggests that while more non- participants self-report being able to resolve conflicts non-violently, participants are more confident and actually demonstrate this capacity.
To further demonstrate this point, in the survey of the general population, those who reported feeling capable to resolve conflicts were also asked how they would do this. The responses varied considerably, but revealed a basic understanding of the steps to resolve a
76 Male non-participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 77 Female non-participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 78 Female non-participant, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 33 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi conflict non-violently. Diagrams 2 and 379 on the following page summarize the responses given by those who claimed to feel capable to resolve conflicts non-violently. Their approaches revolved around the following actions: listening, advising, and reconciliation. While these constitute important parts the conflict resolution process, the data revealed that non-participants lacked some skills that participants possess.
For example, while some of those surveyed expressed that they would separate the two parties in conflict before listening to them, they were by far the minority, and some even specified they would first bring the parties together. Separating the parties is a key initial step in successful conflict management, which not only reduces the risk of violence, but also aids in conflict analysis and facilitates active and attentive listening. Additionally, many of the general public surveyed expressed that they would begin by advising the parties in conflict, rather than listening to them first. Generally, those surveyed also showed a marked tendency towards “giving advice” or “proposing solutions,” whereas good mediation prioritizes facilitating parties in conflict to come to their own conclusions together.
Diagram 1: First and second steps to resolving a conflict given by non-participants during the survey
79 Diagrams 2 and 3 show, respectively, the first and second and then second and third steps cited by survey respondents for how they would solve a conflict. For example, in Diagram 2 many respondents indicated that they would begin by listening to the parties in conflict and then they would advise them. Where it is noted “no second step” or “no third step” this means that the respondent did not note an additional step. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 34 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Diagram 2: Second and third steps to resolving a conflict given by non-participants in the survey
Challenges
During FGDs and KIIs participants were also asked about the challenges they face as mediators in their communities. The challenges they raised were largely inherent to mediation, rather than tied to lack of sufficient training, support, etc. Lack of confidence in the mediator of the parties in conflict was considered the biggest challenge, followed by meddling of external parties.80 As a female participant explained, “Someone external to the conflict will sometimes see how they can gain from it.”81 Land conflicts were also described as particularly difficult to manage due to their complexity, involvement of multiple parties, and political overtones. Several participants also noted tension with the administration and police at times.
The administration could see us and say, ‘Why are you managing this conflict?’ This happens frequently. The reason is that sometimes one of the parties doesn’t like the decision, so, they go to the administration and buy them a drink. Then the administration will come to challenge you and ask why you are involved.
80 Annex 2 presents a full list of challenges mention-ed Female participant, FGD, Bujumbura Rural by participants and the number of times they were mentioned. 81 Female participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 35 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Additionally, younger/single participants claimed it was difficult for them to mediate domestic conflicts between spouses, as they do not have the required personal experience. Participants also said that women are more often undervalued as mediators, or their motives are questioned. For example, a woman might try to address a conflict between a man and his wife, but the wife might say, “Why did this woman try to get involved? Does my husband have a relationship with her?”82
Indicator: Percentage of people who have been exposed to SFCG activities (radio, comic book, peace activities) who have spoken with their families at home about non- violent conflict
In July 2015 92% of participants polled reported having spoken with “I shared the comic book with my their families about non-violent neighbours and with my family.” conflict after being exposed to project activities. In June 2016 it was 100%. - Male participant, Makamba province This constitutes an 9% increase. While the target required an increase of 25%, as the number could not increase past 100%, this is considered a success. One participant in Kirundo said that, in addition to sharing the book with her students and children, she was planning to do “a theatre performance to bring the comic book to life.”83
The general population was also asked this question in the final evaluation survey. Overall, 44% of the general population surveyed, who were exposed to SFCG activities (listening regularly to the radio program, reading the comic book, or participating in a peace initiative or town hall), reported that they had spoken with their families about non- violent conflict.
Indicator: Percentage of people who have listened regularly to a SFCG radio show, participated in a peace event or read a comic book
109 of 520 people surveyed in the final evaluation reported listening regularly to a SFCG radio show,84 having participated in a peace initiative or town hall, or read a comic book. This is 21% of those surveyed, or roughly one in five. When this is expanded to include those who “sometimes” listen to the radio program (rather than often), the total increases to from 109 to 182 people surveyed of 520 or 35% (one in three).
82 Female participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province 83 Female participant, KII, Kirundo commune, Kirundo province 84 The radio programs did not have a defined target audience. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 36 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Radio program effectiveness: Analysis of Reach, Resonance and Response
To measure radio programs’ effectiveness, SFCG employs a “3R” approach: Reach, Resonance and Response. This approach focuses on three main dimensions of radio programming which provide a full picture of the results achieved. Reach measures the audience that was exposed to the program and whether the program met its intended target audience. Resonance examines how the audience receives the messages, if they understand them and if they perceive them as relevant to their experiences. Response analyses the knowledge, attitude or behavior changes displayed by the audience associated with media programming.
Reach During the course of FGDs and KIIs, participants and non-participants were asked if they listened to the radio program. In 6 out of 10 FGDs with participants some discussants had listened to the radio program and in 5 out of 10 KIIs the interviewee had listened. In 7 out of 10 FGDs with non-participants some discussants had listened to the radio program and in 4 out of 10 KIIs the interviewees had listened. In the survey of the general population 28%85 of those polled reported listening to the radio program at least once.
How often do you listen to the radio program Ntorere Number Percentage Kazoza? (survey) Never 366 70% Sometimes 98 19% Often 26 5% Once 21 4% I don't know 9 2%
For those who had not listened, reasons cited (by both participants and non-participants in FGDs and KIIs) were that they did not have time, did not have a radio, were not aware/informed of the hours of the program, were working when it aired, or the radio didn’t reach where they live. The latter applied to Makamba and Kirundo especially. For example, Radio Isanganiro and VOA do not usually reach Kirundo, only Radio France Internationale (RFI) and Radio Télévision National du Burundi (RTNB) do.
Resonance and Response Those surveyed who responded that they had listened to the radio program at least once were also asked what they thought of the program’s messages and whether the programs
85 The reason that this percentage is higher than the overall percentage of those reported listening regularly to a SFCG radio show, having participated in a peace initiative or town hall, or read a comic book. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 37 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi had had an impact on their behavior (and if so, how). The themes most often mentioned were conflict resolution (45 mentions), land conflict (18 mentions), and peaceful cohabitation (18 mentions).86 Of those who had listened at least once, 87% claimed that the messages had had an impact on their behavior (see Table 6 below). Survey respondents reported impacts on behavior with regards to conflict resolution (29 mentions), peaceful cohabitation (9 mentions), tolerance (9 mentions), etc.87
Table 3: Survey responses on radio program impact on behavior
Did the radio messages have an impact on your Number Percentage behavior? No 10 13% Yes 69 87%
Peace activities
12% of those surveyed reported they had participated in a SFCG peace initiative. In 9 out of 10 FGDs and 6 out of 10 KIIs with participants at least one discussant had attended a peace initiative. In 4 out of 10 FGDs and 3 out of 10 KIIs with non-participants at least one discussant had attended a peace initiative. 6% of the population surveyed reported they had participated in a town hall meeting.
Comic book88
Reach
5 per cent of those surveyed said they had seen the comic book at least once.89 During the course of FGDs and KKIs, participants and non-participants were asked if they had read the comic book. In 5 out of 10 FGDs with participants some discussants had read the comic book and 3 out of 10 KIIs the interviewee had read it. No non-participants (FGDs/KIIs) had read the comic book.90 Lesson learned: Comic book Resonance and Response Comic book distribution should be Those surveyed who responded that had planned ahead of time and a budget seen the comic book were also asked what should be included in the project budget they thought messages and whether they for this. had had an impact on their behavior (and
86 See Annex 2 for full list of themes mentioned as well as impacts on behavior. 87 See Annex 2 for full list of themes mentioned as well as impacts on behavior. 88 A similar “3R” approach was taken here to assess the effectiveness of the comic book. 89 See Annex 2 for a table breakdown of survey results. 90 Comic books were given out and explained during the town hall activities so, generally speaking, only those invited received comic books. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 38 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi if so, how). The themes most often mentioned were conflict resolution (6 mentions), land conflict (5 mentions), and consequences of violence (3 mentions).91 Of those who had seen the comic book, 96% claimed the messages had had an impact on their behavior (see Table 7 below). Survey respondents reported impacts on behavior with regards to conflict resolution (8 mentions), resolution of land conflicts (3 mentions), peaceful cohabitation (3 mentions), etc.92
Table 4: Survey responses on comic book impact on behavior
Did the comic book have an impact on your behavior? Number Percentage No 1 4% Yes 22 96%
Finally, the graph below presents of those surveyed who have been exposed to each activity. Overall, the highest percentage (28%) was exposed to the radio program, while the lowest (5%) were exposed to the comic book and town hall meetings. Given that the town hall meetings were invitation-only (and the comic books were distributed there) this is not surprising. The radio and peace initiatives were open to anyone willing and able to listen or participate.
Percentage of those surveyed who had been exposed to each activity at least once
28% 12% 6% 5%
Radio program Peace Initiative Town hall Comic book
Graph 6: Percentage of people surveyed who have been exposed to each project activity Indicator: Percentage of people that believe they have the opportunity to engage in inclusive dialogue within their community
The percentage of participants that believe they have an opportunity to engage in inclusive dialogue within their community at the end of the project was reported as 75%. As the baseline did not cover this question, it was not possible to ascertain whether the target was met. The FGDs and KIIs shed light on what people understood as
91 See Annex 2 for full list of themes mentioned as well as impacts on behavior. 92 See Annex 2 for full list of themes mentioned as well as impacts on behavior. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 39 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
“opportunities to engage in inclusive dialogue.” The majority93 of participants and non- participants felt they had opportunities for inclusive dialogue.
They listed the following as opportunities: administration field visits or meetings, meetings with local leaders (chef de colline, conseil collinaire, chef de quartier, chef de secteur, chef de zone, communal administrator, governor), colline and commune level meetings, discussions during weekly community work (travaux communautaires), security meetings, meetings with community development committees (CDCs), interactive radio programming, suggestion boxes (communal office, hospitals), and discussions organized by churches and NGOs. However, it stemmed from the discussions that “opportunities to engage in inclusive dialogue” were routinely understood as opportunities to request assistance or engage in discussions about community development.
Indicator: Percentage of people that choose a tolerant response when asked how they would respond when faced with opinions contrary to their own
The percentage of participants that chose a tolerant response when asked how they would respond when faced with opinions contrary to their own at the end of the project is 80%. As the external consultant’s baseline did not cover this question, it was not possible to ascertain whether the target was met.
93 Some participants in Makamba, Bujumbura Rural and Bujumbura Mairie felt that they did not have opportunities for inclusive dialogue. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 40 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Table 5: Project outcomes and outputs
Baseline Project Target Achieved to Date Comments
Project Goal: Support local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi.
Objective 1: To support beneficiaries to resolve disputes peacefully
Expected Result 1.1: Local leaders from diverse backgrounds have increased skills and opportunities to transform conflict and prevent violence
Expected Result 1.2: Local peace initiatives and dispute resolution mechanisms are strengthened within targeted communities
This target was not met. This indicator reduced by 40%, rather than an increase of 25%. However, the evaluation found that this was due to the way the question was asked for this indicator. The question asked allowed multiple responses (rather than yes/no/I Indicator 1.1.1: % of people don’t know) meaning that while some believe that who say that mediation works 83% Increase of 25% 60% mediation works, they reported a preference for other as a method to resolve disputes approaches such as collaboration or cooperation. This means that this indicator did not meet its target because other methods of conflict resolution were also popular, rather than because less people felt that mediation “works.”
1.1.2: % of trainees who pass a basic dispute resolution N/A 65% of trainees pass94 This target was met and surpassed. skills test. Passing scores are On average, 75% of the 75% and above. trainees passed the post-test
94 This target was originally 80%. It was adjusted, with the approval of the donor, given that challenges associated with literacy and level of schooling of some of the participants rendered 80% unrealistic as a target. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 41 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
1.1.3: Ratio of number of A target was not defined during the baseline for this disputes successfully target; however, the percentage remained roughly the 70% N/A 67% managed/number of disputes same. addressed by trainees
2,378 beneficiaries trained (1,411 religious leaders, 391 1.1.4 # of beneficiaries who N/A 1,860 This target was met and surpassed. community mobilizers, 576 completed training(s) local leaders)
1.1.5 # training guide N/A 1 1 This target was met. workshops
This target was met and surpassed. A considerable 5 provincial workshop; 42 lump sum was allocated for the “follow-on reflection 5 provincial workshops, 42 commune 1.1.6 # provincial workshops, communal workshops; 10 meetings” but only one was required contractually. workshops, 10 monitoring visits, 1 # commune workshops, # monitoring visits; 3 follow-on Two were conducted; one with the religious leaders as N/A follow-on reflection meeting (150 monitoring visits, # follow-on reflection meetings; (196 and one workshop on hate speech, which hadn’t been people in 5 provinces, 1,260 people in reflection meetings. people in 5 provinces, 1,260 planned originally. With the donor’s approval, some of 42 communes) people in 42 communes) the funds were also used to produce a short documentary film.
1.1.7 # message-development 1 message development workshop, 8 1 message development workshops, # radio/TV spots, # N/A radio spots, 8 TV spots; 8 radio round- workshop; 16 radio spots; 8 TV This target was met and surpassed. radio round-tables tables spots; 9 radio round-tables
1.1.8 # trainings of local 15 trainings of 576 local N/A 15 trainings, 450 people This target was met and surpassed. leaders at the commune level leaders.
1.1.9 # trainings of local 10 trainings of local community 10 trainings of local N/A This target was met. community mobilizers mobilizers community mobilizers Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 42 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
1.1.10 # peace initiatives N/A 35 peace initiatives 36 peace initiatives This target was met and surpassed.
1.1.11 # copies of comic book 2,000 copies printed, 1845 The target was nearly met. Only 155 copies had not yet distributed N/A 2,000 copies distributed95 distributed been distributed at the time of writing.
Objective 2: To foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue
Expected Result 2.1: Safe spaces for constructive public dialogue are created at the community level
Expected Result 2.2: Attitudes favorable to tolerance, pluralism, and non-violence are reinforced in media throughout the country
The target has not been met. This indicator remained stable throughout the implementation period. However, as is discussed in detail above, this indicator and target are not realistic for the context. The threshold for someone to “feel sufficiently in security to express themselves on national debates” is quite high and 2.1.1 % of people that feel means that this indicator does not capture more sufficiently in security to incremental changes. Furthermore, FGDs with 44% Increase of 25% 41% express themselves on national participants and non-participants revealed that even debates those who said they do feel in security qualify this response when given the chance, saying that it depends on the company they are in and what they want to say. Finally, it could be that the indicator would have reduced further for the beneficiaries had the intervention not taken place, but this cannot be verified without a control.
2.1.2 % of population in target 59 % Increase of 25% 70% This is an increase of 18%. The target note been met. areas that self-report they are However, as described in detail about, this modest
95 This target was originally “10,000 copies distributed.” It was adjusted, with the approval of the donor, after it was determined that the budget was not sufficient to print 10,000 copies. 2,000 was determined a more realistic target. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 43 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi comfortable resolving conflicts increase may not tell the whole story. In FGDs non-violently participants demonstrated considerably higher confidence levels than is suggested here.
2.1.3 % of people who have been exposed to SFCG activities (radio, comic book, The target has not technically been met, but the peace activities) who have 91% Increase of 25% 100% percentage could not increase further so this is spoken with their families at considered a success. home about non-violent conflict
2.1.4 % of people who have listened regularly to an SFCG radio show, participated in a It was not possible to confirm whether this target was peace event or read a comic met due to the lack of a baseline survey with the book general population in the areas of intervention. The N/A Increase of 15% 22% percentage given here as “Achieved to date” is drawn from the final evaluation survey with members of the general population who either listened regularly to a radio show, participated in a peace initiative or town hall, or read a comic book.
2.1.5 % of people that believe they have the opportunity to N/A Increase of 25% 75% It was not possible to confirm whether the target was engage in inclusive dialogue met because the baseline did not cover this question. within their community
2.1.6 % of people that choose a tolerant response when asked how they would respond N/A Increase of 25% 80% It was not possible to confirm whether the target was when faced with opinions met because the baseline did not cover this question. contrary to their own Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 44 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
2.1.7 # TEP/Town Halls N/A 15 15 This target was met. facilitated
2.1.8 # radio magazines N/A 40 45 This target was met and surpassed.
2.1.9 # monitoring 1 monitoring methodology developed, 1 monitoring methodology methodology developed, # 18 monthly media monitoring reports, developed; 20 media N/A This target was met and surpassed. monthly media monitoring and 1 summary report produced monitoring reports produced, 1 analysis reports summary report produced. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 45 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Impact96
Taking into account the findings above, this section examines the changes resulting from the intervention, both intended and unintended.
Intended
Town hall meetings
The town hall meetings intended to “create a forum for dialogue between local authorities, civil society and citizens, including women, youth and other marginalized groups.”97 The topics of the forums were to be “based on local conflict dynamics and identified in collaboration with trained local leaders,” and were to be “adapted with the current context, for instance [focusing] on peaceful participation during the election, political tolerance and acceptation of the results during the post-election period.” The town halls were also intended to create safe spaces for constructive public dialogue at the community level.98
The topics of the town hall meetings were developed by/with the participants so as to ensure ownership and context specificity. Many participants chose to focus the town hall discussions on conflicts related to polygamy, land conflict, etc. Although the themes were not directly linked to the current crisis in the country, they still provided an opportunity for dialogue, which was the goal. SFCG’s Senior Trainer explained, “They didn’t want to deal with security. I tried to reorient the debate, but they didn’t want to discuss it.”99 SFCG’s Election Team Leader added that, “There were places where they wanted to speak about politics, but there were other places where it was more social subjects, like land conflict. We couldn’t impose100 a subject on them.”101 Roughly half of the town halls (7 out of 15) focused on other types of community conflicts and community issues affecting social cohesion, while the other half (8 of 15) focused on peace and security more generally/as it related to the political crisis.102
The town hall meetings were to be “facilitated by trained SFCG facilitators and [focus] on highlighting constructive solutions and accountability for the newly elected authorities in terms of inclusive local development.” In each case a representative of the
96 OECD (DAC) criteria for peacebuidling: “Impact” responds to the following questions: “What happened as a result of the conflict prevention and peacebuilding activity? Why? What were the positive and negatives changes produced, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended? 97 Project proposal 98 For survey results on the impact of town halls on freedom of expression see Annex 2. 99 Staff interview (SFCG) 100 In early 2016, following internal discussions and a conversation with the donor, a concerted effort was made to steer the town halls towards discussions on the topic of security and peacebuilding. From April 2016, the majority of town halls focused on these topics. 101 Staff interview (SFCG) 102 See Annex 2 for breakdown of topics addressed in the town halls. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 46 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi administration jointly facilitated the town hall discussions with a SFCG staff member. This was reported to have caused some concern in places like Makamba, Kirundo, Busoni103 and Bujumbura Mairie where some participants reported feeling ill at ease expressing themselves openly on sensitive topics with a member of the administration leading the discussion. A participant in Bujumbura Mairie said the following, suggesting that even the presence of the administration in the room can be a deterrent to free speech:
The people who were there didn’t feel they could express themselves because there were administration and police in the room… Even me, I couldn’t express myself. Those who expressed themselves didn’t say the truth. They said the things that pleased the government. They were afraid.104
It should be noted here that while this is unfortunate, the participation, in some form, of the administration is all but mandatory for several reasons. Firstly, not involving the administration in a large gathering risks the administration questioning what will be discussed or growing suspicious and uncooperative, especially if, as was the case for this project, politics and security are being discussed. Secondly, not including the administration in a Town hall meeting risks creating an environment of “preaching to the choir” where the true interested parties are not present to dialogue. However, given these realities this does not mean that the administration necessarily has to facilitate or co- facilitate the discussion, simple be present (or at least invited).
Despite the reservations mentioned above, and a general climate of restricted free speech in Burundi, it seems that in some cases the town halls created a real opportunity for inclusive dialogue on some topics. For example, one participant in Makamba said, “Each time the elections approach, people begin to kill each other, to conduct propaganda of hate, to bring up old history… and there are those who want to avenge or to settle the score”105, demonstrating a willingness to broach sensitive subjects like hate speech and legacies of violence publically.
In Nyanza lac (Makamba province) the town hall meeting focused on land conflict between returnees and residents, raising issues of violent language used by the CNTB and biased investigations of cases (which is often seen as based on political or ethnic affiliation). These exchanges led one participant to say, “We shared our opinions, something that we have never done before.” However, in other instances, it appears that the conversation was more restricted. For example, in Bugabira in Kirundo province, the administrative representative gave a long-winded speech presenting his own ideas and impressions, which was followed by Q&A from the population. For instance, he explained, “more than 1,000 people whom had fled have already returned, which shows
103 Q5 narrative 104 Male participant, KII, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province 105 Town hall participant, Kibago commune, Makamba province. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 47 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi that peace and security are here,” and suggested, among other initiatives, “sensitization about patriotism.”
While not everyone or every town hall meeting seemed to allow for genuine open and inclusive dialogue, some did, demonstrating modest progress and hope for similar future activities. Overall, the town hall meetings had a checkered impact on inclusive dialogue, which, considering the current context, is commendable.
Radio program
The radio program aimed to reinforce attitudes favorable to tolerance, pluralism, and non- violence in media. The program definitely had an impact in this regard. Firstly, as discussed above, the program reached and resonated with many in the provinces of intervention. But, beyond this, the program had an impact on VOA programming which is noteworthy. As Media Coordinator Jerome Niyonzima explained, “Etienne Karekezi (who leads the VOA), said, ‘Thank you for your program. It is a free and equal program. It helped us to redo our own programming.’”106 Previously, VOA had broadcast radio programs that were not balanced. For example, they might have invited two guests from CNDD-FDD on a program and only one from the opposition. This has now been corrected and, as a result, VOA is seen as a conflict sensitive station.107 Where as many local radio stations are seen as biased or politicized, VOA is not and so is trusted by many Burundians.
The programs also had an impact on those who joined as discussants. For example, “There were people who would say ‘If I come on the show, who will I be speaking with?’ and [SFCG staff] would tell them who (someone from another party), and they would say ‘I can’t sit with them.’ But, in some cases, after they heard another one of our programs with a member of another party, the next program they would accept to sit with them.”108 In this way the program helped to open the minds of some more radical interlocutors, allowing for the possibility of dialogue where, previously, there had been none.
Unintended
Trainings “I learned that there is no problem to be this religion or that one, this color The trainings brought together or that one. You need to bring peace leaders from diverse faiths and everywhere.” political affiliations for careful, structured discussions during - Male participant, Bujumbura Mairie the course of the training,
106 Staff interview (SFCG) 107 Staff interview (SFCG) 108 Staff interview (SFCG) Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 48 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi leading to other positive impacts less directly related to the training objectives. Firstly, the trainings fostered tolerance and understanding between diverse participants (peaceful cohabitation), creating relationships where before there had been only ignorance or distrust. Secondly, these new relationships, along with the safe space provided in the training, had a small but significant impact on attitudes and behaviors relating to freedom of expression (an objective of the project, but not directly tied to this activity). Finally, trainings had knock-on effects, as the participants not only employed the skills they learned themselves, but also took the initiative to share them more broadly, resulting in exponential impacts in their communities.
Social cohesion
In the trainings, the goal was to prepare participants to confront and de-escalate conflict outside the classroom. However, sometimes the simple act of convening these diverse groups was a challenge. As a participant from Makamba explained, “It was difficult to bring the opposition and the administration together for the training…. But, at the end there were opposition members chatting with members of the administration – that’s already a big deal.”109 In Bujumbura Rural a similar progression was observed:
During the training we were in exchanges with people with very different opinions. At first, I thought they were my enemies. But, after exchanging with them, I learned they weren’t.110
Interestingly, this dynamic was possibly the most pronounced in the trainings of religious leaders. While religion is not a traditional dimension of conflict in Burundi, there are significant tensions between the different religious and sects. Staff from partner organization PTI explained:
“There is a lack of cooperation between the Catholics, Protestants and Muslims…. They all want to have influence. If someone leaves one church for another, they will say, ‘They are stealing people.’ The more followers you have the more influence. There is a fight for power.”111
Despite this animosity and competition, the trainings fostered a rapprochement between religious leaders of all sects and faiths. This impact was particularly pronounced in Makamba and Kirundo where religious leaders were less accustomed to collaborating.112 In Makamba, the lack of collaboration was more complicated than inter-faith or inter-sect misunderstandings. Rather, the most striking antagonism was observed between individual Muslim leaders who had different political leanings. The rivalry between the
109 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province 110 Male participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province. 111 Partner interview (PTI) 112 Q3 narrative report Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 49 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi mosques was so pronounced that members of one mosque could not go to a funeral at another mosque to pay their respects to the deceased.
Today, following the trainings, this has changed. At least two leaders from every mosque were selected to participate. The training provided an opportunity to bring the leaders together to build relationships and, after the training, the participants visited each other’s mosques. This also had a trickle-down effect to their congregations as well. A participant explained that, “before, the families attending [his] mosque who were affiliated with CNDD-FDD didn’t get along with those affiliated with the opposition parties, but now they do.”113
But the impact in Makamba did not stop at intra-faith relations. Some religious leaders collaborated with those of different faiths for the first time in their lives. One said,
“The trainings brought us closer. I co-facilitated a session with a protestant pastor in two communes. It was the first time in my life that I harmoniously worked with a pastor and it completely changed me. Now we are close friends. I realized that before, trivial things divided us.”114
Similarly, for a religious leader in Mugongo-manga (Bujumbura Rural province) the training was, “the first time in the history of the Mugongo-manga commune that pastors, priests and sheikhs met and jointly advocated for the same cause.”115
Freedom of expression
Besides imparting important skills and knowledge on the participants, the trainings also provided a safe space for participants to express their opinions in a context in which, as discussed previously, most are too afraid to make their opinions known. In the training, the participants were “able to breathe a sigh of relief, to say something they couldn’t say in the street.”116 The reason for this heightened sense of security and openness had to do, firstly, with the relationships built in the room: “We have confidence here with the people that we did the training “Those who were able to express with.”117 themselves in the training were relieved afterwards. It was like This also seems to have been medicine for the spirit.” tied to the themes explored in the trainings. A participant – Male participant, Makamba from Bubanza explained, “If I
113 Male participant, KII, Makamba commune, Makamba province 114 Religious leader in Makamba (Q4 narrative) 115 Q4 narrative report 116 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province. 117 Female participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 50 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi were with the group that was trained (by SFCG/PTI), because they were trained on the liberty of expression and political tolerance, there it was ok [to express myself]. But, if I were in another colline with people I don’t know, I could not.”118 Additionally, there is some indication that these small wedges of freedom of expression created by the training have, in some cases, extended outside the classroom. One participant from Makamba explained a small but significant change which is emblematic of these shifts:
“If today I talk to someone of the administration (with whom I attended the training), and say something against the party in power, they will say ‘watch it!’ But, they won’t automatically tell their superior what I said. Before, they would have denounced me right away.”119
Therefore, while the indicator on freedom of expression discussed previously painted a picture of reticence and fear, the participants’ experiences in the trainings (and perhaps outside) reveals one of modest, but meaningful progress with regards to attitudes and behaviors linked to freedom of expression.
Potential exponential impacts
The impacts of the trainings did not stop at the participants. The participants were encouraged to disseminate what they had learned during the training in their communities. The leaders were called upon to leverage their unique influence to share these messages. They answered the call with enthusiasm, sharing their newfound skills and knowledge with members of their associations120, other leaders121, political parties122, youth123, their congregations124, fellow teachers125, students126, bicycle taxi drivers127, friends128, colleagues129, and the police130.
Risk of injury to mediators
Some participants mentioned the possibility of being verbally abused or physically injured while mediating a conflict. For some participants in Bujumbura Mairie, the fear
118 Male non-participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province. 119 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province. 120 Female participant, KII, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 121 Male participant, KII, Nyanza lac commune, Makamba province 122 Male participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province 123 Male participant, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province 124 Male participant, KII, Makamba commune, Makamba province 125 Male participant, KII, Gihanga commune, Bubanza province 126 Male participant, KII, Muha commune, Bujumbura Mairie province 127 Male participant, KII, Gihanga commune, Bubanza province 128 Male participant, KII, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province; Female participant, KII, Mukike commune, Bujumbura Rural province 129 Male participant, KII, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province; Female participant, KII, Mukike commune, Bujumbura Rural province 130 Male participant, KII, Muha commune, Bujumbura Mairie province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 51 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi focused on physical injury by one of the parties in conflict. Two female participants and four male participants in Bujumbura Mairie reported being physically hit by someone in conflict while trying to mediate a dispute.131 However, all reported that the injury was minor. These kinds of incidents can be expected, as mediation is a potentially dangerous endeavor. However, this risk was mitigated during project implementation by including techniques for risk reduction in the mediation training provided to participants, such as bringing the parties in conflict aside and speaking to them separately, never engaging in mediation with someone who is intoxicated, etc.
Sustainability
Participants’ commitment: conflict resolution and sharing the message
Male and female participants in all five provinces demonstrated a “I didn’t study these things to leave strong commitment to the them in the classroom.” objectives of the project, - Female participant, Bujumbura Rural claiming they will continue to use the skills they acquired in the project to manage conflict in their communities.132 Many also promised to continue to share the message with others through trainings and discussion. A female participant in Kirundo province explained, “We know that conflict will continue, so we will keep trying.”133 Echoing this, other participants explained that managing conflict is now “their daily life”134 or “daily work.”135
Plans to stay engaged went beyond simple conflict management. Participants pledged to continue managing conflicts but also to organize meetings to share the messages, tapping into their networks at associations, churches and in the workplace. Some planned to share conflict resolution techniques learned in the trainings: “I will try to train the youth that I manage [1,500 individuals] on non-violent resolution of conflict.”136 Others aimed to discuss issues addressed in the peace initiatives and town halls: “I will continue to sensitize those who are in non-legal marriages so that they understand why they should have a legal marriage.”137
131 Female and male participants, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie province 132 Except in Bubanza where male participants were not asked because the FGD ran out of time. 133 Female participant, FGD, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 134 Male participant, FGD, Bugarama commune, Bujumbura Rural province 135 Female participant, KII, Kirundo commune, Kirundo province and Male participant, KII, Makamba commune, Makamba province. 136 Male participant, KII, Busoni commune, Kirundo province 137 Female participant, FGD, Makamba commune, Makamba province Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 52 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Given that the participants have been using their own means to engage and inform their communities throughout the project, especially via channels and audiences that are readily available to them (their students, congregations and fellow association members, as mentioned in the preceding section), it seems that this is likely, or at least feasible, to continue after the end of the project.
However, a number of participants underlined the need for a sustained dialogue framework to enhance the impact of the project. They called for regular meetings of project participants to discuss issues and ensure connections were maintained.
Partner organization capacity building
Both partner organizations PTI and OMAC expressed having gained new skills in their work with SFCG that they will potentially use in the future. PTI staff explained, “This was the first time we had done something like this…. We learned things as well. It was really positive.”138 For example, he said they gained skills in how to facilitate a training. Similarly, the research and monitoring skills gained by the OMAC team can be used in future monitoring efforts, should they engage in them. Innocent Nsabimana of OMAC said, “We learned a lot… It was the first time we had analyzed this kind of data. If we do this again, we can start without delay.”139 OMAC staff indicated they were actively seeking funding to continue to produce reports independently after the closure of the project.
Lessons learned: OMAC Hate speech monitoring
• A database should be created with all data to allow for more in-depth and trend analysis over time. • OMAC staff indicated that television speeches should be added to the list of sources monitored as they often have important discourse. • Keyword searches should be employed to improve the monitoring approach. • The list of key monitoring targets should be dynamic to allow for new actors to be tracked. • Social media monitoring should include measures to restrict the geographic scope: the current system does not allow for the location of social media accounts to be determined, meaning that it is not possible to discern diaspora (or other) hate and violent speech from local hate and violent speech.
138 Partner interview (PTI) 139 Partner interview (OMAC) Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 53 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
4. Conclusions
Overall, the evaluation found that the project was effective in supporting local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi. This was accomplished by providing key individuals with new skills to de-escalate disputes, as well as providing spaces for inclusive dialogue and building skills in non-violent expression which enhanced political tolerance. The commitment to conflict resolution and tolerance at the individual level and capacities built within partner organizations also demonstrated the sustainability of the project results.
Context
A number of changes in context have been observed in Burundi during the course of this project. Economic, social and political changes over the last year have transformed life in Burundi and Burundians feel these changes acutely in their every day life, including their capacity to provide for themselves and their families. Fear and rumors have driven some away, while others have returned to brave the new uneasy calm. Self-censorship and political discrimination have replaced much of the visible political violence of 2015.
Effectiveness
Objective 1: To support beneficiaries to resolve disputes peacefully
Despite the many changes in Burundi, traditional conflicts related to land and domestic issues persist, but so does Burundian confidence in mediation as a means to address conflict, political and social alike. Despite a reduction in the percentage of those who felt that “the best method that is often used in conflict or dispute resolution” is mediation, a closer look at the methodology used and data for this indicator, as well as the relevant project activities, revealed that participants were not losing confidence in mediation, but rather expanding their understanding of the process of non-violent conflict resolution to include other concepts like compromise and collaboration. This reduction, rather than signaling a failure, highlights the participants’ acquired knowledge.
This success is underscored by participants’ success in post-training knowledge tests: 75% of the trainees passed the post-test, well above the 65% required by the target. Furthermore, these gains in knowledge and skills clearly translated to action: participants regularly managed conflicts on a wide range of domestic and political issues with a consistent success rate of 65% or higher.
Objective 2: To foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 54 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
As the political violence decreased in Burundi, the “hot” conflict was replaced with a cold war of discrimination accompanied by careful self-censorship on the part of Burundian citizens. While at the beginning of the project to the end 44% of participants reported feeling comfortable to express themselves on national debates, by the end of the project 41% did. Given the drastic change in context, this relative stability could indicate that the project boosted participant resilience to deteriorating free speech environment. Furthermore, if participant rates (41%) are compared to non- participant rates (38%), there is a modest difference. Finally, given the extremity of the context, it seems that some impacts were not captured by this indicator. For example, some participants expressed that they did not feel comfortable generally, but that they were able to express themselves during the training despite being with those who would ordinarily be seen as adversaries and potential “denouncers.”
While the trainings provided a small space for inclusive dialogue, their main goal was to prepare the participants to address conflicts non-violently. In this respect, the project was a success. While in the beginning of the project 59% of participants reported feeling comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently, by the end 70% did. This success was further demonstrated by the conviction with which they spoke about their abilities during FGDs and KIIs. Finally, while participants clearly felt capable, they were not without challenges. The challenges they reported facing were largely those inherent to the work of mediation, adding further evidence that they were well prepared to address conflict in their communities.
Project impacts were restricted to those who attended the training. Other project activities (radio program, peace events and comic book) touched 21% of those surveyed in the areas of intervention: roughly one in five. Both training participants and those touched by the project in other ways shared what they learned, expanding the project’s impact. 100% of those that attended trainings speaking with their families about non-violent conflict afterwards while 44% of non-participants surveyed who had been exposed to project activities did.
Impact
Overall, the project had a noticeable impact on the participants’ abilities and confidence to address conflicts. Project activities also boosted tolerance for other political opinions, building bridges between and among local leaders, religious leaders and community mobilizers. These links and enhanced tolerance served to carve out some space for safe free expression during trainings and these impacts were amplified by participants’ ongoing efforts to share their new knowledge, skills and outlook with others in their community. In some cases, town halls had an impact on attendee’s ability to express themselves, but this seems to have depended on the context, the facilitator (whether they were seen as neutral) and the topic discussed. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 55 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
The project radio program had an impact on free expression on another, higher level, boosting the neutrality of VOA programming and elevating examples of non- violent dialogue between members of differing political parties. These examples served to break down intolerance of other political leaders who listened, priming them for future interactions with those of other parties or opinions.
Mediation can be dangerous work, and this project was no exception. The project activities carried risks inherent to mediation and conflict resolution work namely that parties in conflict could verbally or physically harm mediators. Unfortunately, many project participants reported being verbally abused while mediating a conflict and six reported having been physically struck by a party in conflict. Fortunately, no one was injured seriously. These risks are largely unavoidable in conflict mediation work, but were mitigated by efforts during training to underline safe approaches to mediation (for example, separating parties in conflict to listen to them or not working with people when they are intoxicated). Additionally, some participants reported tension between them and the administration.
Sustainability
The sustainability of the project impact will be supported by participants’ commitment to conflict resolution and sharing their new skills and knowledge with others. Participants pledged to continue share the message with others through trainings and sensitization. Given that they have already established no or low-cost channels to share these messages in their churches, schools or workplaces (among others), the likelihood that they will continue to do so is high. However, a number of participants underlined the need for a sustain dialogue framework to enhance the impact of the project. They called for regular meetings of project participants to discuss issues and ensure connections were maintained. Additionally, the project served to build capacity at both partner organizations PTI and OMAC. They expressed gaining new skills that they are eager to use in the future.
5. Recommendations
In light of the discussion and conclusions presented above, a number of key recommendations140 can be made for future projects with similar objectives.
5. Given the sensitivity of political dialogue and the growing self-censorship, ensure sustainable impact on tolerance, non-violent expression and inclusive dialogue by:
140 See Annex 6 for extended lessons learned. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 56 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
• “Laying the groundwork” for frank dialogue in Town hall meetings by holding a series of precursor events, like sports matches or sessions focused on non- sensitive subjects, with the same invitees to create a climate of trust among them. • Building on the positive dynamics related to ethnic tolerance and resilience, encouraging continued collaboration, peaceful coexistence, and social cohesion. • Selecting neutral facilitators for Town hall meetings or other dialogues, who are not part of the administration (although the administration should be invited to participate), and training them on facilitation and specifically techniques to create an environment of trust in the room. • Creating fixed frameworks for dialogue and exchange among the project participants with scheduled meetings and staff support to continually build on the progress made during trainings. • Developing a monitoring system better able to detect and understand incremental impacts on tolerance and inclusive dialogue. 6. Improve cooperation with the local government by: • Creating provincial or communal SFCG antennae that work throughout the duration of the project with the local administration to appeal to their interests and show them how the results of this type of work benefits them as local authorities, building shared interest and ownership. 7. Enhance impact of radio programming by: • Improving marketing strategies to promote the radio program by informing participants about the radio program systematically and asking them to promote it in their community. • Organizing and budgeting for “listening centers” (centres d’écoute”) to reach those without radio access, as well as to gain regular feedback on radio program content with target groups. • Tailoring radio programming to a clearly defined audience (youth, religious leaders, etc.) to avoid the pitfall that programming aimed at everyone speaks directly to no one. 8. Ensure the highest standards of “Do No Harm” by: • Ensuring that training emphasizes steps in the mediation process that are designed to protect the mediator (e.g. never mediate a conflict where one or more of the parties in conflict are intoxicated). • Reminding participants in the training that their safety is paramount, that they should assess the risk to their safety before beginning mediation in any conflict and provide tools or steps for how they can assess this themselves.
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 57 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
6. Appendices
Annex 1: Survey profile
Age141
0% 18-35
16% 36-45
20% 64% 46 and above Under 18
Gender
46% Female 54% Male
141 One participant of 520 was under 18. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 58 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Education level
187 187
84
33 28 1
Occupation
233
97 76 48 45 14 6 1
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 59 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Annex 2: Other tables
Focus Group Discussion participants by province, gender and profile
Participant Bujumbura Bujumbura Bubanza Makamba Kirundo Totals profile Mairie Rural M F M F M F M F M F M F Religious 0 1 2 2 3 1 1 0 4 1 10 5 15 leaders Community mobilizers 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 6 2 4 15 21 36
Local leaders 2 1 1 3 0 3 2 0 1 0 6 7 13 Total 6 6 6 8 7 8 5 6 7 5 31 34 65
Key Informant Interviews by profile, gender and participant/non-participant status
Participant/non- Religious Community Local Totals participant leaders Mobilizers leaders M F M F M F M F Participants 2 1 0 1 2 1 4 3 7 Non-participants 3 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 6 Total 5 1 1 2 2 2 8 5 13
Economic changes
Economic changes Mentions (FGD/KIIs) Prices increased 28 Poverty increased 14 Currency devaluation 11 Unemployment increased 9 Poor harvest 6 Hunger increased 5 Embargos 3 Production reduced 3 Taxes increased 3 Harder to get loans/capital for IGAs 2 Increased theft/crime 2 Relations between Rwanda/Burundi 2 deteriorated Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 60 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Shortages 2 Communal deficit increased 1 Drought 1 Increased malnutrition 1 Land becoming rarer 1 Less production 1 Market decreased 1 NGOs have left 1 Poor fishing 1 Prices stayed the same142 1 Reduced cross-border trade 1
Social changes by province
Social change Bujumbura Bubanza Bujumbura Kirundo Makamba Total Mairie Rural mentions People fled 7 4 4 3 4 22 People returning 4 2 2 3 1 12 Good ethnic 1 3 1 1 6 cohabitation Good cohabitation 3 1 1 1 6
Rumors 1 0 1 0 1 3 Arrests 2 0 0 0 0 2 Fear 1 0 0 1 0 2 School drop-outs 1 0 0 0 1 2 People stopped going to 0 0 1 1 0 2 church Polygamy 0 0 0 1 1 2 Anger 1 0 0 0 0 1 Deaths 1 0 0 0 0 1 Freedom of movement 0 0 0 0 1 1 restricted More divorce 1 0 0 0 0 1 People disappeared 1 0 0 0 0 1 Poor domestic 0 0 0 0 1 1 cohabitation Domestic trust 0 0 0 0 1 1 deteriorated Poor ethnic 0 0 0 0 1 1 cohabitation Political distrust 0 1 0 0 0 1
142 Only in one location did someone assert that prices have remained roughly the same: Mukike (Male non-participant, KII, Mukike commune, Bujumbura Rural province). Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 61 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Poor political 0 0 0 0 1 1 cohabitation Non-legalized 0 0 0 0 1 1 marriages Trust deteriorated 0 0 1 0 0 1 Trust improving 0 0 1 0 0 1 Ethnic distrust 0 0 0 1 0 1 Families separated 0 0 0 1 0 1 People intimidated 0 0 0 1 0 1 Homes of batwa who 0 0 0 0 1 1 fled destroyed Unwanted pregnancies 0 0 0 0 1 1 Confidence deteriorated 0 0 0 1 1
Solidarity reduced 0 0 0 0 1 1 Good political 1 1 1 0 0 3 cohabitation
Local conflicts
Type of Mentions Mentions Mentions Mentions Mentions Total conflict Kirundo Makamba Bubanza Bujumbura Bujumbura mentions Rural Mairie Land 4 7 7 8 4 30 Polygamy 3 5 6 8 6 28 Domestic 1 3 0 3 6 13 Political 3 3 3 0 2 11 Creditor/ 0 1 1 3 1 6 debtor Alcohol related 1 0 0 3 0 4 Theft 1 1 1 0 1 4 Unwanted 0 1 1 0 1 3 pregnancy Banditry 2 0 0 0 0 2 Sorcery 0 1 0 0 1 2 Landlord/ 0 0 0 0 2 2 tenant Herders/ 0 0 1 0 0 1 farmers Early marriage 0 0 1 0 0 1 SGBV 0 0 0 1 0 1 Inability to pay 0 0 0 0 1 1 for drinks Exclusion 0 0 0 0 1 1 Arrests/ 0 0 0 0 1 1 Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 62 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi kidnappings Bashingantahe vs. 0 0 0 0 1 1 administration Police vs. 0 0 0 0 1 1 population
Approaches to conflict resolution
Approach Count Advise 76 Listen, Advise 50 Listen, Reconcile 18 Reconcile 17 Listen, Advise, Reconcile 7 Advise, Reconcile 6 Listen, Propose a solution 6 Separate the parties, Advise 5 Bring the parties together, Listen, Advise 3 Calm the parties in conflict, Listen, Advise 2 Discourage violence, Reconcile 2 Identify the cause, Advise 2 Listen, Analyze, Reconcile 2 Listen, Identify the cause, Reconcile 2 Pray, Reconcile 2 Separate the parties, Listen 2 Separate the parties, Listen, Advise 2 Separate the parties, Listen, Reconcile 2 Advise, Call another mediator 1 Advise, Call for respect 1 Advise, Discourage violence, Reconcile 1 Advise, If it fails I send them to the Bashingantahe 1 Advise, If it is too complicated, I send them to the 1 tribunal Advise, If that doesn't work I call a third person 1 Advise, If that doesn't work I call their best friends to 1 help Advise, If that doesn't work I send them to court 1 Advise, If that doesn't work I send them to court or 1 Bashingantahe Advise, If that fails I send them to court 1 Advise, If they are older than me I send them to 1 someone else Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 63 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Advise, Invite older persons to help me 1 Advise, Mediate 1 Advise, Political conflicts are complicated 1 Advise, Reconcile, Discourage violence 1 Advise; If this fails I send them to the administration 1 or OPJ Ask the neighbors, Listen, Reconcile 1 Bring the parties together, Advise 1 Bring the parties together, Listen, Advise, If that fails 1 I call the police Bring the parties together, Listen, Explain that they 1 shouldn't use force Bring the parties together, Listen, Reconcile 1 Calm the parties in conflict 1 Calm the parties in conflict, Call someone else to 1 help, Reconcile Calm the parties in conflict, Listen, Form a team of 1 mediators Calm the parties in conflict, Listen, Reconcile 1 Calm the parties in conflict, Separate the parties; Advise, Ask the party at fault to ask for pardon of the 1 other Convince them of the negative impact of conflict, 1 Reconcile Discourage violence 1 Family conflicts: Advise Land conflicts: Send them 1 to the tribunal Help the parties in conflict to find a solution 1 I call someone to help me 1 I manage only cases of children, or those that are not 1 complicated between adults. I manage only cases of domestic disputes 1 I try to convince them not to fight 1 Identify the cause, Advise, If it is too complicated I 1 say nothing Identify the cause, Listen, Advise 1 Identify the cause, Propose a solution 1 Identify the cause, Show each their responsibility, 1 Help them to find a mutually agreeable solution If it is too complicated I send them to the tribunal. 1 It is innate wisdom, I don't know how to explain it 1 Listen 1 Listen, Advise, Reconcile 1 Listen, Advise, Discourage violence 1 Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 64 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Listen, Advise, If that fails I call another mediator 1 Listen, Advise, If that fails I send them to court 1 Listen, Advise, If that fails I send them to others 1 Listen, Advise, If this fails I send them to court 1 Listen, Advise, Reconcile, If that fails I call a 1 mediator Listen, Advise, Reconcile, If that fails I call someone 1 else to help Listen, Discourage violence 1 Listen, Give them my opinion, Invite them to 1 reconcile Listen, Help them find a consensus 1 Listen, Identify the cause of the conflict, Advise 1 Listen, Mediate 1 Listen, Reconcile, Bring the two parties together, 1 Share a beer as a symbol of unity Listen, Reconcile, If that fails I send them to 1 someone more competent Listen, Reconcile, If this fails I send them to the 1 tribunal Listen, Try to find a compromise, Reconcile 1 Listen, Try to see who is at fault, Advise, If that fails 1 I send them to court Mediate, If it fails I send them to the Bashingantahe 1 or the administration Mediate, Listen, Reconcile 1 Pray, Listen, Reconcile 1 Reconcile, If that fails I send them to court 1 Separate the parties, Advise, Reconcile 1 Separate the parties, Listen, Bring the parties 1 together, Propose a solution Separate the parties, Listen, Reconcile; If it's 1 complicated I send them to the administration Separate the parties, Reconcile 1 Separate the parties, Take a neutral position, Advise 1 Total 274
Advantages/benefits of mediation
Advantages/benefits of mediation KII or FGD type Times mentioned Low/no-cost Participants 4 Non-participants 5 “Keeps the love” between parties in Participants 3 Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 65 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
conflict Non-participants 5 No winner/win-win Participants 2 Non-participants 0 Quick/Takes less time Participants 2 Non-participants 0 No corruption Participants 1 Non-participants 0 Non-violent Participants 1 Non-participants 1 Conflict remains private Participants 0 Non-participants 1
Potential consequences of free speech
Potential consequences Participant Non-participants Total mentions143 mentions "You could be followed144" 6 9 15 "Arrested"/"imprisoned" 2 8 10 "Denounced" 1 4 5 "Something bad" 0 4 4 "Killed 3 2 5 "Interrogated" 0 3 3 "Problems" 0 2 2 "That night you could have a 2 0 2 knock at your door" "Manipulated" 0 1 1 "Taken" (kidnapped) 0 1 1 "Things could happen" 1 0 1 "Seen as a traitor/opponent" 1 0 1 "Fear of security" 1 0 1 "They will say ‘watch it’" 1 0 1 "Called in to explain what you 1 0 1 said previously to the authorities" “Threatened” 1 0 1
143 Counts were done based on how many total times concepts were mentioned by FGD participants or KII interviewees. If two FGD participants said the same think in a FGD, this was counted as 2 mentions. If one person mentioned multiple things, these were all counted separately. The word cloud was created with Wordle. Word size corresponds to the number of times words were mentioned by discussants and interviewees as reflected in the table. 144 This was translated from French “poursuivit” (past participle of “poursuivre”) which in the Burundian context means to be followed, watched or tracked closely by the police with the implied eventual outcome of imprisonment or death. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 66 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
"Come get you at night" 1 0 1
Mediation challenges
Challenge Mentions Parties in conflict lack confidence in you 5 External parties meddle 3 Land conflicts are difficult 3 Parties in conflict lie 3 Takes a lot of time 2 Administration challenges the mediator’s authority 2 Parties in conflict are radical 2 Accusations of partiality or corruption 1 Police challenge the mediator’s authority 1 Friends expect partiality 1
Radio themes and impact
Themes remembered (survey) Mentions Impact on behavior (survey) Mentions Conflict resolution 45 Conflict resolution 29 Land conflict 18 Peaceful cohabitation 9 Peaceful cohabitation 18 Tolerance 9 Reconciliation 7 Good behavior 4 Ethnic conflict 3 Non-violence 3 Mediation 3 Forgiveness 2 Development 2 Joint decision-making in the 2 How to chose good leaders 2 home Good leadership 2 Justice 2 Development 1 Honesty 1 Political conflict 2 Understand laws of succession Security 1 2 for women Culture 1 Youth engagement 1 Total 64 Dialogue 1 Elections 1 Family conflict 1 Good behavior during the 1 elections Non-legalized marriage 1 Joint decision-making in the 1 home Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 67 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Never use violence 1 Peacebuilding 1 Peaceful cohabitation during the 1 elections Politics 1 Prepare for the future 1 Respect for human rights 1 Work conflict 1 Youth 1 Total 119
Comic book exposure
How often do you/have you read the Number Percentage comic book? (survey) Never 492 95% Once 19 4% Sometimes 7 1% I don't know 2 0.4%
Comic book themes and impact
Themes remembered Mentions Impact on behavior Mentions (survey) (survey) Conflict resolution 6 Conflict resolution 8 Land conflict 5 Land conflict 3 Consequences of violence 3 Peaceful cohabitation 3 Peaceful cohabitation 3 Care for children 1 Behavior in a conflict 2 Good leadership 1 Domestic conflict 2 Reduced rape of women 1 Reconciliation 2 Mediation 1 Go to the police rather than Mutual assistance 1 1 use force Non-violence 1 Political conflict 1 Now I know what to do 1 Cycle of conflict 1 where there is a problem Inter-ethnic hatred 1 Reconciliation 1 How to reduce domestic Showed me the way to 1 1 conflict behave
Mutual respect 1 Bad behavior of men in their 1 homes Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 68 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Sending children to school 1 Avoid conflicts with my 1 neighbors
Town hall meetings
Commune Topic Date Code Gihanga Early marriage and its effects Oct-15 Early marriage Nyanza Lac Managing land conflict between Nov-15 Land conflict returnees and residents Makamba Consequences of non-legalized Nov-15 Non-legalized marriage marriage Bubanza Management and support of orphans and other vulnerable Nov-15 Orphans children Mpanda Polygamy and its consequences Jan-16 Polygamy Busoni Non-legalized marriage and the consequences for security in the Feb-16 Non-legalized marriage home Kirundo The situation of movement of refugees and the consequences for Feb-16 Refugees and security security Mugongo- Domestic conflict and Feb-16 Domestic conflict manga consequences for the family Mukike Our role in peacebuiliding and Peacebuilding and Apr-16 security in our commune security Kibago The role of political leaders in Peacebuilding and peacebuiliding and security in our Apr-16 security commune Bugarama Our role in peacebuiliding and Peacebuilding and May-16 security in our commune security Bugabira Our role in peacebuiliding and Peacebuilding and May-16 security in our commune security Ntahangwa What we can do to consolidate Peacebuilding and peace, security and avoid exclusion Jul-16 security in the commune Muha Role of different actors in security reinforcement and the fight against Peacebuilding and distrust between youth of different Jul-16 security political affiliations to boost social cohesion Mukaza Role of youth, elected officials, Aug-16 security forces, and the Peacebuilding and Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 69 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
administration in peacebuilding security fight against violence against women and girls
Town hall impact
Did the town hall have an impact on liberty of expression? Number Percentage (survey) Yes 35 87.5% No 4 10% I don't know 1 2.5%
Impact on behavior Mentions (survey) Freedom of expression 19 Conflict resolution 6 Peaceful cohabitation 5 Non-violence 1 Reconciliation 1 Tolerance 1
Annex 3: Documents Consulted
1. Baseline study 2. SMS monitoring report (June 2016) 3. Quarterly Narrative Reports to CSO: Our Country Our Future (Q1-Q6) 4. Local leader training reports (all) 5. Community mobilizer training reports (all) 6. Monitoring Plan Activities and Indicators 7. SFCG Monitoring Plan CSO 8. Peace Initiative reports 9. Town hall reports 10. PTI quarterly reports (Q1-Q5) 11. OMAC bi-monthly monitoring reports 12. CSO Proposal LoE 2 SFCG Final Narrative
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 70 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Annex 4: Evaluation Terms of Reference
Terms of Reference
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Context
About Search for Common Ground
Search for Common Ground’s (SFCG) mission is to transform the way individuals, organizations, and governments deal with conflict, away from adversarial approaches and towards collaborative solutions. Headquartered in Washington DC, USA, and Brussels, Belgium with field offices in 35 countries, SFCG designs and implements multifaceted programs that aim to transform conflict. SFCG seeks to help conflicting parties understand their differences and act on their commonalities. SFCG has been working in Burundi since 1995, where it collaborates with local partners to build communities’ resilience to violence and strength of local peace actors across the country.
About the project
Since early 2015, the political climate in Burundi became increasingly tense with radical rhetoric, the creation and mobilization of ‘youth wings’ of political parties, and increasing political violence in Burundi as the July 2015 elections drew closer and alarmed regional experts, the United Nations and neighboring countries. On the ground observers warned of an impending crisis, while Adama Dieng, U.N. Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide warned that greater political openness and dialogue between political actors was necessary if Burundi was to avoid “the worst.”
In response to the growing crisis, Search for Common Ground (SFCG), in collaboration with Partners Trust International (PTI) and L'Organisation des médias d'Afrique centrale (OMAC) developed the “Our Country, Our Future: A Community Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi”. Funded by the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations (CSO) and implemented over 19 months, SFCG and PTI’s program sought to support local communities to reduce the risk of conflict escalation leading up to, during, and following the election period in Burundi. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 71 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
The project began in March 2015 and will conclude in September 2016. A series of program activities were implemented in five provinces: Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural, Bubanza, Kirundo and Makamba. The five were chosen based on their history of violence and political significance, and because of ongoing SFCG youth and peacebuilding projects in the areas. Some of the projects activities were focused in provincial capitals to target provincial political and religious leaders, while others on the commune level sought to empower local community leaders. SFCG, in cooperation with UNICEF, conducted conflict scans and baseline research on the five provinces to help choose communes in each province considered at-risk for conflict escalation.
The project had two specific objectives:
1) Support key individuals and community networks to de-escalate disputes; and 2) Foster a national environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue.
SFCG attempted to achieve these objectives through multiple initiatives:
• Media programs (TV and radio spots, radio roundtables, radio plays, a comic book); • Media monitoring with OMAC; • Community engagement activities: town halls, comic book etc. • Peace initiatives (cultural events, concerts, and marches for peace); and • Personal and communal peace empowerment through workshops on conflict management with provincial, religious, and communal leaders. • Monitoring activities
The expected results were:
• Local leaders from diverse backgrounds have increased skills and opportunities to transform conflict and prevent violence; • Local peace initiatives and dispute resolution mechanisms are strengthened within targeted communities; • Safe spaces for constructive public dialogue are created at the community level; and • Attitudes favorable to tolerance, pluralism, and non-violence are reinforced in media throughout the country.
In order to reach these results the project targeted the following categories of people/organizations: Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 72 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Before program implementation began, SFCG conducted another baseline study (separate from the one completed with UNICEF) to measure previously chosen indicators for program success, and to identify local leaders and specific communes to be targeted in each of the five provinces. SFCG’s Institutional Learning Team (ILT) and Burundi program staff reviewed the baseline research design and chosen indicators. Evaluation Objectives
Objectives of the study
This evaluation will focus on the following key objectives:
4. Internal and External Context Analysis: analyse how the program was affected by both internal and external factors, and strategies used to respond to the changing context. 5. Progress towards results: full review of the project outcome and output indicators to date, and comparison with baseline indicators to measure the change brought about by the project. 6. Lessons Learned and Recommendation: provide lessons learned from the program and recommendations for the development of future initiatives to support inclusive dialogue and tolerance in the Burundian context.
The evaluation will be shared with project staff in SFCG, CSO and partners. It will be published on the website of SFCG to allow for wide diffusion and sharing.
The study will answer the following questions:
Effectiveness
1. To what extent did internal and external factors affect the implementation of activities and/or effectiveness of the project? a. How did the project respond to challenges and opportunities during project implementation? 2. Review of project indicators: what activities were carried out, and what targets were reached? And how did these indicators help us understand the successes of the project? a. % of people who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes b. Ratio of number of disputes successfully managed/number of disputes addressed by trainees c. % of people that feel sufficiently secure to express themselves on national debates d. % of population in target areas that self-report they are comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 73 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
e. % of people who have been exposed to SFCG activities (radio, comic book, peace activities) who have spoken with their families at home about non-violent conflict f. % of people who have listened regularly to an SFCG radio show, participated in a peace event or read a comic book g. % of people that choose a tolerant response when asked how they would respond when faced with opinions contrary to their own h. % of people that believe they have the opportunity to engage in inclusive dialogue within their community 3. Who was reached by the project and who did not benefit as clearly? Why? 4. For radio messages: a. Who did the messages reach? b. Did they understand and resonate with the messages? c. Did the messages impact their actions? How? 5. For the comic books: a. Who read the comic book? b. Did they understand and resonate with the messages? c. Did the messages impact their actions? How? 6. What about programming can be improved? What are the best practices identified as a result of the project?
Impact
7. What were the unintended positive and negative results of the project? 8. Leader engagement: What was the impact of SFCG training on their ability to prevent conflict escalation in their communities? 9. How did the town halls impact the environment with regards to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue? 10. How did the radio programming impact the environment with regards to non- violence expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue? 11. How did various peace initiatives enable you to engage peacefully in political debate and participation overall? 12. Community engagement: how did the project activities engage community members and empower individuals to de-escalate conflict and practice private dispute resolution skills? 13. Were there barriers or challenges affecting leaders and individuals ability to exercise newly acquired conflict management skills? 14. How has the environment changed in your community because of the impact of the project? 15. How was gender considered in the project? How did the project impact women?
Sustainability
16. Does the partner organization use the tools developed with SFCG to support key individuals and community networks to de-escalate disputes? How? Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 74 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
17. How are the beneficiaries going to continue to use the dispute resolution skills they learned in the project?
18. How will the environment favorable to non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue be maintained after the project?
Research Plan
Data Collection Methods and Sampling
In order to answer the questions above, the evaluation will target the following people:
• Religious leaders who participated in trainings and workshops; • Local leaders who participated in trainings and workshops: including members of the Bashingantahe (traditional communal councils), communal administrators, members of the conseils collinaires (local councils), members of the local security committees, and civil society leaders; • Community mobilizers who participated in trainings and workshops; • Men and women who participated in the activities (town hall, peace initiatives, etc.); • Partner organizations: Partners Trust International (PTI) • Collaborating organizations: L'Organisation des médias d'Afrique centrale (OMAC); • SFCG staff.
The data will be collected in all five provinces of implementation: Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural, Bubanza, Kirundo and Makamba. In each of the five provinces, data will be collected from two communes, chosen for convenience, safety, and prevalence of the “Our Country, Our Future” program activities.
The provinces and communes from which data will be collected are: • Bujumbura Rural: Bugarama and Mukike communes; • Bujumbura Mairie: Nthahangwa and Muha communes; • Bubanza: Bubanza and Gihanga communes; • Makamba: Makamba and Nyanza-Lac communes; and • Kirundo: Kirundo and Busoni communes.
A mixed methods qualitative and quantitative approach will be used:
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 75 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
• Documents will be reviewed in order to analyze all relevant project documents (baseline report, activity reports, monitoring reports, databases, radio broadcasts, comic books, etc.) • Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) with: o Leaders (religious and local) and community mobilizers who have received SFCG training in conflict de-escalation (2 per province, 10 total) o Leaders (religious and local) and community mobilizers who have not received SFCG training (2 per province, 10 total) o Partners/Collaborators (2 PTI, 1 OMAC; 3 total) o Search staff (2 total) • Focus groups discussions (FGDs) in each province with: o Male participants in SFCG project activities (1 per province; 5 total); o Female participants in SFCG project activities (1 per province; 5 total) o Male community members with no prior experience with the project activities; (1 per province; 5 total) o Female community members with no prior experience with the project activities (1 per province; 5 total) • Quantitative data will be gathered through household surveys (100 per province145) in five provinces: Bujumbura Mairie, Bujumbura Rural, Bubanza, Makamba, and Kirundo; 500 in total). • Success stories: A total of three success stories will be collected during the course of the research and drafted by ILT.
Tools will be developed by the ILT team (DME Associates) and reviewed by the Sr. DM&E Regional Specialist.
The data collection team will be led by the SFCG Institutional Learning Team (ILT). It will be implemented by SFCG-Burundi staff with the support of externally recruited enumerators. The SFCG staff members will facilitate the focus groups and conduct the semi-structured key informant interviews; four enumerators will be hired locally to conduct the household interviews (the ILT and SFCG staff will hold a training program for them over three days before the evaluation begins); and the ILT will review the research plan, conduct the data analysis, and help edit the final report in collaboration with the Sr. DME Regional Specialist, Adrienne Lemon. Ms. Lemon will also be supervising the evaluation process.
145 This will allow for a 95% confidence level with a 10% margin of error in all five provinces (www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html). To allow for a 5% margin of error, more than 300 surveys would be required in each province (1,500 total) which is not permissible with the budget available. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 76 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
All data collection tools (the semi-structured KII guide, the FGD guide, and the household surveys) will be originally written in French or English, and then reviewed and translated in to Kirundi by the SFCG Burundi team (and possibly a translator) in collaboration with the ILT members. This partnership will ensure that no cultural or linguistic errors are made and the questions remain appropriately targeted at the information we wish to receive. All the questions will be reviewed in French/English and Kirundi to ensure shared, and accurate, understanding of the questions after translation.
The KII guide, FGD guide and household surveys will be pre-tested in Bujumbura Mairie prior to data collection to ensure the tools are clear and understandable to targeted respondents. There will be one interview, one FGD and 10 surveys conducted to test the tools. The tools will be adjusted following field feedback from staff, contractors, and translators who complete the pilot. The pre-testing of tools will be conducted during the course of the three-day training of enumerators.
1. Key Informant Interviews
The project’s first specific objective was to support key individuals and community networks to de-escalate disputes. To that end, SFCG developed training for provincial, communal, and religious leaders in dispute resolution and conflict management methods with which they could prevent violent escalation within their communities and handle disputes peacefully. These trainings were a major focus of SFCG programming. Therefore the interview targets are:
• Leaders (religious and local) and community mobilizers who have received SFCG training in conflict de-escalation (2 per province, 10 total) • Leaders (religious and local) and community mobilizers who have not received SFCG training (2 per province, 10 total)
SFCG staff requested that leaders who did not receive dispute resolution training also be interviewed, to determine the impact of the training on multiple levels: individuals’ perceptions of the conflict and Burundi’s political processes; and the spillover of those leaders’ perceptions on the wider community. Given the extraordinary influence of these leaders on their communities and the dissemination of their views to others, SFCG wants to know if there is a difference in how leaders with and without training discuss and perceive conflict and related concepts (peace, mediation, free speech etc.)
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 77 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Four SFCG staff will conduct semi-structured key informant interviews, based on a pre- written guide,146 in every commune visited (ten communes in total, two communes per province). The interviewers will work as a team of two (three where a translator is needed). One staff member will conduct the interview and the other will take notes. Leaders who consent to be interviewed will be given remuneration for any travel costs incurred.
In addition to interviewing, the SFCG staff will keep field journals in which they will record general impressions, observations on community life, and conversations or other spontaneous interviews with community members. In doing so, they will have observations by which to perhaps confirm or contradict trained leaders answers concerning the status and well-being of their communities. For example, if one leader says that he has been central in establishing peace in his communities but interviewers have noticed a public tension, they will know to inquire further.
Sampling Sampling for the key-informant interviews is purposive. Given that SFCG has a near complete list of communal, provincial and religious leaders, and those that attended project dispute resolution training data collectors have pre-existing sampling frames for both leaders who received training and those who did not. The attendance sheets will be the sampling frame for those who participated, and by cross-checking those names against the list of leaders in every province, the team can determine who did not receive the training.
2. Focus Group Discussions
The same four SFCG-Burundi staff members who served as key informant interviewers will also serve as focus group facilitators, in teams of two (plus the translator where necessary). They will be visiting two communes in each province, for a total of ten communes. In each commune they will host 2 focus groups, for a total of 20 focus group discussions. This means that provincially contextual challenges and successes can be identified. Ideally, each focus group will have between 6-8 participants.
Using a pre-written guide, researchers will guide an open discussion on participants experiences with programming, its impact on them, and their perceptions of the election and political climate, and outlooks for the future; or, with the groups who did not receive or participate in programming, facilitate a discussion on their thoughts of political violence, the election, and general climate to determine whether or not the project had
146 SFCG evaluation is largely based on pre-determined indicators, identified during baseline study’s conducted before program implementation and used to target and contextualize project aims and goals at the beginning. Consequently, SFCG writes semi-structured guides for interviews and focus groups, based around these indicators, after the baseline study is conducted. Thus the guide writing, for the interviews and focus groups, is not included in the timeline or our budget. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 78 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi any impact on people’s perceptions of the political process and their behavior as political actors and community members. One facilitator will handle the discussion, while the other will take notes. Those who consent to participation in the focus groups will be given remuneration for any travel costs incurred.
Sampling There are four target populations for the focus groups: male participants of SFCG project activities; female participants of SFCG project activities; male community members with no prior experience with the project activities; and female community members with no prior experience with project activities.
Purposive sampling will be used for the first two target populations, male and female participants or recipients of SFCG programming (received training/attended a workshop, received media aspects, listened to the roundtables, saw a TV spot, or attended a peace initiative). There are existing frames for the first two target populations, As SFCG takes attendance for their peace initiatives and media programming targeted particular provinces and communes with access to radio/TV broadcasters partnered with SFCG, we can use SFCG attendance records and media broadcast records as pre-existing sampling frames identify potential focus group participants.
As there are no existing sampling frames for non-participants, the evaluation team will use snowball sampling to identify community members who have not received or participated in any of the project activities. Part of the first day in each commune will be spent observing, introducing the team to the community, and visiting with people. Non- participants will be identified through these casual introductions and conversations, and participant identification can snowball from there.
3. Household surveys
The household survey is intended to capture the extent of media outreach and impact in smaller communities as well as potential impact of the project activities outside of the immediate beneficiaries. Four enumerators, locally hired and working in teams of two, will conduct surveys in every commune visited, for a total of ten communes. The enumerators will attempt to survey two households per hour for an average of sixteen households per day per team, with a total of 32 people surveyed per day, and an overall intended total of 500 surveys for the entire evaluation (100 per province or 50 per commune).
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 79 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
The survey, which will be written by SFCG-Burundi staff and the ILT, will be comprised of approximately 25-30 questions147 to determine:
a) Whether or not the household knew of SFCG programs, radio, TV or otherwise, and if so had they experienced any themselves? b) If so, did they remember anything of them, what did they think of them? c) General perceptions around the election, political violence and other related concepts.
Sampling A form of systematic random sampling will be used for the household surveys, with provincial government household records serving as the sampling frame. Each team of two will randomly select a neighborhood in every commune, and a map of that community taken from the provincial government. The enumerators will randomly select a starting house to begin surveying, and thereafter go to every third house on the right hand side of the road to survey. To be eligible for surveying, the household must have at least one person above the age of 18 willing to be surveyed. If no one is home, the enumerators will move across the street and then keep the every three-house count on that side of the road. If more than one person is home, the enumerators will use a Kish grid for household respondent selection.
4. Success stories
During the course of the data collection, three success stories will be developed. Field staff will identify the three individuals with a “success story” in advance and draft the story. The SFCG staff conducting the KIIs and FGDs would meet with these individuals during the course of data collection to speak with them, clarify points/gather more information, and to take photos.
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 80 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
The timeline will be as follows:
Date Task
July 1-15 SFCG-Burundi staff identify three individuals (from three different provinces if possible and showing different aspects of project impact) for success stories
July 15-22 SFCG-Burundi staff draft three success stories
July 25 Three success stories submitted to ILT
July 25-29 SFCG-Burundi staff plans for evaluator(s) to speak with all three individuals while in the field for data collection
Evaluation Data Target Source Objective 1. To what extent did internal and SFCG staff Interviews external factors affect the 1 implementation of activities Partners Interviews and/or effectiveness of the project? • How did the project respond All groups FGDs to challenges and opportunities during project Documents implementation? 2. Review of project indicators: what activities were carried out, Document Review 2 and what targets were reached? SFCG staff Interviews • % of people who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes Local leaders KIIs • Ratio of number of disputes (participants and successfully non-participants) managed/number of disputes addressed by trainees Project FGD • % of people that feel participants (men sufficiently secure to express and women) themselves on national Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 81 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
debates • % of population in target Non-participants FGD areas that self-report they are (men and women) comfortable resolving conflicts non-violently • % of people who have been exposed to SFCG activities (radio, comic book, peace Population Household activities) who have spoken survey with their families at home about non-violent conflict • % of people who have listened regularly to an SFCG radio show, participated in a peace event or read a comic book • % of people that choose a tolerant response when asked how they would respond when faced with opinions contrary to their own • % of people that believe they have the opportunity to engage in inclusive dialogue within their community
3. Who was reached by the project Project FGD and who did not benefit as participants (men 1,2 clearly? Why? and women)
Population Household survey 4. For radio messages: a. Who did the messages Project FGD 2 reach? participants (men b. Did they understand and and women) resonate with the messages? Non-participants FGD c. Did the messages impact (men and women) their actions? How?
Population Household survey Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 82 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
5. What about programming can be improved? What are the best SFCG staff, Interviews 3 practices identified as a result of partners, leaders the project? Local leaders KII (participants)
Project FGD participants (men and women) 6. For the comic books: a. Who read the comic Project FGD 2 book? participants (men b. Did they understand and and women) resonate with the messages? Non-participants FGD c. Did the messages impact (men and women) their actions? How? Population Household survey 7. What were the unintended positive and negative results of All FGD, KII 3 the project?
8. Leader engagement: What was the impact of SFCG training on Project FGD 2 their ability to prevent conflict participants (men escalation in their communities? and women)
KII Local leaders (participants) 9. Community engagement: how did the project activities engage All FGD, KII, 2 community members and Interviews empower individuals to de-
escalate conflict and practice
private dispute resolution skills? 10. How did the town halls impact Population Household the environment with regards to survey non-violent expression, tolerance of political differences, and inclusive dialogue? Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 83 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
11. Were there barriers or challenges affecting leaders and individuals Project FGD 1,3 ability to exercise newly participants (men acquired conflict management and women) skills? 12. How did various peace Local leaders KII initiatives enable you to engage (participants) peacefully in political debate and participation overall? Partner Interviews organizations 13. How has the environment changed in your community All FGD, KII 2, 3 because of the impact of the project?
Population Household survey
14. How was gender considered in 3 the project? How did the project Partner Interviews impact women? organizations, staff
15. Does the partner organization use the tools developed with 2, 3 SFCG to support key individuals Partners, staff Interviews and community networks to de- escalate disputes? How?
16. How are the beneficiaries going Local leaders KIIs 3 to continue to use the dispute resolution skills they learned in (participants) the project? 17. How will the environment Project FGD favorable to non-violent participants (men expression, tolerance of political and women) differences, and inclusive dialogue be maintained after the project?
Delimitations of the study Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 84 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Deliverables Bujumbura Bujumbura Bubanza Makamba Kirundo Total Mairie Rural
Desk Review 1
9; Includes 5 Key KIIs with Informant 4 4 4 4 25 leaders, staff Interviews and partners
Focus Group 4 4 4 4 4 20 Discussions
Household 100 100 100 100 100 500 surveys
Success stories 1 1 1 3
Data Analysis
SFCG-Burundi staff and ILT will be responsible for data entry and analysis, and ILT staff will draft the preliminary report. ILT will review the first draft and offer edits. The Sr. DM&E Regional Specialist will review the final report, and then distribute it amongst country offices, PTI and CSO.
Quality Assurance
The quality assurance during the data cleaning and data entry stage will be conducted by ILT and supported by Sr. DME Regional Specialist Adrienne Lemon. Preliminary findings will be shared with SFCG staff and partners on September 15, 2016 and recommendations will be jointly written.
Deliverables
- A draft version of the report on which SFCG can comment (in English); - A final version of the report, with SFCG comments incorporated (in English); - Presentation on the overall findings concerning implementation and impact (organized by province)
Logistical Support
SFCG will provide logistical support for the data collection (vehicles, fuel, and drivers). In terms of human resources, eight people will be going to the field: four data collectors, two FGD/KII facilitators, a translator, and a driver. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 85 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
The ILT is SFCG’s in-house global team of ten full-time Design, Monitoring and Evaluation experts. The team works globally and regionally, with specialists in each region that collaborate closely with country-based DME Coordinators, to monitor and evaluate the implementation and impact of SFCG programs. In Burundi, they will be working with Sr. DME Regional Specialist Adrienne Lemon and DM&E Regional Associates.
Sr. DME Regional Specialist Adrienne Lemon will be supervising the data collection and analysis processes, and review the first draft of the report.
In addition, SFCG will share background materials including the project proposal and the M&E plan, and other materials as requested by the team.
Budget
The budget allocated for this study is approximately USD 10,000. The estimates in the budget attached are based on an average of previous budgets for SFCG program evaluations in Burundi, with some adjustment for food and lodgings and salaries given the security situation. Salaries for SFCG staff and members of the Institutional Learning Team are covered separately. The total estimated budget for this evaluation is USD 9,784 (see attached spreadsheet for a full breakdown).
Timeline
The evaluation should be conducted in August 2016. The field research will take a total of 22 days from July 31st to August 24th (three days off during the field work (August 13- 15) because of a religious holiday).
Date Task
July 6 Comments on the ToR from CSO are submitted
July 8 Final draft with comments from CSO integrated
July 8 - 31 Conception of tools (and document review begins, including assessment of the security situation); KII interview with staff
July 31 – August 24148 Data collection: field work
148 The proposed timeline for the data collection is contingent on the security situation at the time of data collection. According to information received from Tom Perriello, US Special Envoy for the Great Lakes Region of Africa, it is possible that there will be a deterioration of security during the data collection period; therefore, the team will proceed cautiously, assessing the situation first before proceeding to any location. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 86 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
August 24 – KII interview with partners; Data analysis and drafting of September 2 the report
September 2 First Draft
September 5 – 16 Review
September 15 Preliminary findings shared with SFCG staff and partners and recommendations jointly written
September 30 Final report
From July 8-31, while the tools are being developed the literature and document review will also begin. This will allow for an evaluation of the security risks in the areas of intervention prior to beginning research. This evaluation will inform/determine the final research plan.
KIRUNDO PROVINCE: July 31st – August 4th
July 31st - August 1st: Busoni commune
Leave in the afternoon on (Sunday) July 31st drive to Busoni commune in Kirundo province (approx. 3 and a half hours). Due to security concerns, we cannot stay there overnight and so must sleep in a nearby town:
- In the morning drive to Busoni (early) - Enumerator teams (2 teams of two people) conduct household surveys – need 1 day to complete 32 surveys, so 2 days will be enough to complete 50 surveys per commune (based on previous evaluations conducted by ILT in Burundi) - In the morning, the focus group facilitator and support staff/translator identify potential participants for the focus group with non-participants, to be conducted the next day (in addition to the other FGD with the participants) - In the afternoon, they conduct the 2 KIIs. August 2nd: Busoni commune
Enumerators continue household surveys (to finish the 50 in that commune), and the focus group facilitator (and translator if necessary) hold 2 focus groups with people previously identified (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). Drive to Kirundo commune, leave by 4PM (or lodge nearby depending on security).
August 3rd: Kirundo commune Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 87 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
- Enumerator teams (2 teams of two people) conduct household surveys – need 1 day to complete 32 surveys, so 2 days to complete 50 surveys per commune (based on previous evaluations conducted by ILT in Burundi) - In the morning, the focus group facilitator and support staff/translator identify potential participants for the focus group with non-participants, to be conducted the next day (in addition to the other FGD with the participants) - In the afternoon, the facilitator conducts 2 KIIs. August 4th: Kirundo commune
Enumerators continue household surveys (to finish the 50 in that commune), and the focus group facilitator (and translator if necessary) hold 2 focus groups with people previously identified (one in the morning and one in the afternoon). Drive to Makamba, leave by 2PM. Stay the night in Makamba149 to begin research there the next day.
MAKAMBA, BUBANZA, BUJUMBURA RURAL, BUJUMBURA MAIRIE: August 5th – August 24th
The same schedule will be duplicated in each location: two days in each commune for a total of 16 days total (with two travel days before and after). The order will proceed as follows:
• Makamba: August 5th – 8th • Bubanza: August 9th - 12th • Bujumbura Rural: August 16th - August 19th • Bujumbura Mairie: August 20th - August 23rd
149 If this is not possible, or the team leaves too late, they can stay overnight in Gitega overnight, and then drive the remainder early in the morning the next day. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 88 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Annex 5: Tools
Focus Group discussion guide150
Notes to researchers:
1. Make sure that you have absolute privacy for the focus group – chose a location that will facilitate this, and be emphatic about not allowing others to come and listen in. 2. Make sure to place the participants in such a way that they can see each other and that the set up is suitable for a good conversation. 3. Remember to introduce yourselves and the objectives of the research. (see text below) 4. Let everyone know that you may take down some notes and that it doesn’t mean you aren’t paying attention. 5. Stress anonymity – we will not collect information on names of anyone, or attribute anything to any individual. 6. Remember there is no right or wrong answer, and that everyone has their own opinions and experience. The aim with the discussion is for people to share their opinions and we are interested to have a conversation, every body is free to chip in and comment on each other, as long as they make sure it is one person who speaks at any one time. Just raise your hand if you have something to contribute to or talk after the last person has finished. It is important that you record any particular dynamics that exist within the group. 7. It is important that you record with both a recorder and excellent notes – notes should refer to certain timing in the recording where interesting quotes and ideas are shared that it may be important to go back to for analysis (i.e.: in your notes, you might write “see 1:35 in recording for exact quote). 8. Be sure to use the questions as a guide, not a list to go through. The conversation should flow, and if respondents begin talking about one topic before another one, encourage that conversation. Do not ask questions where they have already been covered, but feel free to use the follow up questions (listed under note taker’s guides) to make sure you are getting in-depth information on each question if a respondent is more quiet.
150 Questions were removed for non-participant FGDs. Questions were asked in the most convenient order. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 89 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Introduction text for researchers:
Hello. My name is ______. I am conducting research for an organization called Search for Common Ground. SFCG is working on project that includes radio programs and other outreach activities. We are conducting this research in order to understand what worked and did not work in the program.
There will be no immediate benefit to speaking with us today, and no payment for participation. The purpose of this research will inform provide us with a bit more detail on some of the issues facing communities in Burundi today, to know what we can improve in the future.
Everything that you say will remain confidential, and we will not collect information that could be used to identify you. I will be taking notes as we speak, to allow us to analyze the data from your responses. However, I will not share these notes with anyone outside of the research team.
The session may last between 1 and 2 hours, and you are free to leave at any point should you feel uncomfortable with any of the questions. It is important to make sure we hear what all participants want to say, therefore we hope you can stay for the whole discussion. What I’m looking for today is a discussion. There are no right or wrong answers. I won’t be offended if you say negative things. I just want your honest opinion. I also don’t want you to feel like you have to direct all your comments to me. If someone says something you disagree with, I want you feel free to speak up. Our goal is to have a discussion with lots of different opinions. I also want you to speak up, even if you think you are the only person at the table who has that opinion. But, if you don’t have an opinion on something, I want you feel free to say that too.
I do have some ground rules before we get started. (You can actually develop these together, if you want). I do want to hear from everyone. If I notice that you’re being quiet, I will call on you. Also, I have a lot of things to cover and I know how valuable your time is. In order to cover everything, I might have to interrupt you and move on to the next topic, or make sure that someone else gets a chance to talk in the short time we’re together. In addition, please speak one at a time. I want to make sure I hear everyone, and it can be difficult to listen to everyone’s voices at once. Last, please try to avoid side conversations. Some of the most interesting things say you might be whispering to your neighbor. Please silence your phones so we can work without distraction.
Before we start, do agree to participate?
Yes______
No______
Signature of Facilitator______Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 90 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Starting the group - Warm up exercise
Interactive introductions
Working in pairs, give the participants three minutes to speak to each other and learn the name and at least three main facts about their neighbor/fellow participant. The group introductions then follow: it is the interviewer in each pair who then introduces the other partner participant to the rest of the group (approx. 30 seconds each) e.g. this is Anya and she lives in Harare where she goes to school; her favorite subject is math; she likes listening to traditional poetry and she also likes rap music.
The interviewee is allowed to correct them if they feel they presented any facts incorrectly (humor should be encouraged as well as respect!).
Note to facilitator: This exercise encourages listening and retention; aids confidence to talk in front of others and takes the emphasis away from speaking about oneself if any participants are particularly shy. It also kick- starts a group dynamic of interaction and collegiate participation.
(This should take approximately 10 minutes)
Questions151
1. What changes happened over the past year? 2. Do you believe those changes made the activities more or less effective? How so? 3. Did you feel the activities supported participants during these changes and challenges? 4. What kind of conflicts is there in your community? 5. How do you resolve them? 6. Does mediation work to resolve disputes? 7. What are the advantages? 8. What are the challenges to managing conflict in your community? 9. Do you feel capable of resolving conflicts non-violently? 10. If you had a conflict with someone over differing opinions, how would you respond? 11. Do you feel capable of resolving conflicts non-violently? 12. Which activities from the project did you participate in? (training, town hall, peace initiatives, radio program, comic book) 13. Who in your community took part in the activities (town hall, training, film projection, radio program)? Was there anyone that wasn't a part of the activities, but was still affected by the activities? 14. Were there community members who were not able to take part in the project? Why? 15. What do you believe was the most effective part of the project? 16. Did you listen to the radio program?
151 Not all questions were asked. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 91 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
17. What did you think about the messages? 18. Did the radio messages have any impact on your actions? If so, how? 19. Did you read the comic book? 20. What did you think about the messages? 21. Did the comic book messages have any impact on your actions? If so, how? 22. Do you feel comfortable speaking about national politics publically? 23. Do you feel you have opportunities to be heard and dialogue in your community? 24. Did the town halls have an impact on how people express themselves and speak to each other? 25. What was the impact of the peace initiatives on you personally? And on the community? 26. Has the community changed because of the project? 27. Will you continue work on conflict and dispute resolution after the project ends? 28. If you could change the project in any way, what would you change? Why do you think that would make the project better? 29. Did anything bad happen because of the activities to you or your community? Can you please explain? 30. Did anything good happen because of the activities? Please explain. 31. Do you believe the new space for expression and tolerance created during the project will continue after the project ends?
Closure Ensure all participants leave in a positive state of mind and are clear about what happens next.
Key Informant Interview guide
Questions152
1. What changes happened over the past year? 2. Do you believe those changes made the activities more or less effective? How so? 3. Did you feel the activities supported participants during these changes and challenges? 4. What kinds of conflicts are there in your community? 5. How do you resolve them? 6. Does mediation work to resolve disputes? 7. What are the advantages? 8. What are the challenges to managing conflict in your community? 9. Do you feel capable of resolving conflicts non-violently? 10. If you had a conflict with someone over differing opinions, how would you respond? 11. Do you feel capable of resolving conflicts non-violently? 12. Which activities from the project did you participate in? (training, town hall, peace initiatives, radio program, comic book)
152 Not all questions were asked. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 92 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
13. Who in your community took part in the activities (town hall, training, film projection, radio program)? Was there anyone that wasn't a part of the activities, but was still affected by the activities? 14. Were there community members who were not able to take part in the project? Why? 15. What do you believe was the most effective part of the project? 16. Did you listen to the radio program? 17. What did you think about the messages? 18. Did the radio messages have any impact on your actions? If so, how? 19. Did you read the comic book? 20. What did you think about the messages? 21. Did the comic book messages have any impact on your actions? If so, how? 22. Do you feel comfortable speaking about national politics publically? 23. Do you feel you have opportunities to be heard and dialogue in your community? 24. Did the town halls have an impact on how people express themselves and speak to each other? 25. What was the impact of the peace initiatives on you personally? And on the community? 26. Has the community changed because of the project? 27. Will you continue work on conflict and dispute resolution after the project ends? 28. If you could change the project in any way, what would you change? Why do you think that would make the project better? 29. Did anything bad happen because of the activities to you or your community? Can you please explain? 30. Did anything good happen because of the activities? Please explain. 31. Do you believe the new space for expression and tolerance created during the project will continue after the project ends?
Survey
Our Country, Our Future: A Community Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi Notre pays, notre avenir : une approche d’autonomisation des communautés pour la non- violence au Burundi
Heure de début de l’enquête:
PART 1: PRE-SURVEY DATA Partie I. Données d’avant l’enquête
The surveyor should fill this out before the survey begins. L’enquêteur pourra completer avant que l’enquête ne commence.
# Category/Question Answers Catégorie/Question Réponses 1.1 Surveyor Name: Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 93 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Nom de l’enquêteur
1.2 Date of survey:
Date de l’enquête
1.3 Commune/Province:
Colline/Commune/Province
PART 2: INFORMED CONSENT Partie II. Informations de consentement The surveyor should read 2.1 out loud. L’enquêteur pourrait lire 2.1. à haute voix
# Category/Question Answers and Catégorie/ Question Coding Réponses et codes 2.1 Hello. My name is ______and I work with Search for Common Ground, (1) Yes Oui an international peace building non-governmental organization. Bonjour. Je m’appelle ……….. et je travaille avec Search For Common Ground, une organization non gouvernementale internationale engagée pour la consolidation de la (2) No Non paix. We are conducting a survey and have randomly selected you. Participation in the survey is voluntary and all results will be kept confidential and anonymous. Nous sommes entrain de mener une enquête nous vous avons choisi de manière aléatoire. La participation à l’entretien est volontaire et tous les résusltats seront confidentiels et anonymes. You are free to decline to answer any or all questions, and may choose to stop the survey at any time. We will not provide payment, but by participating you will contribute to the development of your region. The results of this survey will only be used to help Search for Common Ground and ____ design better programs in this region. This survey usually takes about 20-30 minutes to complete.
Vous êtes libres de ne pas répondre à une ou toutes les questions et vous pouvez arrêter l’entretien à tout moment. Vous ne serez pas payé mais votre participation contribue au développement de votre région. Les résultats de cette enquête seront seulement utilisés par Search For Common Ground en vue de définir les meilleurs programmes pour cette région. L’entretien va durer entre 20 et 30min. Will you participate in this survey?
Etes- vous d’accord de participer? 2.2 Signature of surveyor: 1 Signé 2. Pas signé Signature de l’enquêteur
General instruction for surveyor: Instructions generals pour l’enquêteur • Do not read the answers, unless otherwise specified in the “Instructions” column • Ne jamais lire la réponse si et seulement si c’est spécifié dans les instructions de la colonne Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 94 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
• Circle the answer that applies most to what the surveyed person answered • Encerclez la réponse qui correspond à la meilleure réponse de l’intervieuwé • Select only one answer per question, unless otherwise specified in the “Instructions” column • Sélectionnez seulement une réponse par question si et seulement si c’est spécifié dans les instructions de la colonne
PART 3: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANT Partie III. Profil démographique du participant
Surveyor: "I'd like to begin by learning a little bit about you. Please remember that your responses will be kept confidential." L’znquêteur: “J’aimerais commencer par vous signifier une chose à propos de vous. S’il vous plaît souvenez- vous que vos réponses seront gardées confidentielles.
# Category/Question Answers and Coding Instructions Catégorie/ Question Réponses et codes Instructions 3. Age (1) 12-17 Circle the right 1 Age (2) 18-35 age category. If (3) 36-45 answer (1) 12- (4) 46 and above 46 et plus 17, stop
interview.
Encerclez la bonne réponse. Si la réponse est (1) 12-17, arrête la discussion 3. Gender (1) Male Masculin Do not ask. 2 Genre (2) Female Féminin Observe and circle the right option. Ne demande pas. Observez seulement et encerclez la bonne réponse 3. Education (1) Never Attended School Non scolarisé Circle the 3 Niveau d’études (2) Primary School Ecole primaire highest level (3) Secondary School Ecole secondaire that has been (4) Technical/Vocational Training Ecole des métiers completed (5) Tertiary/University Université Encerclez le (99) Refuses to answer Refus de réponse plusgrand niveau atteint 3. Occupation (1) Student/Apprentice Elève/ Etudiant Circle the 4 Occupation (2) Employed: (Public Servant, Private Sector Employee, NGO or option that most Local Association Worker) Employé (fonctionnaire, secteur applies privé, ONG’s, association locale Encerclez la (3) Self-employed (Trader, Small Business Operator, Farmer, etc.) meilleure option Commerçant/boutiquier correspondante
(4) Agriculteur
(5) Unemployed Chômeur Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 95 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
(6) Security Services (Police, Military, JTF) Agent de la sécurité (policier, militaire, (7) Other (please specify) Autres (à spécifier)______(99) Refuses to answer Refus de réponse
PART 4: Partie IV: Surveyor: “I’m going to now ask you some questions about your community.” Enquêteur: “ je vais maintenant vous poser auelques questions à propos de votre communauté”
# Category/Question Answers and Coding Instructions 4.1 Do you believe that mediation works as (1) Yes, all of the time Oui, toujours Circle one a method to resolve disputes? (2) Yes, some of the time Oui, quelquefois Pensez- vous que la médiation est une (3) No, not at all Non pas du tout Encerclez une méthode de résolution pacifique des (4) I don’t know Je ne sais pas seule réponse conflits ?
4.2 Do you listen to the radio program 1) Never Jamais Circle one Ntorere Kazoza? (2) Once Une seule fois Auriez- vous déjà écouté l’émission (3) Parfois Encerclez une Ntorere Kazoza? (4) Souvent seule réponse (5) Regularly Régulièrement (6) I don’t know Je ne sais pas Sinon sauter à la question 4.6 4.3 What did you think about the Open response. messages? Ouvrir le débat Que pensez- vous des messages traités dans cette émission ?
4.4 Did the radio messages have any 1) Yes Oui Circle one impact on your actions? (2) No Non Pensez-vous que ces messages ont eu (99) I don’t know Je ne sais pas Encerclez une un impact sur vos interventions seule réponse (actions)?
4.5 If so, how? Open response. Si oui à la question 4.4, comment ? Ouvrir le débat
4.6 Have you read the comic book? 1) Never Jamais Circle one Avez- vous déjà lu la bande dessinée? (2) Once Une seule fois Sinon sauter à (3) Parfois la question (4) I don’t know Je ne sais pas 4.10
4.7 What did you think about the Open response. messages? Ouvrir le débat Que pensez- vous des messages contenus dans les bandes dessinées? Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 96 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
4.8 Did the comic book messages have any 1) Yes Oui Circle one impact on your actions? (2) No Non Pensez- vous que les messages (99) I don’t know Je ne sais pas contenus dans les bandes dessinées ont eu un impact sur vos interventions (actions) ?
4.9 If so, how? Open response Circle one Si oui à la question 4.8, comment? Ouvrir le débat Encerclez une seule réponse
4.10 Did/do you participate in SFCG peace 1) Never Jamais Circle one initiatives? (2) Once Une seule fois Avez- vous déjà participé dans les (3) Regularly Régulièrement Encerclez une initiatives de paix communautaires seule réponse organisées par Search For Common Ground Burundi ? 4.11 Did/do participate in a SFCG town 1) Never Jamais Circle one hall? (2) Once Une seule fois Avez- vous déjà participé dans les (3) Regularly Régulièrement Encerclez une tribunes d’expression populaire seule réponse organisées par Search For Common Ground Burundi? Si (1) sauter à la question 4.14
4.12 Did the town halls have an impact on 1) Yes Oui Circle one how people express themselves and (2) No Non speak to eachother publically in your (99) I don’t know Je ne sais pas Encerclez une community? seule réponse Pensez- vous les tribunes d’expression populaire on eu un impact sur la manière dont la population s’exprime elle-même publiquement dans les communautés ?
4.13 If yes, how so? Open response. Si oui, comment? Ouvrir le débat
4.14 As a result of any of the activities you 1) Yes Oui Circle one have experienced (radio, comic book, (2) No Non initiatives, town hall), have you spoken (99) I don’t know Je ne sais pas Encerclez une with your family about the non- seule réponse violence as a result? Auriez- vous dejà parlé les compétences acquises à travers les activités de SFCG (radio, bande dessinée, initiatives, TEP’s) aux Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 97 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
familles à propos de la non violence ?
4.15 To what extent do you agree with the 1) Very much agree Très d’accord Circle one: statement: “I have a voice in my (2) Agree D’accord community.” (3) Disagree Pas d’accord Encerclez une Etes- vous d’accord avec l’assertion (4) Very much disagree Pas du tout d’accord seule réponse suivante: « Je suis écouté dans ma communauté » ? 4.16 Have their been significant changes in 1) Yes Oui Circle one the community lately? (2) No Non (99) I don’t know Je ne sais pas Encerclez une seule réponse
Si 2 ou 99 sauter à la question 4.18
4.17 How so? Si oui, comment? Open response If yes Ouvrir le débat
4.18 If you had a conflict with someone 1) "I would talk to them about it to find a Circle one over differing opinions (for example solution." Je pourrais tenter de trouver Encerclez une over politics), how would you respond? une solution consensuelle avec lui seule réponse Quelle est votre attitude si vous êtes 2) J’userais de la violence pour résoudre confrontés à des opinions contraires ce conflit #4 is open des tiennes ? 3) I don’t know Je ne sais pas response. It 4) Other Autres will be coded
How comfortable are you…
5.1 Speaking about national politics in (1) Not at all comfortable Pas du tout à l’aise Circle One public? (2) Somewhat comfortable Un peu à l’aise Etes- vous à l’aise et en sécurité à vous (3) Comfortable A l’aise Encerclez une exprimer sur les questions d’intérêt (4) Very comfortable Très à l’aise seule réponse national ? (5) Unsure/don’t know Je ne sais pas
5.19 Resolving conflicts non-violently? (1) Not at all comfortable Pas du tout capable Circle one Vous sentez-vous capable actuellement (2) Somewhat comfortable Un peu capable Encerclez une de résoudre les conflits de manière non (3) Comfortable Capable seule réponse violente ? (4) Very comfortable Très capable (5) Unsure/don’t know Je ne sais pas
5.20 Si (3) et (4) Comment? Ouvrir le débat Nimba ari (3) canke (4), gute?
Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 98 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Annex 5: Conflicts and conflict management
Local conflicts
During the course of the evaluation, discussants and interviewees were also asked about what kinds of conflicts are common in their communities and how they are managed. Responses ranged from traditional conflicts to crime, to other social ills causing conflict.153 The most commonly mentioned conflicts were those related to land (30 mentions total), polygamy (28 mentions total) and domestic issues (13 mentions total). These conflicts were mentioned in all five provinces of intervention.154
There were two main types of land conflicts reported: 1) those relating to land boundaries or division of land among family members (succession), and 2) those relating to disputes between returnees and people who now inhabit their land. Conflicts relating to polygamy seemed to be ubiquitous and led to many issues including destitution of the first wife and her children, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), unwanted pregnancies, etc. Domestic conflicts and those related to polygamy and land seemed to overlap and intertwine.
Political conflicts were also mentioned in all provinces, but Bujumbura Rural (11 mentions total). However, recent political conflicts were often tied to issues of discrimination (as described above). Others who mentioned political conflicts explained that it was in reference to 2015, and that “today there are no longer these kinds of [violent] political conflicts.”155 One participant explained, “There is still political conflict, but it is a cold war… There are no real political conflicts. Those who were part of these conflicts have fled.”156
Conflict management and mediators
Discussants reported that many different people and approaches were employed to resolve conflicts in their communities. The approach adopted was usually dependent on the type of conflict. Generally, the process begins by parties in conflict appealing to a mediator close to them such as a neighbor, family member or local official. Going to court or involving the police seemed to be a last resort due to costs associated and the adversarial nature of court proceedings.157
The table below presents the mediators and approaches mentioned by discussants, participants and non-participants alike. The most commonly mentioned were the local administration (15
153 All responses were coded despite that some of the responses given were not, strictly speaking, “types of conflicts.” For example, unwanted pregnancy was coded as participants said that it caused conflicts between parties. 154 Except domestic conflict which was not specifically mentioned in Bubanza. A full list of all conflicts mentioned is available in Annex 2. 155 Bubanza and Bujumbura Mairie 156 Male participant, FGD, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie 157 See Objective 1 indicator “Percentage of people who say that mediation works as a method to resolve disputes” in the Effectiveness section for more. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 99 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
mentions), followed by “court” (13 mentions) and the bashingantahe158 (11 mentions). The approach to the resolution of land conflicts seemed to depend on their nature:
“There are conflicts linked to those coming back from fleeing the 1972 conflict […] The CNTB handles these conflicts. There are others linked to the family (limits/borders of land between two families). These are managed by the local authorities.”159
Table 6: Participant and non-participant FGD responses on mediators and conflict management approaches used
Mediator/conflict management Mentions While most mediators mentioned were painted approach in a positive light, in Bujumbura Mairie some Local administration 15 felt the abagabo160 and Mixed Security Court 13 Committees (MSC) were considered to be Abashingantahe 11 either corrupt or incompetent. For example, Family 6 the MSCs are active in many communities Association 5 across Burundi, with the stated aim of Mediator 5 ensuring community security. However, Neighbor 4 certain committees are comprised of members Police 3 who are seen as not truly committed to CNTB 2 assuring community security. For example, Mixed Security Committees discussants from Bujumbura Mairie felt that (MSC) 1 they “don’t have the ability to find solutions. Abagabo 1 The solutions they find make things worse… They make conflicts worse. They don’t have the capacity needed.”161 The diagram162 below presents the most common approaches to conflict management taken in the five provinces of intervention, by conflict type.
158 Traditional mediators/elders in Burundi. 159 Male participant, FGD, Bubanza commune, Bubanza province; SFCG staff specified that the Bashingantahe ad local mediators also address land conflicts over boundaries. 160 The abagabo, generally speaking, are influential local people/leaders who are affiliated with CNDD-FDD (there was also mentioned to be an ethic connotation, that abagabo are always hutu). Discussants were hesitant to speak about the abagabo so only a basic understanding of who these people are and what they do was gathered. 161 Male participant, KII, Ntahangwa commune, Bujumbura Mairie 162 The graphic does not include approaches/mediators mentioned generally (which are not tied to a specific conflict type). It should be read left to right. The far left presents the conflict types, followed by the first step/mediator approached (middle), and finally, where applicable, the next step taken if the first approach fails. The responses were drawn and coded from FGDs with participants and non-participants in all five provinces. The colors do not signify anything, they are used to differentiate the responses. Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 100 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Diagram 3: Approaches to conflict management by conflict type Final Evaluation: Our Country, Our Future: A Community 101 Empowerment Approach for Non-Violence in Burundi
Annex 6: Methodology
Key Informant Interviews
Both leaders who did and leaders who did not receive conflict de-escalation training were interviewed in order to determine the impact of the training on project participants and the wider community. The interviews were conducted using a pre-written question guide. Sampling for the key informant interviews was purposive. Project attendance sheets were the sampling frame for those who participated in the training, and leaders that did not receive training were selected randomly and then cross-checked with the attendance lists to ensure non-participation.
Focus Groups Discussions
Each focus group had between 5-9 participants. The FGDs were conducted using a question guide. For project participants (men and women) the discussion focused on their experiences with programming, its impact on them, and the context. Non-participants discussed the general context to determine broader impacts of the project.
There were four target populations for the focus groups: male participants of SFCG project activities; female participants of SFCG project activities; male community members who did not participate in project activities; and female community members who did not participate in project activities. Purposive sampling was used for the first two target populations, using SFCG training attendance records as sampling frames. As there were no existing sampling frames for non-participants, the evaluation team randomly selected community members who had not received or participated in any of the project activities (taking into consideration gender, age and ethnicity).
Household Surveys
The household survey was intended to capture the extent of media outreach as well as the impact of the project activities outside of the immediate beneficiaries. The survey comprised 30 questions.163 A form of systematic random sampling was used for the household surveys. Each team of two enumerators randomly selected a colline each day in every commune (from those surrounding the chef lieu in order to ensure some proximity to project activities). The enumerators randomly selected a starting house to begin surveying, and thereafter went to every third house on the right hand side of the road to survey. Only those 18 and older were surveyed. If no one was home, the enumerators changed to the other side of the road before continuing to visit every third house on that side of the road. If more than one eligible person was home, the enumerators used a Kish grid for household respondent selection.
163 See Annex 4 for full survey.