Evaluation Finale du Projet Preventing Conflict and Building Peace through adressing the drivers of conflict and instability associated with forced displacement between Burundi and Tanzania

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2019-2023, Burundi
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
11/2019
Completion Date:
12/2019
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Final Evaluation of PBF cross-border project Burundi and Tanzania_LayOut_19.12.2019 (002).docx report English 985.55 KB Posted 456
Download document TDR Evaluation Finale Réintégration .pdf tor French 6030.83 KB Posted 360
Download document TDR Evaluation signé Evaluation CROSS BORDER.pdf tor English 92.14 KB Posted 400
Title Evaluation Finale du Projet Preventing Conflict and Building Peace through adressing the drivers of conflict and instability associated with forced displacement between Burundi and Tanzania
Atlas Project Number: 00109331
Evaluation Plan: 2019-2023, Burundi
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2019
Planned End Date: 11/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Poverty
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.1.2 Marginalised groups, particularly the poor, women, people with disabilities and displaced are empowered to gain universal access to basic services and financial and non-financial assets to build productive capacities and benefit from sustainable livelihoods and jobs
  • 2. Output 3.1.1 Core government functions and inclusive basic services4 restored post-crisis for stabilisation, durable solutions to displacement and return to sustainable development pathways within the framework of national policies and priorities
SDG Goal
  • Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
SDG Target
  • 1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: PBF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 30,000
Joint Programme: Yes
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with UN Agencies
  • Joint with Donors
  • Joint with PBF
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Christian Bugnion de Moreta International consultant
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Les ministères techniques, PNUD, les partenaires(World vision International, Cordaid, COPED)
Countries: BURUNDI
Lessons
Findings
1.

5. Findings

This section is structured according to the evaluation criteria and along the key evaluation questions that were mentioned in the inception report.

5.1. Relevance

E.Q. 5.1. How relevant was the joint analysis and planning of the project in contributing to the New Way of Working? 

Extensive consultations were initially undertaken for the development of the project, although the rationale behind the budgetary allocations for each UN agency could have been explained further. This shows that actors working together in a peacebuilding context were aligned to the NWOW idea. Without a cross-border project, agencies would have been unlikely to position themselves in a similar manner or maintain the level of communication and coordination developed under the project. The two countries have wider programming instruments: in Tanzania the Kigoma Joint Programme, which links with the approach to the New Way of Working, while in Burundi the Joint Refugee Return and Reintegration Plan (JRRP) between UNHCR and UNDP also lead towards a more integrated approach between humanitarian and development agencies. Interviews at field level did not yield any feedback regarding the New Way of Working, something that apparently is discussed at the regional or national level but was not mentioned during the field interviews in either country. Even when discussing with UN staff on their planning framework, no reference was made to the New Way of Working, and it is not very clear how the project is expected to contribute to this. What is clear is that the need for a cross-border project remains fully justified in the current context and that the joint analysis and planning during the project design contributed to a common vision regarding the project objective, even if it did contain three different, albeit related, components.

E.Q. 5.1.2. Has the project updated its conflict analysis, and how, during implementation in light of changing conditions?

The initial conditions at the time of the project development have changed, and both in Tanzania and Burundi the context has changed. On the one hand, the political change in Tanzania with regards to the Burundian refugees, with the withdrawal of the country from the CRRF and the closure of refugee reception centers, has limited the access to border areas and protection monitoring. Nonetheless, under the Tripartite Agreement between UNHCR, GoB and GoT, since August 2017 a total of over 77,000 Burundians have repatriated to Burundi from Tanzania, with the support of the UNHCR and the logistical contribution of IOM. There remain 200,000 Burundian refugees in Tanzania at present in three refugee camps, and the upcoming presidential and legislative elections in six months in Burundi are factors which needs to be analyzed and a contingency plan should be prepared in view of the likelihood of future population movements. The project did not undertake a review of the conflict analysis per say, but it did recognize the limitations stemming from the change of context regarding the activities under outcome 1 in its reporting. This led to a three-months no-cost extension of the project, to enable the agencies to complete its activities. The other two components under the project outcomes 2 and 3 did not significantly suffer from the changes of the political situation and could still be undertaken within the project framework as foreseen. However, the small size and catchment area of the project (geographical coverage only in 3 communes in Makamba and Ruyigi in Burundi, and in five villages in each of the two districts in Tanzania – Kakonko and Kibondo) and the short timeframe for project implementation also means that a full update of the conflict analysis during the implementation was perhaps not entirely realistic. The project adapted to the changes in the conditions with the request for the extension of the implementation period, but it did not review its Theory of Change or results framework formally, to reflect the change in the conflict dynamics. At the same time, it is not clear what advantages an update on the conflict analysis during project implementation would have yielded. The main change would have been to review the indicators for the first outcome and at the overall objective levels, but considering the short implementation period, the overall objective cannot be reached in such a short time and the other two outcomes would not have been affected by the changing conditions, inasmuch as the activities are even more relevant and necessary in the changed context.


Tag: Relevance Project and Programme management UN Agencies Humanitarian development nexus Displaced People Vulnerable

2.

5.2. Effectiveness

E.Q. 5.2.1. To which degree have the performance targets of the results framework been achieved? 

Given the changing political and operational context during the project implementation, in particularly the closure of the refugee reception centers, the first outcome of reducing the instability along the Tanzania-Burundi border and enhancing protection of persons of concerns and stranded and vulnerable migrants, was only partly achieved. Three indicators were identified to measure the outcome: 1.1.% of trained personnel that can point to concrete cases that demonstrate that training information improved their efficacy and service delivery six months after the trainings: target 100%, result report in the final project report is 50%. There was some pushback from the GoT in border management-related activities. The GoT closed reception and transit centers at border points with Burundi and no new arrivals were recorded since May 2018. 2 Joint UNHCR/IOM trainings on Humanitarian Border Management (HBM) procedures for border officials took place on 5-9 November in Bujumbura and 12-16 November 2018 in Kigoma. In addition, UNHCR conducted 2 trainings with local authorities to strengthen working relations. Outcome level information is based on the PBF final report as no meetings were held with representatives of UNHCR Burundi or Tanzania during the evaluation, only with field staff on specific project activities. Considering the external project limitations, achieving half of the target can be considered acceptable. 1.2.% of protection issues recorded in the border area. The initial baseline was 1,362 and the target a reduction by 50%. It is questionable if this indicator is actually measuring project results, as many other factors influence the achievements. Maybe a different indicator should be identified for measuring protection issues. The final project report indicates that the target was achieved. In 2018, the refoulement of a total of 173 individuals, of which 59 from Burundi, was recorded. While 2018 numbers constitute a significant decrease in relation to 2017, it must be stated that it was difficult to compile records of incidents of refoulement as border points remained closed. As indicated in the final PBF report, the restricted access to border areas hampered protection monitoring activities, therefore the reported cases are the ones UNHCR was aware of and the numbers are likely much higher. This means that speaking of a significant decrease is a bit misleading in the absence of more comprehensive data. UNHCR kept close collaboration with partners on the ground and intervened on occasions where there was information about arrivals from Burundi through unofficial border points and routes. UNHCR intervened in 96 cases. Number of vulnerable persons crossing the border who are identified and referred to assistance mechanisms per quarter. For this indicator, the lack of access to border areas due to official border points closure hampered protection activities. Nonetheless, 1774 asylum seekers were registered in Tanzania in 2018, 1773 from DRC and 1 from Burundi. 


Tag: Effectiveness Results-Based Management Migration Peace Building Micro-credit Capacity Building

3.

5.2. Effectiveness (continuation)

E.Q. 5.2.1. To which degree have the performance targets of the results framework been achieved? 

The targets were fully reached, with a total of 625 beneficiaries under both types of activities (2.1 and 2.2), and an additional 250 persons under activity 2.3, bringing the overall total to 875 beneficiaries. On a quantitative note, it is difficult to appraise how this result alleviates the situation in the communities of return. Even if a household size of 6 persons is counted, the number of beneficiaries under this outcome can be estimated at 3,750, or some 4% of the returnee population since 2017. Coverage information is critical to understand how other projects and actors are contributing to this result and to what extent this component should be scaled-up in a future project. It is important to report on the coverage of the various actors who undertake socioeconomic activities in the region (including the same UN agencies with other projects) to give a sense of what kind of gap coverage is being provided by the project as it is clearly only addressing a fraction of the socio-economic needs, while its entry point is set on contributing to social cohesion. The project should be able to provide information on how the vulnerable groups not covered by the activities under this project are being supported through other programmes and other actors so their needs are being met (for social cohesion through socio-economic reintegration, to ensure the inclusive approach of the different population groups is being applied by other actors as part of the process of rebuilding community cohesion). If the project’s inclusive approach is not being applied by other actors in Burundi, there should be a discussion at the UNCT level regarding where such an approach needs to be applied (specific geographical locations). The GoB through the MoI expressed their full support for socio-economic (re)integration schemes and community cohesion, but also indicated that there are ten communes which receive the largest number of returns, so that an expansion from the PBF target of three communes to the ten communes would be particularly appreciated. In view of the evaluation, it is necessary that UNDP and IOM provide a comprehensive map of the coverage of the humanitarian and development actors in Burundi working on socio-economic (re)integration. This will be used to better target, design and implement a second phase of the project, and expand strategically in line with the identified gaps that are not being covered by other projects or other actors (using the inclusive approach of mixed beneficiary targeting to foment social cohesion).


Tag: Effectiveness Results-Based Management Conflict resolution Humanitarian development nexus Peace Building Resilience Social cohesion Technical Support Displaced People Vulnerable

4.

5.2. Effectiveness (continuation)

E.Q. 5.2.2. How can the M&E framework be improved to support, monitor and document evidence of results?

Insufficient time and resources have been devoted to the development of the M&E framework and the theory of change. The UN has guidance documents on developing a ToC, which has not been used in the PBF ToC statement, and on the establishment of a Results-Based Management (RBM) framework. The initial results-indicators identified are not SMART and were not developed from the perspective of the meaningful results of the activities. Some of the indicators are not peacebuilding oriented and lack means of verification, others are poor proxies for what is supposed to be measured. The wording of some of the outcome statements (such as for outcome three) is not in line with the UNDG guidance and does not show the change process that the peacebuilding project seeks to achieve. It seems as if the project M&E and results framework was hastily put together, without field validation or partnership meetings with implementing partners and agencies to refine it. While the initial project document indicates that “the results framework will be further developed and refined through the development of an M&E plan at the beginning of the project”, the evaluator has not received any documented evidence showing the refining of the IRF or the development of an M&E plan. It is doubtless a challenging endeavor to coordinate and communicate across two countries and with three UN agencies, each using its own project framework for appraising and reporting on results. But the development of the PBF IRF and M&E plan should at least build on the existing tools used by the participating UN agencies, in order to ensure coherence and consistency between the PBF document and planning and implementation framework of each of the participating UN agencies, in both countries. 


Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Results-Based Management Theory of Change UN Agencies Humanitarian development nexus Peace Building Resilience Social cohesion Micro-credit

5.

5.3. Outcome level results (instead of impact) 

E.Q. 5.3.1. What has been the biggest change brought about by the project (MSC)?

Outcome one, about enhanced protection and stability in border areas, is particularly challenging as the change in the context and the operating conditions have constrained the results that could have been achieved under this outcome. In particular, field data revealed that the closing of the “common markets” where refugees and host population came together in Tanzania contributed to less social interaction and increased isolation of the refugee population. Conversely, this actually reinforced the linkages and communication through the CBCR committees in host communities and refugee camps, as the limited interaction between host communities and refugees became more important for creating venues for peaceful conflict solving. From the persons of concern and the mixed migrants’ protection perspective, the evaluation did not interview any beneficiary of these categories and is therefore unable to provide concrete direct evidence from the field regarding the international protection aspects (based on the UNHCR Refugee Convention or the International Migration Law for mixed migrant flows). Documentary evidence does indicate that protection monitoring continued even if it was constrained by the change in conditions and access limitation to border areas.


Tag: Impact Partnership Results-Based Management Bilateral partners UN Agencies Conflict resolution Humanitarian development nexus Resilience Capacity Building Coordination Displaced People

6.

5.4. Sustainability

E.Q.5.4.1. How sustainable are the new cooperation modalities and how can they be reinforced to strengthen New Way of Working (NWoW)?

If the UN RCs in each country and head of agencies are committed to cross-border project implementation, the modalities can be embedded as a system for cross-border collaboration. However, the level of complexity in such a project requires a higher percentage of dedication from the regional project coordinator (40%) and the two national officers (30%). PBF progress reports mention the need to intensify communication and coordination, and possibly joint exercises cross-border, in order to develop a culture of regular cross-border communication. There are of course costs involved with an increased coordination and communication structure, but it is important that the Agency focal points, the national officers and the regional project coordinator maintain close contact and physically meet in each country alternatively every two months, until all the pending issues, joint planning, and workplan development, have been fully discussed amongst partners. This of course entails larger budgets for project implementation. Another question is to what extent it would be useful to create a functional project management board to oversee the steering in the implementation of the project. While such a board was to be created according to the PBF project document p. 35, composed of the UN RCs, UNDP, UNHCR, IOM, a member of the ICGLR, local authorities, implementing partners from both countries and CSOs, the evaluator did not receive documented evidence of any such meetings or minutes of any project management board meeting. 


Tag: Sustainability Communication Human and Financial resources Joint UN Programme Oversight Programme/Project Design Results-Based Management UN Agencies Conflict resolution Humanitarian development nexus Capacity Building Coordination

7.

5.5. Coherence and coordination

E.Q.5.5.1. How can delivery of results be practically strengthened across the HDP nexus?

The project needs to be upscaled in scope and size and have a clear indication of its coverage and that of other projects working with similar peacebuilding issues. The strongest results have been leveraged regarding social cohesion and socio-economic reintegration, peaceful conflict resolution and addressing conflict drivers through rehabilitation of community infrastructures such as water sources and bridge, and the provision of legal assistance. The approach is proven to generate positive results, but it must be scaled to needs and geographically expanded to avoid any gaps. This can be done by revising and dimensioning outcomes 2 and 3 with some rewording regarding the outcome statements, a technical review of the performance indicators, and a clarity about how the outputs support the achievement of the outcome, through a properly devised Theory of Change for the project. Staff changes took place in the regional project coordination during the project implementation. Coordination with the PBF Secretariat in Burundi and the cross-border project coordination in Nairobi could be strengthened, as neither the evaluation manager nor the international evaluator was aware that a national consultant had been recruited to, inter alia, support the evaluation.


Tag: Coherence Communication Human and Financial resources Programme Synergy Results-Based Management Theory of Change Humanitarian development nexus Peace Building Social cohesion Coordination

8.

5.6. Cross-cutting questions

E.Q.5.6.1. What lessons can be drawn for cross-border inter-agency projects aiming at delivering across the HDP nexus?

The PBF project has shown the relevance of an integrated approach across the HDP nexus. While in reality this is a conceptual discussion, the relevance of the results is grounded on the type of interventions that took place, more than per say on the fact that they addressed the HDP nexus. It is not possible to appraise, for example, what would have been the result if all the socio-economic reintegration support had been based on a humanitarian approach (short-term, IOM implemented) instead of applying the developmental 3x6 approach used by UNDP in Burundi. Only over the long-term can an evaluation inform of whether the developmental objectives have been reached, which was clearly impossible in the context of a short one-year project. The question may therefore not be currently targeted to the fact that the HDP nexus actors worked together, but rather on the composition and synergies between the interventions undertaken under the nexus. The activities were clearly in line with identified needs and agencies’ mandates and comparative advantages. The project is building upon the combination of skills and experience in attempt to provide comprehensive peacebuilding assistance to the vulnerable population on both sides of the border, in some cases facing important constraints.

A lesson for new cross-border projects is that they should not be considered as standard projects, as they are more intensive in planning, coordination and communication. Cross-border projects could be used to provide better mutual understanding between the needs of selected institutions of the two countries (e.g. for example regarding the issue of undocumented migrants in Tanzania), when this affects the level of protection of the target beneficiaries. In the context of Burundi and Tanzania, the development of peacebuilding mechanisms that allow for conflict resolution through the CBCR approach is a strong winner that needs to be supported further and benefits equally the two countries. As PBF is a Peacebuilding Fund, it should naturally focus on this aspect and commit larger resources to this component, as other components may be funded from other projects or programmes.


Tag: Gender Equality Gender Mainstreaming Women's Empowerment Joint UN Programme Conflict resolution Humanitarian development nexus Peace Building Cash Transfers Youth Coordination Data and Statistics

9.

5.2. Effectiveness (continuation); E.Q. 5.2.1. To which degree have the performance targets of the results framework been achieved? (continuation)

At the output level, there was one output and two indicators of success for the output, as follows: 

2.1. Number of rehabilitated community infrastructures – baseline 0, target reached 3. The three projects were selected by the communities in Munyinya, Niyabitaka and Rukobe hill. The first two prioritized the rehabilitation of the water sources (directly contributing to conflict reduction) and the third opted for the rehabilitation of an intercommunal bridge. Given time constraints, the evaluation was unable to visit the locations and interview the beneficiaries, but on-line videos, documented reports with photographs give evidence of a high level of satisfaction with the results achievedthrough this output. The video also explains how it has contributed to inter-community peace, as they do not fight over water any longer, which is a good result linked to the peacebuilding aspect.

2.2. Number of mixed associations (encompassing members from the different returnees, displaced, and host communities) created and supported to diversify livelihood opportunities in host communities. From a target of 15, the project was able to achieve 37 associations (UNDP and implementing partners). While this is certainly a positive result, the total number of registered cooperatives in Ruyigi province only is 250, according to the Governor’s office. Again, the issue of coverage provided by the project should be addressed to understand which gaps are being filled and where/how expansion should be considered. Since now communes have fund to support the cooperatives, it is particularly important to assess how the commune may contribute to the sustainability of the cooperatives created by the PBF project. 


Tag: Effectiveness Conflict resolution Peace Building Promotion of dialogue Social cohesion Displaced People Refugees

10.

E.Q.5.2.4. How effective was the coordination of peacebuilding, development and humanitarian activities at national and regional level?

A cross-border project that works in two countries with three UN agencies in both countries, requires a substantial effort of coordination and communication at national and regional level. Both Resident Coordinators in Burundi and Tanzania were empowered to engage in the strategic cross-border coordination of the project. They were supported by the Nairobi based programme coordination specialist of the GLRSF (40%) and two national officers (30%) posted in Burundi and Tanzania, as described in the project document. The programme coordination specialist changed during the implementation period, and substantial efforts of coordination between the new programme coordination specialist and the national coordinators in the two countries took place to ensure a continued smooth project implementation. Coordination of donor dialogue, quality assurance of deliverables and reports, communication and results dissemination, including a professional video production about the project targeted donors and the Peacebuilding Commission was done at the regional level in Nairobi. As a pilot project, the PBF was testing coordination approaches for a crossborder project. While the PBF project stated that the Resident Coordinators in Burundi and Tanzania were empowered to engage in the strategic cross-border coordination of the project, there was limited evidence to that effect available. Despite the efforts deployed at regional and national level, the progress reports stated as recommendations to increase regular communication and information sharing between project implementors in Tanzania and Burundi, and a systematic skype call once a month between agency focal points and RCOs was done, during the last part of the project.


Tag: Effectiveness Communication Knowledge management Results-Based Management Conflict resolution Humanitarian development nexus Peace Building Capacity Building Coordination Data and Statistics Displaced People Refugees

11.

E.Q. 5.3.2. To what extent has the project achieved each of the three outcomes?

The project was constrained by the changing scenarios, operational context and political situation regarding the achievement of the first outcome. For this reason, the PBF project received a three-months extension which allowed to achieve part of the anticipated result (hence the 50% for the first of three indicator ratings for outcome 1). The other two outcomes were achieved, although the size of the intervention and short timeframe did not necessarily create the conditions for the sustainability of the social cohesion and conflict management processes without some further support to consolidate the basis which has been established.


Tag: Challenges Effectiveness Regional Knowledge management Project and Programme management Results-Based Management UN Country Team Conflict Humanitarian development nexus Peace Building Social cohesion Capacity Building Displaced People Refugees

12.

5.4 Sustainability(continuation)

E.Q.5.4.2. What are the project’s outputs that contributed to sustainable change?

At this stage it is difficult to identify sustainable changes apart from the work in peaceful conflict resolution. The legal assistance component is not sustainable, as when the project finished the legal staff were no longer available to provide free legal aid services. The contribution of the project to the community social cohesion in areas of return is part of a dynamic process which should be accompanied further. The social fabric that is being rebuilt requires a longer timeframe, particularly with additional returns taking place. The enhanced communication between the immigration services (PAFE in Burundi and Tanzania Immigration) have led to a closer relationship and the establishment of direct contacts, which are useful to maintain a better cross-border communication amongst the security forces. Future joint trainings would contribute to furthering the improved communications. 


Tag: Effectiveness Sustainability Knowledge management Project and Programme management Conflict resolution Peace Building Promotion of dialogue Social cohesion Poverty Reduction Capacity Building Coordination Displaced People Refugees

13.

5.2. Effectiveness (continuation); E.Q. 5.2.1. To which degree have the performance targets of the results framework been achieved? (continuation)

The land on which the cooperative is located has been purchased and belongs to them. So far, they have not yet requested a credit from the Post Office (acting as micro-finance partner), but it is because the group is mixed, and it takes time to develop the level of trust necessary to jointly ask for a loan. However, they do plan an expansion and now they deem the level of trust amongst cooperative members is sufficiently strong to request a bank loan and make their cooperative more successful.The structures of the immigration services in both countries are different and they have different public administration services. For the second outcome, aiming at strengthening the resilience of displaced persons and host communities, results were aligned with the three performance indicators: 2.1. Number of cash for work beneficiaries working in the rehabilitation of communities’ infrastructure, with a baseline of 0 and a target of 105. The target of 105 was reached by IOM; 2.2. Number of vulnerable displaced, returnees and host communities in Mabanda and Kayogoro benefitting from strengthened livelihoods. The baseline was 0 and the aggregate target 520, attained. 520 workers (260 from each commune) worked over 75 days on Cash for Work schemes. ; 2.3. Number of community-based professional associations composed of 20-25 persons each created and provided with support through business incubators. The baseline was 0 and the target 10, which was reached.

Most of the interviewees in Burundi and Tanzania indicated a low level of conflict when asked how many conflicts had been solved, but after probing it was apparent that only the “serious and large-scale” conflicts were considered. Those that could be solved at the village or sub-village level were not recorded clearly, because the need was not felt to document these results. Although the evaluation could not triangulate the findings in host communities with the refugee camp committees, given that the access to camps was not recommended in the current situation, there were clear examples provided of how agreements had been reached with the refugees on a number of conflicts (land, but also personal and family-related). An important element in understanding the success of the CBCR (term used here for conflict mediation activities in both Burundi and Tanzania) is that the process is much more transparent, open, participatory and free of charge. Traditional mechanisms for conflict resolution exist, but they come at a cost and are not always transparent. Therefore, the CBCR approach allows to address conflicts of both inter and intracommunal nature for free, which is highly appreciated by the community members. Examples have been given in both Burundi and Tanzania in which conflicts have been resolved without going to court, as a direct result of the presence of the project. Many conflicts relate to land issues, but many are also linked to family and private matters, particularly when dealing with refugees and host communities (Tanzania) or returnees, displaced and host communities (Burundi). The CBCR approach has shown to be a win/win mechanism that has contributed to a decrease in the number of court proceedings and cases referred to the court system, both in Burundi and Tanzania. Unfortunately the absence of a structured case monitoring system does not allow to have credible statistics about the results, but from interviews in Burundi (5 different mediators, 3 beneficiaries of CBCR services) and in Tanzania (13 CBCR committee members in Kasanda, 14 in Biturana) it is a major contributor to social cohesion and peaceful coexistence, while contributing to preserve the scant monetary earnings that project beneficiaries have. The training of conflict mediators within the population was also mentioned as an added value by the communities in Burundi. Two men involved in two cases of land disputes were interviewed and they indicated their cases were successfully solved outside the courts through the conflict mediators trained by the project.


Tag: Effectiveness Human rights Justice system Partnership Project and Programme management Results-Based Management Service delivery Conflict resolution Crisis prevention Peace Building Social cohesion Displaced People Refugees

Recommendations
1

To the UN implementing agencies

  1. Devote enough resources for information and communication across the organization, with other partners and on cross-border issues.
2

To the UN implementing agencies

1. Intensify the level of joint planning and implementation to maximize synergies across the agencies and in cross-border operations.

3

To the UN implementing agencies

1. Address protection to encompass the socio-economic vulnerability of target beneficiaries and consider income generation and livelihoods as part of the protection mandate of the UN.

4

To the PBF:

1. Hold a regional workshop with the three agencies, OSESG-GL, the GLRSF cochampions, the two RCs and ICGLR in order to strategically engage on the development of an expanded second phase; substantially larger in volume, in terms of geographical scope, and with a minimum implementation period of three years. It is not realistic to achieve peacebuilding and development objectives over a 12 months project period when population movements are expected to continue over the short to medium term (e.g. further returns from Tanzania)

5

To the PBF:

2. Develop specific involvement of the PBF Secretariat in Burundi to support the expanded second phase of the PBF project, through definition of clear roles and responsibilities. While the PBF Secretariat is not even mentioned in the composition of the PBF project management board, the fact that Burundi hosts other PBF funded project makes it a necessary partner in the way in which projects are slotted to be mutually supportive in line with their expected outcomes. The project document does mention that “this project is expected to be complemented by a national peacebuilding project also funded by PBSO focused on supporting community resilience building efforts and enhancing the protection environment in Burundi”. The brief meeting with the PBF Secretariat in Burundi did not yield any information regarding any complementary project funding.

6

To the PBF: 

3. Within the portfolio of projects, funded by the PBF, a higher percentage of time should be ensured for regional and cross-border communication and information exchange. This is needed to ensure stronger provision of data and statistics and address the issue of geographical coverage, in particular regarding the PBF funded projects and how they relate to the cross-border project. Considering resource limitations and PBF guidelines regarding the share of funding that can be allocated to staff, a larger overall budget would allow to consider a 100% post for the project coordinator.

7

To the PBF:

4. Invest corporate resources in developing an RBM friendly M&E plan and results framework, with SMART indicators, and a theory of change that is developed along the lines of the UNDG corporate guidance.

8

To the UN Resident Coordinators:

1. As decision-makers with full authority over the cross-border project, dedicate a percentage of time of the UNRCO in facilitating information exchange, communication and coordination cross-border and with the regional project coordinator. 

9

To the UN Resident Coordinators:

2. Hold an end of project workshop in Kigoma or Burundi, with participation from all stakeholders and government representatives, to review the final project results based on the external evaluation and identify the lessons learnt from the crossborder project, and how it could be made more effective and efficient in reaching its objectives.

10

To the UN Resident Coordinators:

3. Ensure regular Project Board meetings take place every six months with a set agenda and provide minutes of the meetings

11

7.2. Proposed content to an expanded phase 2 of the PBF crossborder project:

A. Articulate the theory of change to prevent conflict and build peace on two axes: 1) Community-Based Conflict Resolution (CBCR) on cross-border basis in both Burundi and Tanzania, and the provision of legal assistance, and 2) social cohesion through protection and socio-economic empowerment.

B. Project expansion should be financial and geographical to cover all high return communes in Burundi (10 according to the MoI instead of the current 3 communes) and in the wards of the districts where the two refugee camps of Nduta and Mtendeli are located in Tanzania (Kibondo and Kakonko) in the border area. The oldest camp in Tanzania is Nyarugusu which was not part of the PBF phase I but could be considered for a phase 2 expansion. The project should be implemented over a 36 months period (three years) to ensure the outcome of the HDP nexus is visible and can be evaluated. At minimum it should increase its funding to US$ 6 million to ensure an annual delivery of US$ 1 million in both countries, for both components.

C. Under component one, PBF should obtain buy-in from the different UN agencies to construct “peace houses” in Tanzania or “maison de la paix” in Burundi. This should be done in communes and villages where CBCR training has taken place and mediation committees have been structured in line with the UNDP toolkit and the CBCR approach that has yielded clear results in the first phase of the PBF project. The houses could be built by the committee members themselves using a cash for work approach, which would show that the international community (and the PBF) is committed to peaceful conflict resolution and willing to place resources in the construction of a house using local materials that would serve for holding the conflict resolution activities, meeting of the committee members, dissemination activities, and more importantly to collect and store the monitoring statistics regarding the conflicts solved through the work of the committee members. Committee members in both Burundi and Tanzania need to use the same training approach for CBCR. A joint meeting with ACCORD who was the NGO in charge of the training in Burundi together with UNDP Burundi and Tanzania should be undertaken to facilitate a single cross-border approach to CBCR based on the lessons from the current project. Basic identification (such as T-shirts indicating “conflict resolution committee member”, certificates of participation in CBCR training) should be ensured to all those who have been trained, and basic equipment and supplies should be provided (at least benches, chairs, one table and a cabinet to store files safely).

D. A major shortfall in the provision of evidence regarding the effectiveness of the CBCR activities is the lack of a structured monitoring system to collect conflict resolution statistics. As a result, committee members do not have the habit to systematically collect data and have statistics that allow to appraise the results obtained. This should be addressed together with the local authorities and the implementing NGO partners so that the UN system, the GoT and GoB, and IPs come together to develop a structured data collection and reporting system regarding CBCR activities. One computer per province/district should be provided to the local authorities as the focal point for centralizing the data collected. Given the transportation constraints and the fact that distances to conflict sites is sometimes long (for example for land conflicts which require a presence on the spot), the project could also consider investing in electrical bicycles that can be recharged with solar panel energy, for ward/commune focal points, in order to avoid addressing the issue of paying for fuel and maintenance of motorcycles. A fully rolled-out and structured monitoring system of conflict resolution cases would allow to confirm the anecdotal evidence received about the decreasing number of cases referred to courts, and also show the capacity of the population (hence their resilience) in solving peacefully conflicts which affect the refugee, host and displaced communities.

E. Under a new component two, the project could invest in social cohesion and protection through the different approaches for socio-economic integration. Both approaches (IOM short-term and UNDP long-term) should be maintained but specifically monitored in order to be able to draw the lessons regarding the effectiveness of each approach over the life of the project. A joint monitoring between IOM/UNDP and its implementing partners of the socio-economic reintegration should be ensured in Burundi. In Tanzania, the project should also consider developing socio-economic activities with the host communities, in order to further contribute to the development of social cohesion, and to offset the perception that Burundians are receiving more assistance than vulnerable Tanzanians, which leads to tensions and can become a source of conflict or influence the political agenda. One such socio-economic activity could be, for example, the construction of the “peace house” referred to under point C above. Alternatively working on issues which can be a source of conflict (land, firewood, water) between refugees and host communities in an inclusive approach should be studied. At the same time, closer planning between the UN agencies in the two countries to favor the support of transferable skills development for refugees, which can be used in their areas of return. There are currently several services offered in the refugee camps in terms of vocational and skills training and ensuring that the courses/services obtained are conducive to application in the areas of return requires strengthened coordination and communication amongst the cross-border actors.

F. Costing of the above activities (A. to E.) should be undertaken before the budget is allocated to specific agencies, in line with their contribution to expected results. In the current environment, where the protection space has been shrinking, and it may be preferable to have the protection component addressing more directly the project beneficiaries through economic empowerment than though capacity building of security forces on cross-border basis. This is unless the UN agencies have the capacity to solve some of the outstanding cross-border issues, such as ensuring that Burundians have proper documentation when entering Tanzania. The project is unable to cover all aspects of protection, and UNCHR should, given its mandate, necessarily carry out protection monitoring. It is unclear that the PBF project brought a clear added value to UNCHR in this aspect as the work done is part of its regular responsibilities and duties in line with its mandate. Therefore, it is suggested that the focus be placed more on the profiling of refugee repatriation (e.g. preparing them for transportable and transferable skills) as the main protection component.

G. A longer-term and upscaled PBF projects needs to have a dynamic Project Board or Steering Committee, that should meet at least twice per year, and ensure that regular monitoring visits and cross-border coordination and communications meetings (once every three months at least) take place. There will be a need to strengthen the M&E and results framework for the project to include SMART indicators – all of which should be vetted by RMB experts- , and to develop a proper theory of change to show the change process that the project seeks to achieve. There should also be a provision for a mid-term and final evaluation, encompassing both components and measuring results from both types of socio-economic reintegration approaches. The perception survey undertaken by the IOM after the end of the project with returnees (April to June 2019) is a good practice example which should be maintained as part of the tools to appraise the results of the second phase of the PBF project.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org