Annex 1

ANNUAL CROSS-LEARNING WORKSHOP FOR THE CONFLICT SENSITIVITY CONSORTIUM: A REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS

VENUE: TRAVELLERS LODGE, MOMBASA, KENYA

8th to 11th February 2010

Host: Kenya Conflict Sensitivity ConsortiumLead Facilitator: Ms. Apondi Nyangaya

Rapporteur: Manasseh Wepundi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary........................................................................................................- 2 -DAY ONE.......................................................................................................................- 7 -

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................- 7 -Workshop Values....................................................................................................- 7 -

SESSION A: SHARING.............................................................................................- 8 -SRI LANKA CONSORTIUM ROADMAP...........................................................- 8 -

1

Executive Summary

Workshop topics:

1. Sharing updates2. Institutional capacity analysis3. Pilots and Monitoring and Evaluation of pilots4. Advocacy5. Conflict Analysis6. Sharing in real time7. Evaluation

A. SHARING UPDATES

Aim: The aim of this session was to provide an opportunity for in-country consortia to showcase their experiences.

Key Lessons:

1. The road maps explained the genesis, processes and challenges the consortiums have gone through and their good achievements. It was also expressed that all four consortia have faced similar challenges and difficulties. The country road maps helped people regain the lost memory of the journey that the consortia had made.

2. People learnt that not every member of the consortia is doing peace building yet they all share a common vision of ‘conflict sensitivity’.

3. It was clear that different country contexts generated different strategies to promote CSA.

4. Kenya had a high level of documentation DVD, publications and fliers.5. Participants expressed that it was really encouraging to see the country teams coming

together.6. All consortium members from all regions are thinking of donor advocacy on C.S.A.7. All countries are continuing to make progress and no one consortium is far ahead, or

far behind in terms of meeting objectives.

Action points:

Need to collect village-based stories of conflict sensitivity as well as NGO-based case studies. It is important to start work on case studies alongside other consortium activities

Need to look at bottom-up approaches as push factors – to CSA within organisations

Read all change objectives for each country and organisation All agencies need to ask their (London) headquarters what their role in the

Consortium is.

2

B. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Aim: The aim of this session was to enhance institutional capacity in conflict sensitivity.

Key Lessons:

Organisational mandate is an obstacle to the mainstreaming of CSA. Organisational systems do no necessarily support implementation of CS. There is the challenge of viewing CSA as an add-on. Rigidity in sticking to organisational mandates, as well as equating some mandates to conflict sensitivity without necessarily applying it. Organisations operate through their own strategic plans, policies etc. This triggers the question of how to mainstream CSA in every organisational work

Fitting in CSA within already existing strategies necessitates involvement of top management

Staff transfers & turnovers affect implementation of CSA. There is a lack of conceptual clarity in organisations on conflict sensitivity There is insufficient resource allocation for CS (as a Consortium & as individual

members)

Action Points

If organisational mandate is an issue, then the UK Consortium will focus their efforts in helping resolve it.

C. PILOTS

The session on the Pilots was divided into two parts:

Part 1:

Aim: The aim of the session was to agree on an approach for running the pilotsObjectives:

a. Agree a common explanation of what the pilots are.b. Prepare to make decisions after Mombasa.c. Develop solutions for key challenges.

Key outputs

The key outputs for this session covered the roles of members of the consortium:

1. Project Coordinator: – is concerned with financial reporting, liaison & compliance with donors, point person with DFID (coordinates and gives a coherent message to DFID e.g. the Sri Lanka request for more time with conflict analysis)

3

2. Steering committee: – helps in oversight

Key Country Roles- Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone, UK and Kenya Consortia

i. Planning & implementationii. Reporting, Documentation and Disseminationiii. Standardisation of approaches for comparative learningiv. Inter-Consortia Supportv. Advocacy, lobbying and fundraisingvi. Piloting – planning, developing tools and implementation

Overall steering committee and overall project coordinator Roles (Based in UK)

i. Technical Support (of Consortia)ii. Overall Coordination (of Consortia)

iii. Creating and managing linkages with donors and country-level consortia iv. Managing Resources - budget/grant management, resource allocation to

Consortia, and reporting to DFIDv. Monitoring & Evaluation – helping Consortia to be compliant with donor

requirements e.g. reporting guidelines. “Power words”, “could you please re-do”, “Peers” – equality, partnership

vi. Advocacy roles – to influence global policy on conflict sensitivity

Part 2:

Aim: The aim of the session was to develop key action points for running the country level pilots.

Objectives:a. To have increased knowledge on the purpose of the pilots.b. To have developed key action points for initiating the country pilot(s).c. To have agreed on key action points for initiating the country level pilot M&E by

1st April 2010.

Key lessons:

The for the M&E of the pilot is to generate an evidence base of conflict sensitivity at project level through appropriate M&E

How to Ensure Comprehensive Documentation:

o Develop Terms of Reference for the pilot project’s monitoring and evaluation components

o Document regularlyo Integrate the documentation process into existing systemso Involve more than one person in documentation

4

o Highlight areas to capture in documentation rather than howo Sharing documentation template(s) among the Consortia for

comments/harmonisation

Key Action Points

UK allows country consortia to test case projects. Countries have decision making power to the extent of provisions within terms of engagement/MOU. This meeting is about making decisions. UK isn’t implementing pilots, but is to support other consortia in this process, how will the UK support the process? Participants are in a position to propose pilots which will later guide in-country deliberations on the same.

Work with projects that have an existing funding source, portfolio, log frame, not completely new projects. Country consortia will however make more detailed decisions on the nitty gritty of piloting e.g. how many pilots, etc. Session was about agreeing on a framework for pilots.

How to Ensure Comprehensive Documentation:

o Embrace participatory approacheso Prepare formats and procedures for reporting (templates) to make sure

lessons are captured systematicallyo Develop checklist of key points (each country)o Triangulate information received from various sources and/or activitieso Country-level consortia need to agree on the need for standardisation of

documentation procedureso Utilise Pictures/stories/cartoons/case studieso Record best practices

Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and Kenya each developed their pilot implementation plans

The need to ensure a good quality of information was emphasised, hence the need for a quality control mechanism and rigorous reporting formats. It was felt that it may be necessary to have reporting templates to guide members in preparing such reports. It is also important to work with each other to ensure that the template is being effectively utilised.

Secondly, it was acknowledged that there was need to leave space to the agencies that will implement pilots to come up with appropriate M&E mechanisms. Consortia members should however support pilot project and have mechanisms for cross-consortium learning. Thus, having a standardized M&E mechanism for the Consortium at this stage may not be necessary.

Lastly, it was underscored that the purpose of the exercise was to determine whether a conflict sensitive pilot project is affordable and realistic. There is the need to consider

5

implications for such projects – what amount of added time is needed for the pilot project?

D. ADVOCACY

Aim: The aim of the advocacy session is to unpack advocacy as a tool

Key Lessons:

In any kind of advocacy conflict sensitivity is an issue because advocacy is about challenging power dynamics

Sri Lanka – NGOs face the danger of being blacklisted for their advocacy roles since they could be accused of being unpatriotic. Because of the Sri Lanka political environment, the phrase conflict sensitivity is considered threatening by government authorities who read it as criticism.

The project proposal delineates between advocacy and outreach strategies The need for consistency in the advocacy messages targeted at international

donors in all consortia was emphasized

Key Action points:

The UK advocacy messages targeting donors will have to be informed by real case studies that are to be collected by the country-level consortia.

E. CONFLICT ANALYSIS

Aim: The aim of this session is to share experiences on the process of doing a conflict analysis as a consortium.

Objectives:

1. Ensure that lessons learnt from one country can inform the work of other countries.

2. Reflect on the process of conflict analysis, 3. Document lessons learnt (challenges and advantages) of a consortium working on

conflict analysis jointly.

Key lessons:

Other consortia learnt from Kenya’s sharing on the conflict analysis process that they had conducted.

Key Action points:

i. Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka conflict/context analysis plansii. Kenya’s sharing on conflict analysis process and plans for pilot

6

DAY ONE

INTRODUCTION

The annual cross-learning workshop for the conflict sensitivity consortium was held in Mombasa, Kenya from 8th to 11th February 2010. The event drew participants from the Kenya, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka and UK Consortia.

The Kenya Consortium Project Manager and the Action Aid International – Kenya Coast Coordinator welcomed participants to the workshop. While the lead facilitator explained that the workshop was a cross learning event where the consortia would share experiences on conflict sensitivity.

Right after there was the introduction of participants, through a people hunting exercise.

Workshop Values

1. Respect2. Sharing3. Learning4. Punctuality5. Time respect6. Solution orientation7. Support

7

People Hunting Exercise

1. Find someone from Kenya who speaks more than 3 languages2. From Sierra Leone who is a swimmer3. From the UK who loves dancing4. From Sri Lanka who has an unusual hobby5. Who intends to publish a book on CSA6. Who has a rare pet

8. Laptop free zone

8

SESSION A: SHARING

The aim of the session was to provide an opportunity for people to showcase their experiences.

Methodology – Participants undertook group work in their respective country groupings. 30 minutes was provided for each to develop a visual road map (including joint country vision, successes, challenges, and gaps) on flipcharts. The lead facilitator moderated sharing and interaction through an information market. Each country had 30 minutes for sharing and interaction time.

SRI LANKA CONSORTIUM ROADMAP

The Sri Lankan Consortium acknowledged that they picked up slowly in the inception stage of the project. Early activities included:

Project initiation by CARE Sri Lanka Recruitment of Sri Lanka Project Coordinator May 2009 meeting between UK Project Coordinator and Sri Lanka Consortium Two consortium meetings Development of agenda on workshop to discuss UK Benchmarking Paper

The speed of implementing Consortium activities picked up after the workshop on the Benchmarking Paper and the signing of a memorandum of understanding among Sri Lankan Consortium members.

The consortium also held conflict analysis methodology workshop and self assessment consolidation workshop, which triggered the on-going process of formulating organisational and consortium level change objectives.

Given the sensitive political dynamics of the country, conflict analysis hasn’t yet been conducted. In fact, it was noted that due to the national realities, utility of the phrase

9

The Road map assignment

Reflection on how the consortia is working, including whether there is a joint vision at a country level, and significant gaps where support is needed;

Each country to describe their journey, highlighting critical milestones and how challenges have been addressed from inception to present; include “Aha moment”

The roadmaps can include pictures, written materials, publications, newspaper cuttings, illustrations, mini paper/cloth country flags etc

Work in country groups to showcase the roadmap (appreciating achievements, successes, challenges and gaps) – to create an information market.

“context analysis” as opposed to “conflict analysis” is more sensitive to the Sri Lankan context. Additionally, DFID granted Sri Lanka more time to complete their conflict, which, as later explained by the UK Project Coordinator, was an extraordinary exception.

Milestones

1. Participating organisations have been identified, agreed on and are committed2. Benchmarking workshop

a. Created understanding on CSA, processb. Enhanced agreementc. The consortium came up with the definition of CSAd. It helped clarify and prioritise statement of intent

3. Operational structuresa. MOUb. Steering Group formedc. Action Plan and delegation of responsibilities to members

4. Organisational self-assessmenta. Surveyb. Matrixc. Consolidation workshop

5. Conflict/Context analysisa. Methodologyb. Geographyc. Partnering

6. Case studiesa. TORsb. Consultant

Challenges

10

i. The need to understand concept, project, context and processes relative to organisational mandates. This was especially compounded by inconsistencies in member organisations’ representation to the consortium (i.e. different organisation representatives at different times)

ii. Conceptual challenges – peace building organisations still believe they are by default conflict sensitive

iii. Team building within consortium – the process of strengthening synergies, beyond belonging to the consortium, is demanding

iv. Reaching agreements, e.g. MOU, took time and effortv. Context-specific challenges – the political environment (elections etc)

complicate conflict sensitive work. For instance, use of the terms “conflict analysis” is problematic, the consortium would rather utilise the phrase “context analysis”.

vi. Differing parameters between UK & Sri Lanka on defining conflict sensitivity create a gap in understanding. Sri Lanka views conflict sensitivity more broadly than war/armed violence.

vii. Lack of policy on conflict sensitivity for all organisationsviii. Project management staff see relevance of conflict sensitivity only in planning

and assessment stagesix. 90% of all staff believes they are conflict sensitive, this presents the challenge

of “bringing ice to Antarctica and selling ice to Eskimos.”

KENYA CONSORTIUM ROADMAP

The Kenya Consortium referred participants to their recently published monograph titled “The Practice of Conflict Sensitivity in Kenya: Beyond the Concept” for a detailed discussion of key successes and challenges they have met. In their presentation they covered the following:

Vision: To have conflict sensitive approaches infused in all organisational strategies and interventions.

What is working well?

Communication Sufficient budget Full time coordination Regular meetings Effective working groups Commitment Open and transparent recruitment Involvement of all stakeholders (internal and external)

Gaps

11

Other competing demands Organisational buy-in (slow for some organisations) Level of understanding (conceptual clarity) Consortium members’ staff turn over

Critical milestones

Members’ buy-in Signed Terms of Engagement (TOE) Self Assessment Adoption of a Kenya Consortium working definition of conflict sensitivity Documentation Change objectives Conflict analysis Conflict Sensitivity workshop in Mombasa Planning

SIERRA LEONE CONSORTIUM ROADMAP

Timeline

June 2008 – project started in UK Feb-Mar 2009 – Recruitment of Project Coordinator, Sierra Leone Apr-Jun 2009

o First consortium meetingo Roll out of conflict sensitivity project and introduction of coordination to

various agencies

o Project coordinator’s first orientation in UK May-Nov 2009

o Consortium governance

12

MOUs Partner assessment Meeting with DFID Finalised country members/working groups UK Project Coordinator visit

Jan 2010 – UK learning event attended by World Vision & Action Aid International

Feb 2010 – Kenya cross learning event

Challenges

No country presence among some consortium members Early inception phase decision making was top-down Lack of conceptual clarity on conflict sensitivity Delay in agreeing on an acceptable MOU by members

Achievements

Change objectives being developed Assessment findings shared MOU & TORs finalized Working group formed Capacity assessment of partners completed

Opportunities

Capacity building for project coordinator Representation at UK learning event in UK

Two members per organisation are represented in the consortium Working as a consortium Linkages with DFID

13

Future

Mainstream conflict sensitive approaches in programs and policies of donors and civil society

Demonstrate a business case to DFID & other donors for future support

UK CONSORTIUM ROADMAP

Challenges Budget renegotiation at start of the project

o Time consumingo Delayso Lack of clear direction

Signed MOU in place – difficult process but positive outcome Big gaps in every agency connected to integrating conflict sensitivity in to every

part of each agency Developing consortium change objectives Dual role of UK steering committee Dual role of UK Project Coordinator Lack of ability to bring people together in meetings Staff turnover – consortium attendance changing

Achievements Diversity and number of agenecies who have come together, agreed and signed an

MOU Consortium steering committee

o TORso Functioningo Budget

Peer support for self-assessment

Activities Benchmarking paper and working definition finalised Self-assessment workshop in February 2009 Learning/sharing event in March 2009 Development of change objectives Start of the development of the guide to conflict sensitivity in emergencies Learning event in January 2010 (skills development) Mid-term review process started

SESSION B: INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Session Objective – to enhance institutional capacity to practice conflict sensitivity

14

Methodology: Group work consisting 5 mixed country teams, with one question per group, card collection, card clustering and consensus building.

Group work questions and responses were as follows:

Plenary

The issue of organisational mandates as a possible area of weakness for conflict sensitivity sparked a debate on whether there is a dislocation of terminologies in the way “conflict sensitivity”, “mandates” and “priorities” are used. Is the weakness arising from organisational mandates or from organisational priorities? It may as well be that there is lack of clarity on the concept of conflict sensitivity.

But the question of organisational mandates raises the possible challenge of organisations viewing conflict sensitivity as an add-on. Hence, rigidity in sticking to organisational mandates, as well as equating some mandates (e.g. peace building) to conflict sensitivity without necessarily applying it can be a challenge.

The second issue of debate was about human resource capacity. This point provoked the question of depth and breadth – an organisation could have one staff whose knowledge of conflict sensitive practice is impressively deep. But there is the human resource related challenge of frequent staff transfers and high staff turnovers, which affects the implementation of the project.

15

GROUP 11. What are the key areas of weakness in capacity for conflict sensitivity?

Lack of conflict sensitivity in organisational priorities due to the overload of mainstreaming issues.

Lack of, or delays in, management buy-in (especially among donors, agency & partner levels)

Limited human resource capacity & loss of institutional memory.

Lastly, participants underscored the fact that conflict sensitivity is ultimately about practicing the good one preaches. As such, this provoked the question of whether donors practice what they preach when their funds (to civil society) are tied to conditionalities.

Plenary

Participants revisited the question of whether organisational mandate was an obstacle to the mainstreaming of conflict sensitivity. The UK Project Coordinator noted that if this was an issue, then the UK Consortium would need to focus their efforts in helping to resolve the dilemma. But if the issue was an excuse, then the consortium would need to direct their efforts towards having organisations embrace conflict sensitivity.

In the Kenyan case, organisational mandate has been an excuse for some members’ inertia. However, it was noted that all humanitarian agencies have elements of conflict sensitive programming e.g. Oxfam has done such work in the Horn of Africa. It was ultimately agreed that the issue may be more of competing organisational priorities.

There was also the view that the problem was the lack of clarity on conflict sensitivity. For instance, there was confusion between “conflict sensitivity” and “conflict avoidance”.

16

GROUP 22. What are the likely blockages we have to overcome in building capacity in

conflict sensitivity? Lack of conceptual clarity on conflict sensitivity Lack of buy-in by organisations. Organisations operate through their own

strategic plans, policies etc. How to fit CSA within already existing strategies? This necessitates involvement of top management

Competing organisational priorities – priorities, staff time and commitment, and work load are a blockage. This triggers the question of how to mainstream CSA in every organisational work

Centralised versus decentralised organisations e.g. CARE UK are members of the Consortium but not CARE US.

Insufficient resource allocation for conflict sensitivity (as a Consortium & as individual members)

Donor understanding of conflict sensitivity Government understanding of conflict sensitivity e.g. Some concepts of

conflict sensitivity have to be carefully packaged to avoid the suspicion of the Sri Lankan government.

17

GROUP 3

3. What have been the best methods in achieving organization buy-in for conflict sensitivity?

Self assessment questionnaires which pointed out what conflict sensitivity was, and helped highlight what isn’t conflict sensitive. Staff became more open

Awareness creation at the top organisational leaders as a process and not as an add-on. Add-ons are hard to sell

Proper and appropriate documentation – always trying to tell people that the have been doing something on conflict sensitivity. People appreciate being told

Building skills on the concept, in order to create a clear understanding Always trying to find the champion of the organisation and having

him/her sell out the idea (have strategic CSA champions) Having an “elevator speech”, sharp, short, concise ideas to sell conflict

sensitivity Identify possible leverage points within the existing context and

utilising it e.g. think through the assumptions – this goes in to the whole project cycle & M & E

Funding to be able to develop and implement CSA. “It wont cost you a penny & you could get benefits from it”

Developing the log frame and the problem tree with the community members

GROUP 4

4. What institutional mechanisms/practices facilitate effective and conflict sensitive programming?

Participatory practices involving all stakeholders – donors, beneficiaries, partners, HQ staff, field staff, central & local government etc

Integrating CS in our engagement & agreement with partners Integrating CS in to the project cycle management Integrating CS in M&E systems Training practices Ensure knowledge management practices concerning CS issues are

clearly defined – CSA champions within agencies CS Policy produced and agreed

DAY’S ASSESSMENT

Suggestions for tomorrow

We should have started with agenda setting Reviews after each session

I did not like

Multiple, concurrent conversations – it is rude and holds us back because those people and others miss what is being said

Not sharing expectations and fears

18

GROUP 55. What are the indicators that would tell us that our organization is becoming

more conflict sensitive? Percentage of Board members & Trustees that understand CS and how

important it is to the organisation Percentage of staff who understand the conflict sensitivity implications

of their role Number of policies that are reviewed, changed or adjusted as a result of

CSA Number of processes (e.g. working with partners) that are reviewed and

adapted as a result of CSA Evidence of integrating conflict sensitivity in to advocacy meetings

with government officials Percentage of staff who understand how conflict sensitivity is relevant

to their role Percentage of staff who are able to fulfil conflict sensitivity as relevant

to their role Percentage of staff that are aware of the mechanisms/opportunities for

considering/exploring CS within their organisation Outputs/impacts of organisational work of CS in the areas & among

people they work with Number of instances where organisations have taken corrective

measures Number of issues involving conflict being recognized by field staff and

communicated through clearly identified communication channels within the organisation – is increased

The organisation has a clearly identified communication channel to facilitate the point above, which is used increasingly by organisations’ field staff

I think there is a lot of free time in this workshop, which is nice for relaxing/catching up with other work, but perhaps it could have been done in 3 days?

I don’t like the air conditioner being on throughout for health reasons

I liked

Opportunity to link with in-country consortia Time management Energiser Group work Mamba village Facilitation method Kenya Consortium’s level of documentation Level of participation Road maps were interesting

Aha Moment

The team’s level of understanding All areas are continuing to make progress and no one group is far in front or far

behind in terms of meeting objectives or overall progress Road map – was important in refreshing memories on progress The different country-specific definitions of conflict sensitivity Unpacking conflict sensitivity is reflective of the inputs and outputs of our daily

work All consortiums from all regions are thinking of donor advocacy for conflict

sensitivity All consortia have faced similar challenges/difficulties The elevator speech Building inter-consortia synergy Different country contexts generated different strategies to promote conflict

sensitivity Not everyone in the consortia is implementing peace building yet there is a

common vision of conflict sensitivity Learnt of the genesis, process, and challenges the consortia have gone through

and the achievements How to push conflict sensitivity forward in my organisation’s headquarters

19

20

Action Points

Need to collect village-based stories of conflict sensitivity as well as NGO-based case studies. It is important to start work on case studies alongside other consortium activities

Need to look at bottom-up approaches as push factors – to CSA within organisations

Need to involve a representative organisation for local NGOs Read all change objectives for each country and organisation All agencies need to ask their (London) headquarters what they do in

Consortium Go through the forthcoming webpage on conflict sensitivity

Suggestions for the Future

A strong and autonomous consortium in the near future Review or planning in UK, Sri Lanka or Sierra Leone Consortium secretariat

DAY TWO

EXPECTATIONS

Carry home a new or innovative way to make my organisation conflict sensitive (CS as an organic, developing process)

Clarity on the way forward for the pilots and implications for organisational systems & policies

Learn from others Experience sharing across consortia Have fun Increasing understanding on CS and best practices Understand different perspective in the process of conflict/context analysis How to create inter-Consortia synergy Develop strategies & methodology to integrate & mainstream CS Increase team capacity in integrating CSA To have a commonly agreed definition of CS

FEARS

Way forward and focus – that there will be no clear way forward if we don’t focus. Lead facilitator clarified that her role was to moderate deliberative process in order to maintain focus

Lack of time to plan – It was emphasized that the workshop was a learning and planning process, and adequate time had been allocated for planning

Potential information overloads and question of how to catch up with other consortia – The workshop was designed in such a way as to underscore key information that would be displayed on charts. The second part of the fear was resolved as having been an “aha moment” since the experience sharing sessions helped consortia members to appreciate the common path they are all treading.

Potentially addressing everything on the surface – participants were encouraged to discuss all issues in an in-depth way with the acknowledgement that the workshop

21

SESSION C: PILOTSAim: The aim of the session was to develop a framework for, and launch, a pilot projectResource Persons: Fred Goba (Sierra Leone) & Tom Onyango (Kenya)

Objectives

Agree the purpose of pilot projects Agree the core elements of their design Determine how to integrate these to existing projects

Methodology: Appreciative inquiry, brainstorming, buzz group and group work

Introduction

Participants were asked what their take on the aim of session was. Thus:

But this session was characterised by heated debate at the beginning with regard to structural aspects of the consortium and role distribution. Participants navigated issues of power relations, decision making powers, and the role of the UK consortium relative to the other country-level consortia’s implementation of pilot projects. It was initially posited that the UK allows country consortia to test case projects and that countries have decision making power to the extent of provisions within their terms of engagement/MOU. It was noted that the session was about making decisions on implementing pilot projects.

Light needed to be shed on whether the UK consortium wasn’t implementing pilots, and if, therefore, its role was limited to supporting other consortia in this process. If so, what was going to be the nature of UK’s support? But this debate necessitated a detailed

22

What is today about?

Using models of cases to test concepts with conflict sensitivity; it could be mainstreaming, documenting the process, extracting good lessons learnt, identifying unexpected outcomes, noting the challenges etc.

Integrating conflict sensitivity into project implementation level – How to control a small element of an on-going project

Using an identified existing project, without creating an add-on to infuse the aspects of conflict sensitivity so that it becomes a lesson for replication for all other projects

Looking at pilots, categorizing criteria for choosing a pilot and defining the benchmarks for how to do it

Coming up with a framework to test case a project using conflict sensitivity and draw lessons from it for replication

presentation from the UK Project Coordinator on the background to the formation of the Consortium, roles of various consortia, and structural aspects of the global consortium, including decision making processes.

Participants were assured that they could propose pilot projects which would later guide in-country deliberations on the same. They needed to work with projects that have an existing funding source, portfolio, log frame, and are not completely new projects. Country consortia would however make more detailed decisions on the nitty gritty of piloting e.g. how many pilots, etc. The session was essentially about agreeing on a framework for pilots. At this point groups were formed to discuss the sequence of pilot projects.

Group One: Water, Sanitation and Health Project in Sahara, Sierra Leone

Rationale for choosing development project: It is long term in nature and so allows for learning, and is also relevant to the beneficiary community.

23

WATER, SANITATION & HEALTH PROJECT IN SAHARA, SIERRA LEONE

COUNTRY STRATEGY

DO CONFLICT (CONTEXT) ANALYSIS FOR PILOT PROJECT LOCATION

WASH in Sahara Town

INTERVENTION ANALYSIS (IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT)

MAKE CONFLICT SENSITIVE ADAPTATIONS TO THE PROJECT TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVES & MAXIMIZE POSITIVES

COMPARE THE CONFLICT ANALYSIS WITH THE INTERVENTION ANALYSIS

CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR MAKING CONFLICT SENSITIVE CHANGES TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVES & MAXIMIZE POSITIVES

IDENTIFY GAPS / DEFICIENCIES

IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERN/ AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY (NOTING OVERLAP BETWEEN CONFLICT & INTERVENTION ANALYSES)

CHOOSE PROJECT(S) ON WHICH TO APPLY PILOT

MONITORING & EVALUATION (PRE & POST)

GROUP 2

The second group designed a cyclical sequence to piloting (see picture above). But a key question posed was about how to have specific monitoring and evaluation questions for conflict sensitive pilots. Such questions need to capture all those latent factors about the project that might help enhance connectors or pronounce dividers.

GROUP 3

The third group equally designed a cyclical sequence to developing and implementing pilot projects, but thought of all the steps (see picture above) as essentially intertwined.

GROUP 4

24

SEQUENCING A CONFLICT SENSITIVE WATER AND SANITATION PILOT PROJECT

DO CONFLICT (CONTEXT) ANALYSIS FOR PILOT PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT:WATER & SANITATION

DO INTERVENTION ANALYSIS (IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF THE PROJECT)

MAKE CONFLICT SENSITIVE ADAPTATIONS TO THE PROJECT TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVES & MAXIMIZE POSITIVES

COMPARE THE CONFLICT ANALYSIS WITH THE INTERVENTION ANALYSIS

CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR MAKING CONFLICT SENSITIVE CHANGES TO MINIMIZE NEGATIVES & MAXIMIZE POSITIVES

IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERN/ AREAS OF OPPORTUNITY (NOTING OVERLAP BETWEEN CONFLICT & INTERVENTION ANALYSES)

CHOOSE PROJECT(S) ON WHICH TO APPLY PILOT

Plenary

The importance of project analysis and conflict analysis were underscored as critical prerequisites for a conflict sensitive project. Thus, it was important to understand a context before adapting a project, in order to avoid creating unintended negative consequences.

Participants wondered aloud about what happens when one wants to integrate a new concept into an already existing project. Overall, it was agreed that the question about what between M&E and pilot projects precedes the other is like the egg and chicken dilemma. However, conflict analysis is important in deciding which pilot to implement.

There was equally a question on what other activities one can implement in place of originally planned activities that cannot be executed because of insecurity. It was argued that if one abandoned a project for security reasons, there is need for clearly developed options for re-entry. Further, the pilot project planning process should be packaged in a way that is inclusive of all other critical stakeholders that aren’t necessarily members of the consortium. Such stakeholders could include partners of consortium members or those that area critical to the success of the pilot project.

The importance of considering piloting objectives was also discussed. It was observed that pilots are short-term projects, which are about learning lessons. For this reason, M&E systems needed to be integrated in the pilots to facilitate learning.

Participants were notified that pilot projects should start anytime from 1st April 2010. It was re-emphasized that the pilot shouldn’t be a totally new project idea, but integrated into existing initiatives. An M&E system should be integrated in the pilot, as well as documentation arrangements e.g. what is the impact of the project? Has it brought communities together or caused divisions?

On the question of whether it is better to pilot a project that was starting, or an on-going project, or one that is ending, such a decision was deferred to respective country-level consortia.

Aha moment

Not creating projects, working with existing projects Only infusing conflict sensitivity into the project Observing Documenting what has worked well, what hasn’t, unexpected outcomes

ROLES

Revisiting the earlier debate on role distribution in the consortium, the lead facilitator sought to moderate a discussion on clarity of roles and responsibilities. It came out that

25

there was sensitivity to “power relations” in usage of some words, like “compliance”. This was not only because of questions of the inter-relation between the UK Consortium and other consortia, but also because of the nature of agencies forming the consortium – some are decentralised while others are centralised. There is therefore need for sensitivity to those power dynamics.

Based on participants’ understanding and/or perceptions, some UK and country-level consortia roles were listed:

Key Country Roles (Kenya, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, & UK Consortia)

vii. Planning & implementationviii. Reporting, Documentation and Disseminationix. Standardisation of approaches for comparative learningx. Inter-Consortia Supportxi. Advocacy, lobbying and fundraisingxii. Piloting – planning, developing tools and implementation

Overall UK Steering Committee and UK Project Coordinator Roles

vii. Technical Support (of Consortia)viii. Overall Coordination (of Consortia)

ix. Creating and managing linkages with donors and country-level consortia x. Managing Resources - budget/grant management, resource allocation to

Consortia, and reporting to DFIDxi. Monitoring & Evaluation – helping Consortia to be compliant with donor

requirements e.g. reporting guidelines. “Power words”, “could you please re-do”, “Peers” – equality, partnership

xii. Advocacy roles – to influence global policy on conflict sensitivity

There were questions about whether the UK Consortium can also implement a pilot project. This prompted the UK Project Coordinator to give an initial response, with a promise to furnish participants with a more detailed brief on the roles of consortia. She explained the three structural levels of the UK Consortium thus:

3. Project Coordinator – is concerned with financial reporting, liaison & compliance with donors, point person with DFID (coordinates and gives a coherent message to DFID e.g. the Sri Lanka request for more time with conflict analysis)

4. Steering committee – helps in oversight5. UK Consortium

There were questions about whether the UK consortium would implement a pilot. The UK Project Coordinator explained that the pilots were about piloting conflict sensitivity during normal project implementation. The UK agencies do not themselves implement normal projects and therefore cannot do their own normal project based implementation

26

pilot. The UK agencies however are involved in the implementation of global emergency response. Therefore the UK agencies will do a pilot of Conflict Sensitivity Emergency Response Implementation. This emergency pilot will have many similarities to the ‘normal programming’ pilots conducted in Sri Lanka, Sierra Leone and Kenya, but it will necessarily have some differences as the emergency pilot is focusing on conflict sensitivity in the first thirty days of emergency response.

There was also debate and some confusion around the UK consortium roles. It was agreed that the UK PC would clarify UK roles through a presentation.

DAY’S ASSESSMENT

Suggestions for tomorrow

Involve all people in decisions about where to go Wrap up session on “Pilots” to have a set of guidelines. A decision was not made,

only suggestions To pilot conflict sensitivity in project with more than 18 months I would like to see a very clear diagram to show how the different of the

consortium fit in with each other

My Action Points

We need a country strategy for the role out of conflict sensitivity to other organisations

The pilot can now be planned and implemented

I Did Not Like

Wrap up at the end of day I think we got a bit lost yesterday, I don’t think we achieved the objectives or had

focus on what next or draw conclusions from the group work. People were more focused on going on a trip

Poor air conditioning led to lethargy and less concentration and less patience Decision making process is not conflict sensitive There was discontent about some individuals not joining bonding sessions Long debates/discussions Wrap up/conclusions after group presentations Lack of clarity on our roles and responsibilities Side conversations Power interruptions

I Liked

The fact that fears were handled right away Learning – I hope we move towards tying together lessons learnt so far

27

The openness of the discussions especially on contentious issues The sessions on pilots that we added value as we go Group consensus on UK presentation Responsiveness of UK Project Coordinator to quickly respond by preparing write-

up to clear UK Consortium issues and the relationships between UK and in-country consortia

The fact that the issue of power relations came up The energy and the participation

Aha Moment

The brainstorming on how the pilots should look like There are a lot of administration issues to be resolved in the project Different groups’ input for pilot process Overall understanding on pilot All consortium members are peers Realisation that there is not much time left to run the project The interplay of the word compliance – agreed that it should be a two way

process, with the UK and in-country consortia being compliant at the same time but different levels

Identify available resources in a community before deciding on whether/how to bring in new ones

Reaching a decision on how to develop a framework for implementing conflict sensitive pilots remains the responsibility of country consortia

Roles and responsibilities are still unclear, there seems to be a lot of confusion Conflict sensitivity can be introduced at several stages, even at exit Explanation of the UK structure and the realisation that it has 3 bodies Participatory nature of deliberations

28

DAY THREE

The UK Project Coordinator took time to brief participants on the workings of the Consortia in the light of the previous day’s intense debate on what the role of the UK Consortium was in line with the piloting of conflict sensitive projects in country-level consortia.

The UK Project Coordinator’s Presentation

How does the Consortium work in the UK? How are decisions made within the UK Consortium?

In the UK we have:

Ten UK agencies – each with a representative to the consortium. The 10 agencies have equal decision making power within the UK consortium

One UK Project coordinator – based in CARE UK but does not represent CARE UK. Instead the Project coordinator represents all 10 agencies equally, and has zero authority and no decision making power but can give recommendations and try to reach consensus

UK Steering Committee – Tasked with supporting/guiding/keeping on track the UK consortium activities. Also:

o Peer supporto Addressing challengeso Sharing informationo Making resources available (not money)o Platform for discussion

Reporting to DFIDo The four Project Coordinators jointly prepare first draft reporto This is shared across 36 agencies for comment/further inputo UK Project Coordinator’s role is to finalize (edit) the report and submit it

to DFID Any requests for changes to DFID

o Channelled through the UK Project Coordinatoro Each country can make own decision on when/if to approach DFIDo The UK Project Coordinator knows DFID contact and can advise on how

best to approach DFID or advise on DFID’s likely response Processing Finances/Accounting for our Expenditure

29

i. Finances are transferred in flowing from DFID down there respective stages till they eventually reach specific country agencies

ii. MOUs/contracts to allow (finance transfer) areiii. Expenditure is reported upon thus

NB: The above does not refer to any decision making. It refers to processing finances.

iv. Burn rate – we are all responsible for consortium burn rate. DFID communicate this message to CARE UK. CARE UK passes this message onward to the rest of the consortia

v. We are all responsible for accurate forecasting (i.e. ensuring quarterly forecasts match expenditure). There is particular emphasis on accurate forecasting. DFID communicates this to CARE UK, which passes this message on to the consortia

Overall Steering Committee TORo The Steering Committee provides support to the overall

consortium. Its role is to guide but not to play a decision making role.

o At the start of Steering Committee meetings the UK Project Coordinator raises any challenges shared by the 4 project coordinators in order to ask overall Steering Committee to give some advice and support

o Consortium members are encouraged to read relevant project documents available through their Consortium Project Coordinators

The four country-level consortiao Guided by some parameters:

There is a lead in-country agency (as defined in proposal) Budget

30

DFIDCARE UK

UK Agencies

CARE Sri Lanka

World Vision UK

Action Aid International

WV Sierra Leone

Sri Lanka Agencies

Kenya Agencies

Sierra Leone Agencies

Action Aid International Kenya

Proposal (objectives, activities)o All decisions are made in-country, including:

Activity plans Consortium membership Work plans

o If any country wants support, or external recommendations, they ask their project coordinator to bring the issue to the UK project coordinator who in turn brings it to overall steering committee for overall steering committee to give recommendations (not decisions)

Relations between the four Project Coordinatorsi. Working togetherii. Supporting each otheriii. Ensuring information sharingiv. Facilitating cross learning

There are no differences in power across the four project coordinators. They are peers, of equal status, and supporting each other’s work.

In the second financial year the UK Project Coordinator visited Sri Lanka, Kenya, and Sierra Leone to support their work. In the third financial year all project coordinators are encouraged to support each other e.g. Sierra Leone Project Coordinator coming to support Kenya, Sri Lanka Project Coordinator going to support UK etc

Deciding upon the budget: In the proposal the budget was divided by year, not by country, nor by agency.

i. In the first financial year the UK started, but the three other countries did not start this same time.

ii. In the second financial year (FY02), as soon as all project coordinators were on board they focused on dividing the budget breakdown by country for that year. A “FY02 budget breakdown by country” was developed, discussed, revised and consensus was reached between the four coordinators. This clear and transparent breakdown by country is available to all to see (through your project coordinator). It should be noted we cannot (due to DFID) carry over between financial years. The FY02 burn rate at present is over 70% for UK but under 40% for other countries. We expect an under-spend in FY02. The budget breakdown by country for FY02 was taken to the overall steering committee (based in UK). They ‘approved’ it based on the information that there was already consensus among the four project coordinators.

iii. The third financial year (FY03) budget by country has been developed and consensus reached among the four coordinators. If there are any concerns, members should raise them with their Project Coordinator for discussion with the rest of the coordinators.

31

At the end of the UK Project Coordinator’s presentation, participants undertook a knowledge exchange exercise based on the need to improve information sharing among consortia members.

A four member task force was later formed to work on a detailed information sharing plan (together with the UK Project Coordinator).

After this, Joan McGregor from the UK Consortium made a presentation on the back ground to the DFID funded Conflict Sensitivity Consortium. This was equally in response to the felt need to shed more light to the project background and the workings of the consortia.

32

Exercise

How do we make information sharing a real time process?

Real time could mean immediately or within a few days depending on the nature of the information (if it requires clarifications internally etc). Real time means as soon as possible. Speed of sharing is also dependent on the usefulness of information

Parameters and contexts on sharing will need to be developed. How, what and when to share?

Timing – so far the consortium has been useful in sharing information on what they did, rather than what they are doing

Instantaneous – where information should be shared instantaneously, information communication technology can be utilised e.g. Skype, Yahoo or Google group updates, managing a blog, e-learning sites (ICHORE), social networking sites (facebook), setting up an interactive website and participatory media. But this could have been limited by challenges such as individual organisational IT policies, communication policies, bandwidth, time difference, and delays in setting up a website. Managing website content is very involving, and may necessitate the involvement of consortia in uploading information with the UK Project Coordinator “policing” the content.

One of the main communication blockages are between countries rather than within countries. Embracing horizontal and vertical communications among members. Member organisations can have “catch up” calls across countries.

Updated contact lists (name, email address, phone) and a calendar of planned activities

Exchange visits for cross learning

33

The Practice of Conflict Sensitivity – Concept to ImpactPresentation by Joan McGregor

Goal: Greater impact of development and humanitarian actors through improved use and mainstreaming of conflict sensitive approaches (CSA).

Purpose: Improve policies and practices that support CSA across a broad network of NGOs, local partners and donor agencies.

Key outcomes:

Shared understanding of CSA across a network of international and local humanitarian, development and peace building agenciesLessons and recommendations for mainstreaming effective CSA across a range of contexts and sectors disseminated to policy makers, donors and practitionersStrengthened expertise and capacity among member organisations, civil society organisations etc to implement CSA (at the local and headquarter levels)In-depth case studies among the three countries and pilot on integrating conflict sensitivity within 30 days of the emergencySharing on best practicesBuilding capcityShare learningInfluence policies and practices of donors and others

Circle of activities:

Organisation self-assessment

& change objectives

3 in-country

activities

Capacity Development

Learning events

Rapid Onset

Emergency

Advocacy

SESSION D: PILOT MONITORING AND EVALUATION

Resource Person: Sarah Brown (UK)

The aim of the session was to develop key action points for running the country level pilots.

Objectives:

By the end of the session have:

a. Increased knowledge on the purpose of the pilotsb. Developed key action points for initiating in-country pilotsc. Agreed key action points for initiating the country level pilots monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) by 1st April 2010

Expectations on Pilot Projects

i. Generate M&E and strategic plan for pilots – can’t achieve strategy but benchmarks for in-country planning

ii. Develop criteria for M&Eiii. Develop specific monitoring systems & indicatorsiv. Clarify between M&E of pilots and conflict sensitive M&E (not going to be

covered, but is important)v. Integration of M&E into pilots

vi. Do’s and don’ts of M&Evii. Conceptual distinction between project M&E and pilot M&E

viii. Key elements and the contextsix. Agree on a common approach for pilots

Guiding the future and judging the past – mid-term review

Aim for the M&E of the Pilot

To undertake an action oriented case study of how to do conflict sensitive programming (at the project level)

Purpose of the pilot

To generate an evidence base of conflict sensitivity at project level through appropriate M&E

Participants brainstormed on which indicators that would be important for M&E of pilot projects from a three broad sets:

34

A. Conflict indicators e.g. at what level is the conflict. Discussions weighed in on the importance of these indicators for context analysis (about tracking a conflict, whether it is receding or escalating)

B. Project indicators e.g. number of boreholes sunk, number of relief committees. It was underscored that these set of indicators are especially important for a project manager in determining if the work plan and log frame was adhered to during project implementation.

C. Interaction indicators e.g. where borehole was sunk, and whether it is contributing to conflict or peace, how relief committees were chosen (elected, or directly chosen etc). This set is important for measuring the conflict sensitivity of a project. It is at this point that we get an evidence base. For some projects e.g. peace building projects, interaction indicators are the same as conflict indicators. Yet for other projects, the interaction indicators are different from conflict indicators e.g. compare the project to the conflict analysis, are there overlaps, are there options for adaptation to improve situations around the overlap, what are the things about the projects that you can track that you can see where these are appropriate adaptations?

Further plenary deliberations led to various key points in relation to the three sets of indicators:

All three levels of indicators make for a comprehensive M&E system Conflict and interaction indicators are crucial because they take in to

consideration key variables for conflict sensitivity All the three are important because they are important for context analysis.

But for the purpose of conflict sensitive practice, emphasis should be put on interaction indicators.

Sometimes in the event of emergencies, relief agencies create “zones of operation” hence contributing to conflict. It is important to track such factors.

It is important to have a continuous conflict analysis since the conflicts are dynamic.

Participants were reminded of the overall aim of monitoring and evaluating projects – for conflict sensitivity. An example was given on a conflict sensitive project that led to a group exercise

35

Example of a Project to Renovate Health Centre

Comparison of conflict analysis with implementation analysis showed one major overlap – that the intervention contained plans to install a water supply and the conflict analysis highlighted concerns over perceived water shortages between that location and a neighbouring community. This is therefore a concern. Options were considered to reduce this potential negative. Options were considered aimed at reducing tensions between the communities related to the health clinic water supply. The selected option was to form a joint working group with members of both communities to discuss their needs and to discuss the water supply in the health centre.

i. What evidence would show that CSA led to a change to the project?ii. How do we assess the effect of that change?

GROUP 1

Evidence Demonstrating Role of CSA

Identification of neighbouring communities and competition over water Identification of the “relative position” of the project’s “geographic” location Formation of a joint working group Selection of options to reduce the tensions between communities How the project identified available options How the project location was decided by who, what method and whether it was

participatory Minutes of working group working group keeping in mind who was represented,

gender composition, decision making power over project plans, how grievances are handled and criteria developed

The relative situation with existing conflict (both positive and negative potentialities of water usage)

Decisions made based on lessons learnt that led to change of practices Flexibility of project management team in managing raised expectations

How to Assess Effect of Change

Document review Focus group discussions, key informant interviews, trend analysis Participatory monitoring and evaluation with agreed upon indicators

GROUP 2

36

Evidence Demonstrating Role of CSA Formation of a joint working group (it is important to consider the composition of

a working group in a conflict sensitive way) The joint meeting Outcomes of the meeting

o Change of locationo Terms of Reference for the working group – specifying issues such as

equal access etc Benchmarking before and after the conflict sensitive decision

How to Assess Effect of Change Closer working relationships e.g. through consultations Lifespan of the joint working group Use of a similar approach to address other issues in the community De-escalation of tension levels Documentation

GROUP 3

Evidence Demonstrating Role of CSA Formation of working group with the active inclusion of members from both

communities Adaptive recommendations of working group

How to Assess Effect of Change Looking at how each group uses the water point including management of water

points e.g. by-laws (using quantitative methods) Qualitatively looking at the functionality of working groups Community feedback on project through focus group discussions – capturing

strengths of the project and desired improvements

GROUP 4

Evidence Demonstrating Role of CSA Joint committee Fair representation within the committee Level representation of both communities in committee leadership Process of decision making within the committee Collective ownership of committee decision Committee feedback to community Implementation of committee decision Reliance of decisions and actions on conflict analysis

How to Assess Effect of Change No community is deprived by water

37

Valid documentary proof of decisions reached Number of people blocking the health centre from the aggrieved community Number of community clashes Change in willingness of the two communities to discuss their issues openly

(before and after the project) Change in the communities’ perception of each other and on their levels of

hostility/conflict Reduced level of conflict between the two communities Level of inter-community goodwill Inter-communal agreement on sharing water resources

Key Questions to ask (in assessments)1. Have we showed that conflict sensitivity led to this change (as opposed to other

reasons for such changes)?2. Are the effects we will monitor closely linked to the project? For example

a. Our conflict sensitive project may reduce tension about the water supplyb. Will our conflict sensitive project always be expected to resolve/improve

all tensions between groups (such as tensions over national politics)? It all depends on ambitions and objectives of the project.

Exercise – going through Consortia definitions

Plenary

Following group presentations, the plenary discussion covered several issues tied to implementing conflict sensitive pilot projects and their monitoring and evaluation:

There was a view that since use of qualitative indicators necessitates baselines, there were cost implications to utilising these. But this view was countered by the observation that a baseline is not very necessary for qualitative aspects. Community-level perceptions can be recorded in the project area. It is important to consider inter-community interactions, and questions about the level of inclusiveness in any intervention (e.g. the working group). It was also underscored that indicators are just that – indicators – and not the absolute desired change.

Participants were reminded that the goal of implementing pilots is to enhance advocacy for conflict sensitive practice – to influence CSA policy globally. There is therefore need for keenness on what message the pilot project will send for advocacy purposes. For instance, will the project communicate that in order to implement conflict sensitivity agencies need to embrace aspects which are beyond the confines of their mandates? If this is so, this would send a negative message to agencies. Country-level consortia will need to reflect on this more exhaustively. Further, in order to convince donors on the importance of conflict sensitivity, it is necessary to successfully execute the pilot projects.

It was also acknowledged that there is the challenge of a project in one community possibly triggering demands for similar projects by other

38

(neighbouring) communities. As such, it is important for country-level consortia to have mechanisms in place to address and/ore manage such eventualities.

Example of a Water project in Tanzania (shared by Mr. Geoffrey Okoth) – A borehole was drilled in one village to the exclusion of another. The implementing agency’s solution was to drill another borehole closer to the other village. But women from the far off village kept fetching water from the older farther away borehole. Their reasoning was that fetching water from the farther borehole gave them time to discuss their problems. The construction of the new borehole on the other hand heightened friction between the women and their husbands, who became more conscious of the amount of time their wives spent fetching water. It is therefore important to involve critical stakeholders before implementing any given project. The resource person explained that while this was a great example of the need of quality in the wider sense, it isn’t an example on the need for conflict sensitivity. Essentially, pilots need to give clear evidence of what difference was made by conflict sensitivity, as opposed to changes relating to other (equally important) quality issues. We need to be careful that our lessons learnt and case studies focus very closely on conflict sensitivity, and are not drawn to other issues of quality that are important but do not closely related to the added value of conflict sensitivity. After each case study that we develop, we need to very carefully ask ourselves ‘does this clearly show the added value of conflict sensitivity.

Example on Appropriateness of Conflict Sensitive Adaptations (shared by Ms. Michelle Spearing) – an example was given of the construction of a school project in one community that was in conflict with a neighbouring community. While another similar project was implemented in the rival community, the result was that the two communities had segregated education – a not very conflict sensitive project outcome since the inter-community division may have been heightened. Perhaps an adaptation to bring the communities together through education would have been more appropriate. As well as having conflict sensitive intentions behind our adaptations, we also need to remember to evaluate whether the effect of our adaptations was conflict sensitive.

The need for pilots to be evidence based was re-emphasized. There is need for proof of conflict sensitivity. That is, it is important to be able to clearly demonstrate that conflict sensitivity led to the desired change, with proper documentation.

There was a debate on the delineation between conflict sensitivity and peace building. It was noted that the question of demarcating lines between peace building and development is age old. But some of the approaches currently attributed to development (e.g. rights-based approaches) were previously in the peace building domain. The UK Project Coordinator suggested that the new CDA publication “Conflict sensitivity versus Peacebuilding” is very helpful in clarifying the difference. A copy of this publication was shared with participants.

39

DOCUMENTING EVIDENCE

This session was about agreeing on having adequate and comprehensive documentation arrangements for pilot projects. Specifically, participants deliberated on various ways of:

A. Documenting what has been done (how conflict sensitivity was ensured) B. Documenting additional time, skills, resources etc for the pilot project

GROUP 1 & 2: How do we Document what been done? What did we do to Ensure Conflict Sensitivity?

What Needs to be Documented

i. Project selection criteria and process (length of time, who was involved etc)ii. Conflict analysis – design, tools, methodology, process (up to validation),

findings, stakeholders, timeframe and conclusions in respect of conflict sensitivity

iii. Intervention analysis – comparative analysis (connectors, dividers, obstacles), methodology, tools used, stakeholders, recommendations and validation

iv. Options – methodology, processv. Conflict sensitive adaptations – agreements with the process, reviews made to

project document, steps and action plan to make changes to project and actual implementation of the agreed project. There is need to show how decisions were made and what implications they had to the project

vi. Implementation – strategies, plan for the pilot, M&E framework, process of selecting location, how the type of project was selected, process of engagement with the communities

40

Group WorkGroup 1 and 2 were given the task:

A. How do we document what has been done? (What did we do to ensure conflict sensitivity?)

Group 2 and 3 were given the task:B. How do we document what additional time, skills, resources etc were required for adding conflict sensitivity to our pilot project (ie how expensive is it to ‘add’ conflict sensitivity to a project)

In tackling their assignments, they specifically answered the questions:

i. What needs to be documented at each stage in the pilot?ii. How can we ensure that our documentation is comprehensive?

vii. Replication – review process, ensure documentation of each process is credibly documented, devise dissemination strategy, and consider mentoring and follow up

viii. Conflict analysis and intervention analysis should answer some basic questions:a. What overlaps did we find?b. What was our process of change?c. How did we make changes?

ix. Monitoringa. Documentation of challenges, opportunities and successes throughout the

project

How to Ensure Comprehensive Documentation

Prepare necessary checklists Prepare tracking table Embed documentation in the review process Getting views from stakeholders Feedback groups to check for gaps M&E at all stages – constant process of revision & reflection

GROUP 3 & 4: How do we document what additional time, skills, resources etc were required for adding conflict sensitivity to our pilot project?

What Needs To Be Documented

Conflict analysiso How long could it takeo Resource persons/who doeso Conflict analysis cost implications e.g. transport, stationary, IT,

Translation/Interpretation, skill search

41

Conflict Analysis Project Analysis

Comparative Analysis

Adaptation (Successes)

This is what we want to document

Monitoring &

E

valuation

Monitoring &

E

valuation

o Skills necessary to do conflict analysiso Who to do it – internal/external

How to Ensure Comprehensive Documentation

Develop Terms of Reference for the pilot project’s monitoring and evaluation components

Document regularly Integrate the documentation process into existing systems Involve more than one person in documentation Highlight areas to capture in documentation rather than how Sharing documentation template(s) among the Consortia for

comments/harmonisation to make sure lessons are captured systematically Embrace participatory approaches Develop checklist of key points (each country) Triangulate information received from various sources and/or activities Country-level consortia need to agree on the need for standardisation of

documentation procedures Utilise Pictures/stories/cartoons/case studies Record best practices

Who is funding adaptation?

Cost-benefit analysis of conflict sensitive engagements – at the point of considering options for making changes aimed at minimising negative and maximising positive impacts

PLENARY

The resource person, the UK Project Coordinator, briefly reminded participants about the distinctions between conflict analysis, intervention analysis and comparative analysis:

A. Conflict analysis focuses on what the conflict issues, actors and dynamics areB. Intervention analysis focuses on what is the project doing, with who, how, when

and by who,C. Comparative analysis is about comparing the above two analyses (A and B). It

focuses on what the overlaps between A and B are.

The plenary discussion highlighted some discontent with the term “Intervention analysis” and it was suggested that “project analysis” would be a better term. Participants agreed that for the purposes of consortium wide communication we would use the terms:

Conflict Analysis Project Analysis Comparative Analysis

42

Further, during plenary deliberations, several points were made regarding the documentation process:

The need to ensure a good quality of information was emphasised, hence the need for a quality control mechanism and rigorous reporting formats. It was felt that it may be necessary to have reporting templates to guide members in preparing such reports. It is also important to work with each other to ensure that the template is being effectively utilised.

Secondly, it was acknowledged that there was need to leave space to the agencies that will implement pilots to come up with appropriate M&E mechanisms. Consortia members should however support pilot project and have mechanisms for cross-consortium learning. Thus, having a standardized M&E mechanism for the Consortium at this stage may not be necessary.

Lastly, it was underscored that the purpose of the exercise was to determine whether a conflict sensitive pilot project is affordable and realistic. There is the need to consider implications for such projects – what amount of added time is needed for the pilot project?

43

Group work Develop timeline showing what are the key steps that you will go through in

the next 5 weeks in order to start a pilot on 1st April 2010 Develop a draft country TOR

SRI LANKA

KENYA

LEAD AGENCY/ PERSON

WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 4

WEEK 5

Miriam (CARE)

Negotiate with agencies

EUGENE (SKI)

Validate Conflict Analysis Findings

ROSE (WVK) Identify lead agency/ partners

ALIOW (AAIK) & NANCY/ TONY (PLAN)

Identify project/ Develop TORs

Orientation, launch & reporting on the process

TOM (CAFOD)

M & E Framework

JACKIE (SW) Implementation Framework

JOB (SAVE) Project Analysis

44

Prioritize this area in conflict analysis which will be going on

Bring Steering Group(SG)Up to Speed on Pilot

Agree on Sharing Mechanism

Review CSA Activity Timelines

SG Meeting – learning objectives & allocate roles

Share Update

SG Processes TOR & finalized

Draft TOR led by participant of Kenya Meeting

Pilot Working Group

Selected members consult partners & management

Conflict Analysis

Action Planning & Budget

Finalize Pilot Plans

Implement Pilot

Project Analysis & Comparative Analysis

31st M

arch

Workshop to decide pilot

Choose Sectoral, Thematic & Geographic Area

List of Projects to choose & choosing process

Map where members & partners work

Review basic Conflict Information

Decide Roles & Responsibilities of Partners

Selection & Criteria Process Agreed

SIERRA LEONE

Activity 15 Feb

22 Feb

1 Mar

8 Mar

15 Mar

22 Mar

Develop TORs & EOI for conflict analysis & TOR for Consultant (CAFOD, AA, PLAN)

X

Logistical/financial planning (resources, time, money) – World Vision

X

Senior management buy-in XConflict Analysis – desk review (CAFOD) XWorkshop to agree on pilot project location; Project analysis; and comparative analysis (identifying opportunities for intervention) – Consortium

X

Consolidate findings, consider options for CS changes (Sierra Leone Consortium

X

Develop Pilot TOR (Red Cross) XDevelop M&E system for pilot (Consortium, WV & IA) XReport Writing & Validation workshop (CARE/ENCISS)

X

Pilot launch (SLANGO) X

Wrap Up

Some important M&E process indicators for a conflict sensitive pilot project include:

i. Did you perform a conflict analysis?ii. Did you do a project profile/analysis?iii. Did you do a comparative analysis?iv. Did you consider options for adaptation?

45

Exercisei. Should we develop a standard way (template) for documentation of

evidence “A” (based on conflict analysis) to be used across all countries? Yes

ii. How can each county check in on the quality of their documentation processes and results at regular intervals? (Can this responsibility be tasked to the in-country steering group?)a. Use communication networks that have been set upb. Peer support mechanisms for quality controlc. Standard reporting formats and detailed checklists

iii. Our evidence depends on:a. The rigour of our planb. How rigorously we follow that plan.How can we ensure these?

A detailed country TOR for the pilot/M&E? Expert support? Need for UK support or done in-country only External expert overseer or in-country steering committee as

v. Did you make an adaptation?

Impact indicators on the other hand are more specific to the kind of pilot project that was/is implemented. In the case of the example of the water project indicators would be:

i. Water use committee formed between two communitiesii. Reduced tension around water issuesiii. Improved understanding in community B about why community A needs a health

centre with water supply

The UK PC highlighted that it is possible to draw up a checklist of process indicators. However, it is neither desirable nor possible to draw up a checklist of impact indicators. As shown above, the impact indicators selected for the example water project are much tailored to the project and to the context. It would not be useful to apply these indicators to a different project in a different context (eg the above impact indicators would not be useful for a reproductive health project in an area where there is conflict between groups within a community). The impact indicators need to be selected after the comparative analysis has been completed. The indicators selected will be informed by both the conflict analysis and the project analysis. Impact indicators that suit one project will not necessarily be at all appropriate for a different project in a different context.

At the end of the session, participants felt their expectations on understanding conflict sensitivity indicators had been achieved. However, expectations that needed further in-country consideration included:

i. Coming up with a clear link between programming/planning/project design and M&E

ii. Developing a clear M&E framework that includes tools, and which are adaptable to different countries

iii. Will our pilot M&E integrate fully with the project M&E or will it be managed in a parallel system?

iv. Clarity on do’s and don’ts of pilot projects

46

DAY FOUR

SESSION E: ADVOCACYResource Person: Mr. Nixon Otieno, KenyaMethodology: Power point presentation, question and answers, discussions, brainstorming

The resource person began with an emphasis on the importance of appropriately packaging one’s message in advocacy. This keenness is especially more necessary in conflict sensitive practice. Secondly, one needs to decide on the advocacy strategy – whether or not it will be confrontational. While the word “advocacy” is often interpreted as a confrontation between the duty bearers and rights holders, this is not all about it, hence the line between critical engagement and constructive engagement.

In critical engagement, one is focused on pinpointing weaknesses in a system/practice/laws without suggesting what is working well that can improve on the weaknesses. It is an engagement where one is simply questioning without suggesting improvements. Constructive engagement on the other hand involves one working with the duty bearers to bring about the desired change e.g. working with the government to amend laws. But critical and constructive engagement can be interdependent.

Public advocacy was defined as a set of actions to influence and change:

Policies Practices Attitudes Decisions

See Annex 1 for presentation on Advocacy

47

48

Plenary

Question of focus of advocacy within Consortium proposal – as per the proposal the advocacy component is intended to be ‘advocacy to donors to change donor policies/practices to make them more supportive/conducive to NGO conflict sensitivity’. So our advocacy will identify ways in which donor policy/practice currently makes it hard for NGOs to be conflict sensitive, and then advocate for specific identified (and evidence based) changes to donor policy and practice, so that donors will no longer impede NGO conflict sensitivity

In any kind of advocacy conflict sensitivity is an issue because advocacy is about challenging power dynamics. Let us be the change we want to see – start with pilot before targeting others

Sri Lanka – NGOs face the danger of being blacklisted for their advocacy roles since they could be accused of being unpatriotic

The project proposal delineates between advocacy and outreach strategies – but it came out that an outreach strategy is actually part of advocacy. However, since in the project logframe there is both a commitment to advocacy and outreach strategies, it will be important to clarify what is meant. It will be necessary to share across the 4 countries our emerging ideas and plans on advocacy. The four Project Coordinators agreed to ensure that early discussions in all 4 countries would be documented and shared

The need for consistency in the advocacy messages targeted to international donors in all consortia was emphasized

We need to clarify the difference between conflict sensitive advocacy (doing normal advocacy e.g. on climate change in a conflict sensitive way) and advocacy on conflict sensitivity (doing advocacy specifically to change policies/practices related to or in support of conflict sensitivity). It was clarified that the part of our proposal related to advocacy (outcome 6) refers to the latter (doing advocacy specifically to change policies/practices related to or in support of conflict sensitivity). Each country may optionally also like to consider some case studies/pilots of conflict sensitive advocacy (how to do advocacy in a conflict sensitive way), but these would fall into either outcome 3 (change objectives) or outcome 5(pilots) rather than being considered part of the consortium advocacy work.

It was noted that the UK advocacy messages will be informed by real case studies shared by the country-level consortia in order to influence donors

SESSION F: CONFLICT ANALYSISResource Person(s): Sri LankaMethodology: Studio interview

Session Aim: The aim of the session was to share experiences on the process of doing a conflict analysis as a consortium.

Objectives

1. Ensure that lessons learnt from one country can inform the work of other countries

i. How did they decide what geographical area to cover?ii. How are they trying to consider the cumulative impacts of

development aid in that country over a given period of time?iii. How did they agree the methodology to use? (different agencies

may have their own analysis methodologies)iv. What challenges did they encounter?v. How did they overcome them?

2. Reflect on the process of conflict analysis3. Document lessons learnt (challenges and advantages) of a consortium

working on conflict analysis jointly

49

Exercise

Work in country groups:

Kenya – share on context/conflict analysis process covering challenges faced and how they managed

Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka – prepare to present their country plans acknowledging potential challenges and how to surmount them

Kenya made their presentation in plenary The UK team sat with any country team of their choice

KENYA’S CONFLICT ANALYSIS PROCESS

50

FORMED CONFLICT ANALYSIS SUB-GROUP – to lead in conflict analysis & build members’ capacity

DESK RESEARCH/ LITERATURE REVIEW (based on organisations’ info & the review identified gaps)

CONFLIC ANALYSIS/ MAPPING WORKSHOP – for feedback & conflict analysis/mapping

MAPPING OF INTERVENTIONS – to help choose on-going projects among members

FIELD ASSESSMENTS for peer pairing & accompaniment, context analysis, project understanding & triangulationFEEDBACK &

DISSEMINATION for organizational & group feedback & feedback to consortia

LINKING ANALYSIS TO PILOTING – as the first step to a pilot project

SRI LANKA CONTEXT ANALYSIS PLAN

Analysis will be:

2 places in the North (led by Saferworld, International Alert and Red Cross) 1 place in the East (led by PCA, SCISL, and World Vision) 1 place in the South (led by International Alert) 2 places in Plantation (led by CARE and World Vision)

Further:

Each of the analysis will follow a given format but approaches will be different given the different realities of the places.

There specific tools will be used in each context Foreseeable challenges are possible knowledge gaps among different regions,

time constraints and budgetary limitations The Consortium will decide on whether to select a consultant or internally handle

the assignment

51

SEPT 2009Saferworld

leads Context Analysis

NOV 2009 Draft Action

Plan Approved by

SG

DEC 2009 WORKSHO

P

METHODOLOGY

GEOGRAPHY- where to analyse/go

THEMATIC AREAS

PARTNERSHIPS

EL

EC

TIO

N

CO

NT

EX

T L

ED

TO

RE

QU

EST

FOR

MO

RE

T

IME BIG

CONCERN IS

QUALITY

Need:Grassroots analysisDesk researchNational level analysis (Saferworld, World Vision)

Once a synthesis report has been prepared, it will be consolidated, shared, validated and possibly published depending on the political environment.

SIERRA LEONE CONFLICT ANALYSIS PLAN

Potential challenges that were identified include:

i. Time constraints among consortium membersii. Capacity constraintsiii. Community’s suspiciousness about conflict analysisiv. Evasion of questions by community members (respondents)

Proposed ways of overcoming challenges

i. Recruit experienced consultantii. Deliver clear messages through awareness raisingiii. Utilisation of appropriate tools

52

WEEK 1FINALIZE TOR

FOR CONSULTANT

WEEK 3DESK

REVIEW

WEEK 5VALIDATION WORKSHOP

WEEK 6REPORT

WRITING & DISSEMINATIO

N

WEEK 4FIELD STUDY

WEEK 2BRING

CONSULTANT ON BOARD

Workshop agreed on TOOLS

CONCLUSION

At the close of the workshop, the Kenya Consortium Project Manager appreciated the members of the various consortia for their participation. Similar cordial messages of thanks came from Sierra Leone, UK and Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan team particularly looked forward to hosting members of the global consortium in their country (for the next event).

All participants were especially appreciative of the lead facilitator’s and workshop administrator’s excellent roles.

In her closing remarks, the Action Aid International-Kenya (AAIK) Country Director observed that the conflict sensitivity project has picked up well. She noted that AAIK values cross learning and encouraged members to continue dialogue with the energy that characterised the meeting adding that ground breaking policy interventions would be made at the end.

53

ANNEX 1: HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE/SHARE KNOWLEDGE IN REAL TIME?

1. Define parameters to determine approacha. Why share information?

i. Transfer knowledge (“Aha moments”, challenges etc) so others benefit from experiences

ii. Problem solvingiii. Feedback

b. What to share?i. Documentation (reports, proposals, TORs)

ii. Processesiii. Light bulb moments/setbacks

c. Who to share with?i. Other members of the country consortia i.e. each other

ii. At a later stage, members of the public (other agencies, partners etc) to raise awareness and visibility of conflict sensitivity

2. Google groups (initially to facilitate pilot implementation) and interactive project website

a. Why Google group?i. Privacy/security – yahoo is monitored by governments and is not

feasible in certain contextsii. Conformist – Organisations have policies against use of social

networking sitesiii. Exclusive – can focus on conflict sensitivity issues without

personal messages/updates3. Way forward

a. Hash to set up CSA Consortia e-groupb. Sarah B to administer and moderate (helped by country project

coordinators)c. Everyone to register/use/shared. Sarah B continues development of project website (finalised documents,

proposals, self assessments, TORs etc). Such an interactive website would be an ideal replacement of the e-group option

e. Multi-country working group to give direction on communication/sharing strategy (Sarah B and one country representative)

f. The implementation of any decisions is the ultimate responsibility of overall Project Coordinator

4. Considerationsa. Everyone needs a Google accountb. “Notification overload” – the question of email alert per contributionc. Content must be kept relevant and conflict sensitive (avoid political

commentaries and personal messages, and stick to CSA pilot information only)

d. Time differences have a bearing on defining “real time”e. Individual motivation and participation

54

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP ASSESSMENT

Aim: The aim of the evaluation was to provide feedback regarding the workshop for the purpose of informing future processes.

Note: Twenty four people Participated in the evaluation. One of these, however, did not evaluate all items. Thirty nine people were registered for the workshop.

ITEM Very Good

Good Fair Poor Comments

Meeting of workshop Objectives

4 20 Its good how at the end we really focused on how to take things forward.

Quality of presentations 4 18 2 The advocacy power-point was interesting but not so relevant to our work in the consortium and not really that engaging. Otherwise the presentations were great.

Quality of workshop resources 4 20Quality of participation 20 3Workshop facilitation 16 7 Facilitation by Apondi was

really great. Thank you!Pre-workshop information 1 6 12 4 Agenda was very last

minute.Workshop administration 10 11 2 It was good except for the

hotel and airport transport on arrival

Time Allocation (4 days) 2 19 3Workshop time management 4 20Accommodation 10 12 1 Not many TV

channels. Faulty shower.

Food 3 8 12

Comments

There needed to be more in-depth discussion on challenges

Advice for Future Consortium Fora

Field visits need to also focus on conflict sensitivity project activities Flights/transits – make travel arrangements more friendly (to avoid having

members wait for long hours for their connection flights)

55

PARKING LOT

The parking lot was the information that was left on flip chart to be carried forward.

i. Consortia to document case studies on where donor conditionality has led to conflict.ii. How do we inspire members of the consortia to be committed?iii. Need to look at village based “stories” of C.S. projects as well as NGO/INGO based

case studies.iv. Each country to write up their context analysis and strategy.

The following two questions were not conclusively answered during the workshop and the consortium may want to post it in the website or a chat room for people to respond to:

Question 1: How can each country check in on the quality of their documentation processes and results at regular intervals? (Can this question be tasked to the in-country steering group?)

Answers:

1. Link to regular reporting requirements – log frame can give some guidance.2. Using communication networks sup up peer support mechanisms for quality control.3. Standardized reporting formats and detailed check lists.

Note: Three people responded to this question.

Question 2: Our evidence depends on:a. The rigor of our plan.b. How rigorously we follow that plan.

How can we ensure these? (A detailed country T.O.R for the pilot/M&E? Expert support? Need for U.K. support or done in-country only?External expert overseer or in-country steering committee as overseers?)

Answers:

a. A detailed country T.O.R for the pilot/M&Eb. Expert support if needed with clear T.O.R.c. Done in-country only.d. In-country steering committee as overseers

Note: Only one person responded to this question

Reflection by one participant.

If the aim of the pilot is; “To undertake an action oriented case study of how to do conflict sensitive programming (at the project level)”. Then a question we need to reflect on is:- “In order to do what?”

56

57