coalitions for peace: preventing atrocities and … · 2020. 9. 3. · the peace committees in...

MIDLINE EVALUATION

STRENGTHENING COALITIONS FOR PEACE: PREVENTING ATROCITIES AND FOSTERING SOCIAL INCLUSION IN CENTRAL

AFRICAN REPUBLIC

FINAL REPORT JULY 2020

Contacts:

Hama Sidi Yacouba Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator Search for Common Ground Bangui (RCA) [email protected]

Michel Pierre Mbei Country Program Manager Search for Common Ground Bangui (RCA) [email protected]

Search for Common Ground | Central African Republic 2

Contents Abbreviations and Acronyms 3Executive Summary 41 Introduction 62 Context and Background of the Project 63 Methodology 8

3.1 Objectives 83.2 Data collection 8

3.2.1 Survey 83.2.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) 93.2.3 Key Informant Interviews (KII) 10

3.3 Data Analysis and Report Writing 103.4 Limitations 10

4 Results 114.1 Level of Achievement of the Results (Evaluation Objective 1) 11

4.1.1 Mid-term Values for the Indicators on Empowerment of Local Peace Structures 114.1.2 Mid-term Values for the Indicators on Social Cohesion and Inclusion 144.1.3 Mid-term Values for the Indicators on the Consultative Process 174.1.4 Table of Indicators – Mid-term Results 19

4.2 Sustainable Changes in Social Norms/Institutions (Evaluation Objective 2) 244.3 Lessons Learned and Religious Tolerance (Evaluation Objective 3) 274.4 Risk Assessment (Evaluation Objective 3) 32

5 Recommandations 356 Conclusions 37Annexes 38

Annex I: Survey Questionnaire (in French) Annex II: Interview Guide Questions for the Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews (in French)

This report was written by Beatrice Winkler, Independent Consultant English version: 27.07.2020 Photo: Bambari Action Plan Workshop, © Search for Common Ground


Abbreviations and Acronyms

AFPC Association of Female Communication Professionals (Association des Femmes Professionnelles de la Communication)

CAR Central African Republic CNJCA National Council of Central African Youth

(Conseil National de la Jeunesse Centrafricaine) DAC Development Assistance Committee DDR Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration DME Design, Monitoring and Evaluation DRL Democracy, Human Rights and Labor FACA Central African Armed Forces FGD Focus Group Discussion KII Key Informant Interview MINUSCA United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central

African Republic NGO Non-governmental Organization OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development SCRCA Civil Society in Central African Republic SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences ToC Theory of Change


Executive Summary

Seven years after the start of the violent conflict in 2013, the security situation in the Central African Republic (CAR) remains volatile despite the deployment of a peacekeeping mission (MINUSCA) in 2014 and a peace agreement signed in February 2019. In light of the ongoing conflict, the international NGO Search for Common Ground (Search) strives to contribute to lasting peace with its project "Strengthening Coalitions for Peace: Preventing Atrocities and Fostering Social Inclusion in the Central African Republic", funded by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL).

The DRL project

This project, with a duration of 30 months, is being implemented in coordination with local partners in Bangui and Bambari. It aims at empowering local peace structures, promoting social cohesion and religious tolerance, as well as at fostering dialogue and constructive engagement between citizens and authorities. One year after the start of the project, a midline evaluation was conducted and the results of this evaluation are presented in this report.

Methodology Used for the Midline Evaluation

The evaluation was conducted by Search with the support of an external consultant for data analysis and report writing. Search collected quantitative and qualitive data through a field study in Bangui and Bambari, which included a survey with a structured questionnaire that was administered to 394 people, 15 focus group discussions (FGDs) and 14 individual interviews with key project stakeholders (KIIs). The midline evaluation used the same methodology as the baseline study that had been carried out at the beginning of the project, and was therefore able to assess whether the activities implemented had already produced results in line with initial expectations.

Results of the Midline Evaluation

The values of the project indicators collected during the midline evaluation confirm that, in general, the project is on the right track and that initial positive effects can already be observed.

For the indicators on the empowerment of peace structures, the target has already been reached for three out of four indicators corresponding to this objective. However, more focus should be put on empowering the peace committees in Bangui, as their values of the indicators are significantly lower than those of Bambari. In terms of promoting social cohesion and inclusion, the mid-term values of the indicators show that the situation has clearly improved since the start of the project, particularly in Bambari. However, they also show that still more effort is needed on restoring mutual trust between the two communities. Thus, more opportunities for interaction between the communities should be created for young people and women, especially in Bangui. For the indicators relating to the consultative process, the mid-term values also show a positive trend, but both in Bangui and Bambari, they also highlight that young people do not yet have enough opportunities to express themselves in terms of peace and security. Moreover, the important role of young people as agents of social change is not always recognized by the authorities.

As illustrated by the various results, religious tolerance and social cohesion among communities that are vulnerable to atrocities have significantly improved and could become a new social norm, especially in Bambari. However, a number of key stakeholders consulted still consider religious tolerance and social cohesion to be fragile and superficial. The continuation of project activities has the potential to contribute to further sustainability of this change.


For almost all indicators, the mid-term values for Bangui are lower than those of Bambari, pointing towards a better social cohesion, a higher level of collaboration at the local level for peace between different groups and a better impact of activities in Bambari. Possible explanations for this can be found in more detail in Chapter 4.3. They include the concentration of project activities in Bambari, the presence of other actors working on peacebuilding in Bambari, the lack of local peace committees as well as ongoing tensions between youth and authorities in some districts of Bangui and the very limited reach of Search’s radio broadcasts due to the stations chosen for this purpose.

Most of the respondents who participated in any of the project’s activities expressed their appreciation of the activities, stressing in particular the usefulness and importance of the training and awareness-raising activities on tolerance and social cohesion. In conclusion, the project can be considered highly relevant. It responds to the needs of the populations consulted in that it involves local actors in promoting collaboration between communities for peace, it strengthens the skills and opportunities needed to prevent and manage conflicts, and it builds the communities’ awareness of peace and social cohesion while creating more opportunities for interaction and dialogue.

Recommandations

Based on the good practices and areas for improvement and risks identified in this midline evaluation, the following recommendations should enable Search to further refine its intervention strategy and enhance the desired impact. They are formulated in more detail in Chapter 5 and cover the following aspects:

(1) Integrating the lessons drawn from the midline evaluation in the project implementation: It is recommended to share the results of this midline evaluation with the implementing partners (SCRCA, AFPC, CNJCA) and to find a participatory strategy with which to integrate the lessons learned and to address the areas for improvement in the implementation of the project.

(2) Focusing more of the efforts on Bangui: It is recommended to place particular emphasis on empowering local peace committees in Bangui and to obtain a better understanding of the obstacles they face in their work. In addition, the project should aim at creating more opportunities for interaction for young people and at fostering dialogue between young people and local authorities (mayors) in Bangui.

(3) Maximizing the impact of the trainings: It is recommended to analyze, in detail, the weak points of the post-tests (used in the trainings for local peace committees) in order to identify which aspects of the mediation and consultation trainings were not well understood by the participants and to adjust and improve the curriculum and pedagogical approach accordingly.

(4) Focusing on promoting the involvement of women and especially of young people: It is recommended to create (within the framework of the project) more opportunities for women and young people to express their views on peace and security (e.g. through a special radio talk-show), and to continue to sensitize local authorities in Bangui on the importance of working with young people.

(5) Enhancing the impact of the project’s radio broadcasts: It is recommended to broadcast the project’s radio spots and shows via more popular radio stations (e.g. Radio Ndeke Luka).

(6) Improving the project’s visibility, communication, coordination and monitoring: It is recommended to strengthen regular communication on the project and its activities in order to contribute to a better visibility and a conflict-sensitive approach.

(7) Including additional aspects for the final evaluation: It is recommended to repeat the survey during the final evaluation, to integrate the views of the implementing partners, the network of the SCRCA, the AFPC and the CNJCA, to evaluate the coordination of the project activities and to include the external consultant in the development of the data collection instruments.


1 Introduction

Since May 2019, the international NGO Search for Common Ground (Search) has been implementing the project "Strengthening Coalitions for Peace: Preventing Atrocities and Fostering Social Inclusion in the Central African Republic". This project is funded by the U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL), has a total duration of 30 months1 and combines engagement at the local level in strategic but unstable regions of the country (Bambari and Bangui) with engagement at the national level to support durable peace in the country.

After a bit more than a year of implementation, a midline evaluation took place in order to adjust and refine the strategy and draw the first conclusions. The evaluation (methodology and data collection) was carried out by Search with the external support of a consultant who analyzed the data and drafted the report. This report presents the methodology used, the main results and lessons learned from this midline evaluation, and provides recommendations for the continuation of the project. The results were compared with the values from the baseline study carried out at the beginning of the project2 in order to determine whether the activities carried out are already producing results in line with initial expectations.

2 Context and Background of the Project

The security situation in Central African Republic (CAR) remains volatile despite the deployment of a UN peacekeeping mission (MINUSCA) in 2014 and the signing of a peace agreement in February 2019 between the government and fourteen armed groups (Khartoum Agreement)3. This peace agreement is at least the sixth agreement that has been signed with armed groups since 2013. In 2013, a coalition of armed groups known as Seleka, took control of Bangui, and a violent conflict between the armed groups of the Seleka and the Anti-Balaka drew the whole country into a long, violent crisis that persists to this day4. It is estimated that 600'000 people have fled to neighboring countries and that 682'000 people are still internally displaced5.

Within the framework of the peace agreement of 2019, the government committed to appoint certain leaders of armed groups to senior government positions and to integrate fighters of these groups into the national Army6, however, the implementation of the agreement has been described as “patchy”7. Even if there have been fewer direct clashes between armed groups in 2019, armed groups still control about 70% of the country8 and continue to perpetrate violent attacks against the civilian population (killings, kidnappings, lootings, and the appropriation and destruction of property9).

As one of the conditions for the success of the Khartoum Agreement, the International Crisis Group has highlighted that “the government and its allies should also support local peace initiatives, which have had

1 The duration of the project has been extended from 18 to 30 months. 2 Baseline study, Étude de base et cartographie, Mai 2019 3 ACAPS, CAR (2020) 4 International Crisis Group (2020), A la recherche de l’Etat en République Centrafricaine 5 OCHA (2020), Overview Population Movements CAR 6 International Crisis Group (2019), Dernier Accord en RCA: les conditions du succès 7 International Crisis Group (2020), A la recherche de l’Etat en République Centrafricaine 8 Human Rights Watch (2020), World Report, Chapter on CAR 9 Humanitarian Response Plan, OCHA, CAR, 2020


some success in forging truces, resolving disputes and reducing bloodshed in provinces where armed groups operate”10.

Against this backdrop, Search has decided to launch a project that aims at strengthening these local structures and coalitions for peace, at fostering inclusion and social cohesion, and at preventing atrocities. This project, funded by DRL, is implemented in cooperation with three local partners: the network of the Civil Society in Central African Republic (SCRCA), the Association of Female Communication Professionals (AFPC) and the National Council of Central African Youth (CNJCA).

The project is based on the following Theory of Change (ToC):

If there is an engagement at the local level, in strategic but unstable regions of the country (Bambari and Bangui), as well as at the national level that bridges gaps and dividing lines to prevent religious violence and atrocities; If the resilience of vulnerable communities, especially youth, is strengthened; If a coalition of local peace actors, including local peace committees, youth and religious leaders is empowered; then the impact in collaboration will be strengthened among key actors to identify and respond effectively to threats of violence and religious tolerance and religious freedoms will be safeguarded in targeted communities, because communities across the dividing lines will be mobilized towards social cohesion and constructive dialogue, and engagement to support sustainable peace in the country will be fostered.

The specific objectives of the project are: ▪ OBS1: Empowering peace structures, including peace committees, local leaders, local officials and

government representatives to respond to the immediate risk of violence in certain areas of CAR; ▪ OBS2: Fostering social cohesion and inclusion that promotes religious tolerance in communities

vulnerable to atrocities; ▪ OBS3: Creating a consultative process that mobilizes citizen buy-in to national-level processes and

institutions critical to stability and durable peace, preventing rumors and stimulating constructive dialogue and local ownership.

To achieve these objectives, the following activities have been/will be implemented: ▪ Identification and capacity-building of peace mentors; ▪ Training of religious leaders in Bangui and Bambari in leadership skills, human rights, freedom of

religion, citizenship and religious literacy; ▪ Capacity-building and development of an advocacy and action plan for local peace structures;

exchange visits for local peace structures; ▪ Large-scale peace initiatives led by local peace structures; ▪ Facilitation of information-sharing and dialogue platforms on local security; ▪ SMS and Facebook campaigns against violence and training of moderators; ▪ Mobile cinema screenings; ▪ Production and broadcast of a radio soap opera in Sango (City of Peace); ▪ Inter-community solidarity activities and town hall forums on security and peace; ▪ Strategic communication planning workshops; ▪ Campaign on inter-religious cooperation for peace communication

10 International Crisis Group (2019), Dernier Accord en RCA: les conditions du succès


3 Methodology

3.1 Objectives This midline evaluation has four main objectives:

1. To assess the level of achievement of results, including the collection of mid-term values of the indicators of the logical framework;

2. To assess the extent to which the project has contributed to changes in social norms and institutions in a sustainable manner;

3. To identify lessons learned from the project implementation and to understand the level of religious tolerance in communities vulnerable to atrocities;

4. To conduct an assessment of the risks and opportunities for peace and provide recommendations on programming in order to ensure that the ‘Do No Harm’ principle and a conflict-sensitive approach are respected.

In order to meet these four objectives and to provide answers to the evaluation questions formulated under each objective (see Chapter 4), Search conducted a field study among target groups in Bangui and Bambari through a survey, focus group discussions (FGDs), and key informant interviews (KIIs). The mixed methodology (quantitative/qualitative) and the data collection tools were developed by Search based on the methodology of the baseline study carried out in May 2019 in order to be able to optimally compare the two data sets. The data analysis and the writing of this report was done by an external consultant in order to include a more objective view on the project.

3.2 Data collection

3.2.1 Survey For the survey, Search used a structured questionnaire and mobilized 6 enumerators in Bangui and Bambari who conducted interviews over 5 days in each of the two localities. The enumerators were trained for two days on data collection techniques, data quality, ‘Do No Harm’ and conflict sensitivity and could practice their new skills in a practical simulation. All activities were directly supervised by the Design, Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator (DME). Quantitative data was collected with Kobo Collect and then transferred to SPSS for tabulation.

Sample composition: Based on the overall population of Bambari and Bangui, a sample of 380 persons was considered as representative (with a 95% confidence interval and a 5% margin of error (risk) for each city). In the end, 394 persons were included, 200 in Bangui and 194 in Bambari. To ensure both geographical and demographic representativeness, each city was first divided into strata (neighborhoods and districts). The following table provides an overview on the sample, disaggregated by place, gender and age groups:

Place No. of population

Sample size Sample disaggregated by

Sample disaggregated by age groups

Women Men Under 18

18-30 31-45 Over 45

Bangui 901958 200 91 109 10 114 57 19 Bambari 59854 194 93 101 13 124 40 17 Total 961812 394 184

(46.7%) 210

(53.3%) 23

(5.8%) 238

(60.4%) 97

(24.6%) 36

(9.2%) Gender and Age: The sample contains more male than female respondents and 18 to 30 years of age is


the most represented age group in the sample. While in the present sample, the median age is 27 years (30 in Bangui and 25 in Bambari), the median age of the Central African population in general is 20 years11.

Religion: The sample is also biased in terms of the representation of the different religious groups as shown in the following table. While 77% of respondents are Christians, the Muslim religion is represented at 15.2% (with a higher representation in Bambari than in Bangui). For comparison, in the baseline study, the Christian religion was represented at 63.4%.

Place Sample disaggregated by religious groups Catholic Protestant Muslim Animist Other Refusal to

answer Bangui 63 105 20 0 10 2 Bambari 87 49 40 3 14 1 Total 150 (38.1%) 154 (39.1%) 60 (15.2%) 3 (0.8%) 24 (6.1%) 3 (0.7%)

Level of Education: As in the baseline study, the majority (56.6%) of respondents finished high school (lycée), followed by those who finished primary school (20.8%). The percentage of respondents having finished tertiary education was higher in Bangui (19.5%) than in Bambari (7.7%). This distribution is not surprising given the fact that Bambari has no university and that in general, the survey was carried out in two big cities.

Socio-economic Category: While in the baseline study, the most represented category was the category of traders/storekeepers (32.6%), in this midline evaluation, the most frequent socio-economic categories were those of students (26.9%) and traders/storekeepers (25.9%), both in Bangui and Bambari.

Local Peace Committees: The sampling took into account the two levels of implementation: communities and local peace structures. Members of the peace structures surveyed were asked additional questions. Among the members of the local peace structures, 76 people (37 in Bangui and 39 in Bambari; 45 men and 31 women) were surveyed. Of these 76 people, 54% are between 18 and 30 years of age.

3.2.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) Besides the survey, Search also held 15 focus group discussions (10 in Bangui and 5 in Bambari) with 8 participants each – 3 FGDs more than anticipated in the ToR. The discussions were being held based on a discussion guide (see Annex II for the questions asked). Homogenous groups with the following participant groups were organized, but the geographic distribution was not as balanced as initially planned12:

▪ Adult women (2 in Bangui and 0 in Bambari) ▪ Adult men (2 in Bangui and 0 in Bambari) ▪ Young Muslim men (2 in Bangui and 1 in Bambari) ▪ Young Christian men (3 in Bangui and 1 in Bambari) ▪ Young Muslim women (0 in Bangui and 2 in Bambari) ▪ Young Christian women (1 in Bangui and 1 in Bambari)

11 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ct.html 12 According to the ToR, 1 group per place and category was planned


3.2.3 Key Informant Interviews (KII) Search also conducted 14 out of 21 planned individual interviews with the following interlocutors, using an interview guide (see Annex II for questions asked):

Type of interlocutor Nr total

Bangui Bambari

City Hall 4 3 Mayors 1st Vice-Mayor

Subprefecture 1 1 Deputy Prefect

Implementing partners

2 1 Coordinator (SCRCA) 1 Prefectural Council (CPJO / CNJCA)

Presenters of partnering radios

2 2 Presenters (Radio Notre Dame, Radio ESCA)

Religious leaders 2 1 Priest 1 Iman and 1 Priest

Traditional leaders 4 4 leaders (chefs de groupe)

Total 14

Additional interviews planned in Bambari with representatives of the national gendarmerie, the national police, the Armed Forces (FACA) and the MINUSCA could not be conducted because, according to Search, the representatives that had participated in the project’s security morning activity had been transferred to another region.

3.3 Data Analysis and Report Writing The survey data was analyzed using Jamovi, a statistical package similar to SPSS, and Excel for the development of charts. The analysis looked at possible differences between: the respondents of the two locations, men and women, age groups and, if relevant, other control groups (e.g. members of local peace committees and participants in Search’s project activities). To improve the readability of the report, the data is mostly disaggregated where differences are significant and deserve special attention. The qualitative data was analyzed using an Excel grid that allowed for a comparison of the data according to different criteria, cities and targets. The results of the analysis are presented in Chapter 4 according to the various evaluation objectives and questions; results, sustainable changes in social norms and institutions, lessons learned and religious tolerance and risk assessment.

3.4 Limitations ▪ The midline evaluation focuses on the four evaluation objectives mentioned under 3.1 and is

therefore not specifically based on the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria. ▪ Since the survey sample is slightly biased (at the level of the different age groups) and does not include

an equal number of Christian and Muslim respondents (neither for the survey nor for the FGDs), results and comparisons between groups should be interpreted with caution. In addition, a certain courtesy bias cannot be ruled out in the sense that for some questions, respondents may have tended to give an opinion which is more socially correct than their true opinion.

▪ It emerges from the analysis that some questions in both the survey and during FGDs/KIIs were not well understood by respondents, which may be related to the translation of questions/answers from French to Sango and vice versa, or to the wording of the question itself.

▪ For the risk assessment (Evaluation Objective 3), qualitative data was collected through FGDs and KIIs. Questions related to this aspect from the baseline study were not included in the midline survey, therefore no in-depth analysis of how the context and risks have changed since the beginning of project implementation has been possible.


4 Results

The results of the midline evaluation are structured according to the four main evaluation objectives and the corresponding key evaluation questions.

4.1 Level of Achievement of the Results (Evaluation Objective 1)

This first chapter aims at meeting the objective of assessing the extent to which results have been achieved, including the provision of mid-term values for the indicators included in the logical framework. The full logical framework with the different indicators at outcome and output levels, completed with baseline and mid-term values can be found at the end of this chapter under 4.1.4. Hereafter, the mid-term values of the indicators requested in the ToR are mentioned and put into relation to the results of the survey, the baseline study of 2019 and the qualitative data collected in the FGDs and KIIs. For each indicator, it is indicated whether the target has been met (green), if progress is on track (blue), if special attention is needed despite improvement (orange) or if the result is not positive at all (red).

4.1.1 Mid-term Values for the Indicators on Empowerment of Local Peace Structures

Specific Objective 1: To empower peace structures, including peace committees, local leaders, local officials, and government representatives to respond to the immediate risk of violence in select areas in CAR

Indicator 1: % of surveyed stakeholders who report feeling empowered to peacefully respond to immediate risk of violence in selected areas in CAR

Baseline:

Total: 72,9% Bangui: 73,4% / Bambari: 72,3%

Mid-term value: Target met

Total: 84,0% (Men: 86,7% / Women: 81,0%) Bangui: 73,0% / Bambari: 95,4% Participants project activities Search: 87,9% Members peace committees: 96,1%

Target: 80%

In general, a very large number of the people surveyed (84%) stated that they feel they have the capacity to respond peacefully to immediate risks of violence. This capacity seems to increase with age (< 18 years of age: 78.3%; 18-30 years of age: 83.2%; 31-45 years of age: 86.6%; > 45 years of age: 86.1%). These mid-term values show a general improvement since the beginning of the project which is mainly due to the significant positive increase in Bambari (95% in 2020 compared to 72.3% in May 2019).

These values (both baseline and mid-term values) include all respondents. However, as this indicator is primarily used to measure the progress and impact of Search's work on the empowerment of peace structures, it seems more appropriate to focus solely on the capacity of the members of peace structures surveyed or the participants in Search’s project activities. Among the project participants surveyed, 87.9% (76% in Bangui and 98.1% in Bambari) considered having the capacity to respond peacefully to risks of violence. Among the members of peace structures surveyed, this percentage even reached 96.1% (94.6% in Bangui and 97.4% in Bambari). While this seems to indicate a positive impact of Search's activities on the capacity to respond peacefully to risks of violence, it cannot be confirmed due to the lack of a baseline value for this specific group of people.

Across all these results, the values are lower for respondents from Bangui, a trend which is also confirmed by the FGDs and KIIs. According to these discussions, there are no local peace committees in some districts (arrondissements) of Bangui (e.g. 6th and 8th arrondissement). In general, in Bangui, there seems to be less social cohesion than in Bambari, which may be due to tensions that persist in some areas of Bangui (see also 4.2). In addition, Search's trainings for local peace structures have mainly targeted Bambari since the beginning of the project. It is important that Search does not neglect the peace structures in Bangui.


Ind.1.1: % of members of the trained local peace structures/mentors who have new knowledge related to mediation and consultation processes

Baseline: 0

Mid-term value: Target met Total based on pre-/post-test: 100% Total based on survey13: Mediation: 63,2% (M: 60% / W: 67.7%) Bangui: 62,2% / Bambari: 64,1%

Consultation: 55,3% (M: 55,6% / W: 84,8%) Bangui: 48,6% / Bambari: 61,5%

Target: 85%

Of the analysis of the pre-/post-test results of the members of local peace structures who participated in Search’s trainings, 100% of the people who completed the test scored better in the post-test, meaning that they have acquired new skills. On average, the result improved by 12.4%. However, this percentage needs to be put into perspective. On a 50-point scale, participants scored an average of 21.1 points in the pre-test and an average of 27.3 points in the post-test, following the training, which is not a huge improvement. It is recommended that Search uses the results of the test to analyze which parts of the training were not well understood, and to revise the methodology accordingly to ensure that the training really achieves the desired impact.

Among the survey respondents, 54 members (71.1%) out of the 76 members of a peace structure surveyed participated in a training of the DRL project (62.2% in Bangui and 79.5% in Bambari). These members attended a training in mediation, consultation or both (see table above for exact percentages).

According to the members of the peace committees consulted, their structures have between 0 and 300 members, on average 28.4 members (average of 32.8 members in Bangui and of 24.3 members in Bambari). An average of 10.9 members (10.5 in Bangui and 11.1 in Bambari) have been trained in mediation and an average of 8.31 members have been trained in consultation (4.83 in Bangui and 10.9 in Bambari). This still leaves a large number of members who have not been trained in these two fields.

In general, the members of these structures seem to take their roles seriously. A participant trained in mediation and consultation stated: "It is my job to talk about peace and social cohesion within the family and with others around me" and a woman from a peace structure in Bambari said that she had already intervened to resolve a problem between the two communities, even though she was not trained in mediation. Training can therefore be very important for the members of these structures in order to equip them with the tools and knowledge they need to carry out their work. Considering the lower values in terms of the capacity to respond peacefully to conflicts among members of local peace structures in Bangui and among the general population surveyed in Bangui, it seems appropriate to focus future trainings on the local peace structures in Bangui, and to promote knowledge sharing between members who have been trained and those who have not yet had the opportunity to participate in a training (see Chapter 5, recommendation 2a).

Ind.1.1.3: % of local peace structures that developed an action plan and implemented initiatives of the plan

Baseline: 0

Mid-term value: on track Total: 72,4% Bangui: 70,3% / Bambari: 74,4%

Target: 95%

13 As the survey includes only a portion of the members of peace structures, this indication cannot be used to assess the level of achievement of this project indicator. These values are added for information purposes only.


The results of the survey show that 72.4% or 55 out of the 76 members of a peace structure surveyed have already developed an action plan and implemented initiatives (70.3% in Bangui and 74.4% in Bambari), which is a very good mid-term result.

The 55 members of peace structures that have developed an action plan mentioned that their plans include, on average, 4.16 initiatives (min. 0, max. 15) of which an average of 1.96 initiatives have already been implemented. With the activities that are still planned until the end of the project (e.g. 1 training and 3 exchange visits), Search and its local partners will continue to support local peace structures in developing action plans and implementing them. In individual interviews, three interlocutors pointed out that the implementation of the activities and initiatives foreseen in the action plan also depend on financial means and that a lack thereof can hinder their implementation.

Ind.1.2: % of members of the targeted local peace structures who report collaborating with other local security actors on a peace or mediation initiative

Baseline: Total: 76,5% Bangui: 85,7% / Bambari: 70%

Mid-term value: Target met Total: 89,5% (M: 86,7% / W: 93,5%) Bangui: 81,1% / Bambari: 97,4%

Target: 80%

Compared to the beginning of the project, members of the targeted local peace structures seem to have more frequently collaborated with other actors on a peace or mediation initiative, especially in Bambari where the percentage has increased from 70 to 97.4%. These results show that the local peace structures play their part and are committed to contribute to durable peace in their communities. The results of the interviews and focus group discussions fully reflect this observation. In Bambari, young Muslims and Christians, the religious leaders, the deputy prefect, the traditional chiefs and the mayor all agreed unanimously that there is a good, even "perfect" collaboration between the various local actors. As one group of young men stated: "Yes, there is a frank collaboration between the different committees (on both sides) and this collaboration has an influence on peace in the locality".

For this indicator, the value for Bangui is again significantly lower than the one of Bambari (and even slightly below the baseline value), but still meets the target of 80%. The opinions of FGD and KII respondents from Bangui differed strongly in regards to the collaboration of these committees with other actors (whenever there are local peace committees in place) and the collaboration among all actors in general. It seems important that Search discusses this in more detail with the different committees in Bangui in order to fully understand the main obstacles and challenges they face in collaborating with other actors (see Chapter 5, recommendation 2b).

According to the survey results, women appear to collaborate more with other actors than men, and on average, the local peace structures have collaborated with other actors on 1-2 initiatives. Only very generic examples were mentioned, such as raising awareness on social cohesion, peace and security, mobilization of youth etc. With the exception of four people who mentioned the MINUSCA, the church, a network of female leaders and the local platforms and committees of a district in Bangui, the responses did not provide any detailed information on the context of the collaboration, nor the actor with whom the structures collaborated (see Chapter 5, recommendation 7a).


4.1.2 Mid-term Values for the Indicators on Social Cohesion and Inclusion

Specific Objective 2: To foster social cohesion and inclusion that promotes religious tolerance in communities vulnerable to atrocities.

Ind.2: Improvement in ability of communities to work together (levels of empathy, commitment to working across the aisle for peaceful solutions, trust etc. will be assessed)

As shown in the chart above, the vast majority of respondents (96.9%) noted a positive evolution of relations between communities in the last 3 months, especially in Bambari (see 4.2 for more details). A majority of 94.2% also confirmed their willingness to collaborate with "the other". The target of 85% has therefore already been topped at mid-term and no significant difference was observed between male and female respondents. The chart also shows that empathy levels have evolved positively with regards to the following two aspects:

▪ Inter-community Marriage (Q: My community is pleased if a member of the other community marries a member of my community): 87.3% of respondents (compared to 71.1% in May 2019) agree or strongly agree with this statement and there are even people among the respondents who themselves married a member of another religious community. The difference between Bangui and Bambari, as well as between men and women is not significant. Even if the groups are not really comparable due to the biased sampling, it should be noted that only 55% of Muslim respondents agreed or strongly agreed with this statement, compared to 94.1% of Christian respondents.

▪ Death of a Member of Another Community (Q: My community feels sad if a member of the other community dies): 89.1% of respondents (compared to 62.2% in May 2019) agree or strongly agree with this statement. For this question, the most significant difference could be observed between respondents from Bambari (99%) and those from Bangui (79.5%).

Even though 94.2% of respondents (compared to 82.4% in May 2019) reported that their community is willing to work together with "the other" for peace (whatever the definition of "the other" is) - a very positive sign of their willingness to unite for peace - just a minority of 23.6% (32.4% in Bangui and 14.4% in Bambari) compared to 25.2% in May 2019 disagree with the following statement: “Members of my community have no interest in initiating activities with members of other communities”. This result would imply that people in Bambari are not at all interested in initiating activities with members of other communities. However, such a conclusion does not correspond to the general results of the survey, the

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

Positive evolution of therelationship in the last 3 months

Willingness of the communityto collaborate with "the other"

(Very) high levels of empathy(inter-community marriage)

(Very) high levels of empathy(death of a member of another

community)

Evolution of the relationship between the communities, their willingness to work together and evolution of the levels of empathy

Baseline value (2019) Total (2020) Bangui (2020) Bambari (2020) Target


FGDs and KIIs that indicate a good social cohesion and a great interest in working together for peace among respondents in Bambari. It therefore seems more likely that the question was not well understood because of the negation in the sentence. If the survey is repeated at the end of the project, it is recommended to ask this question in a different, less confusing way (see Chapter 5, recommendation 7a).

Ind.2.1: % of respondents who have a positive perception of “the other”

The survey respondents do not uniformly share the same definition of "the other". For 37.8% of respondents (42.5% in Bangui and 33% in Bambari), "the other" refers to "people from another country" while for 29.2% (17% in Bangui and 41.8% in Bambari), "the other" is rather someone who belongs to a different family. The responses between women and men are almost identical. The percentage corresponding to a perception of "the other" as a "representative of a different religion or ethnic group" remains at a high level (30.5% in Bangui and 22% in Bambari) compared to 4.7 % in May 2019. Given these different definitions of "the other" and a possible courtesy bias, the different responses on the perception, respect and trust of "the other" should be interpreted with caution. The following chart illustrates how the perception, respect and trust have evolved since the beginning of the project:

▪ Perception of "the other" (Target met): The above chart shows that the perception of "the other" is currently much more positive than at the beginning of the project (91.1% have a positive or very positive perception of "the other" compared to 63.0% in May 2019) and has already exceeded the target of 85% in both locations. Among those who participated in this project’s activities, 95.3% have a positive or very positive perception of "the other".

▪ Respect for "the other" (On track): The levels of respect for "the other" have also increased. While in May 2019, 55.5% of respondents indicated a high or very high level of respect for "the other", half-way through the project, this percentage has increased to 70.1% of respondents. Among those who have participated in this project’s activities, even 77.9% indicate having a high or very high respect for "the other".

▪ Trust in "the other" (Special attention needed): Although trust in "the other" has also increased since the beginning of the project, special attention will need to be paid to activities that contribute to social cohesion and allow communities to interact with each other in order to promote trust. Only 48.2% of respondents (41.0% in Bangui and 55.6% in Bambari) indicate having a high or very high level of trust in each other, 34.8% have a moderate level of trust in the "the other" and 16.5% have a low or very low level of trust in "the other". It should be noted that women generally seem to have less trust in "the other" than men (45.7% of women responded having a (very) high level of trust in "the other" compared to 50.4% of men). Even among those who participated in Search’s project activities, only 51.0% indicated having a high or very high level of trust in "the other".

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

(Very) positive perception (Very) high respect (Very) high trust

Evolution of perception, respect and trust since the beginning of the project (total as well as by location and gender)

Baseline (2019) Total (2020) Bangui (2020) Bambari (2020) Men Women Target


The following chart compares the levels of perception, respect and trust among the various age groups:

It can be observed that older people globally seem to have less respect for "the other" and trust "the other" less than other age groups. In general, the charts for this indicator show that despite a positive development, more effort is needed to build trust and respect among the target communities, especially in Bangui. "There is improvement, but I don't trust them" explained one respondent from Bangui. It also emerged from the different FGDs and KIIs that some people consider their religious group to be more tolerant than other groups. Such generalizations show that social cohesion is still very fragile and that the process of building trust takes a long time. According to a religious authority in Bambari, fear still dominates. Therefore, there is a need to create more opportunities for communities to interact positively with each other to enable them to regain respect for and trust in the other community.

A very large number of activities planned under this result (SMS and Facebook campaigns against violence, training of moderators, mobile cinema screenings, broadcasting of a radio soap opera) have yet to be implemented, which should have a positive impact on this aspect. Unfortunately, the survey and the FGDs do not provide any information on what respondents consider to be factors that have contributed to improved levels of perception, respect and trust on which the project could further build on. It might be interesting to include a question on this aspect in the final evaluation (see recommendation 7a). In addition, it is recommended that Search creates more opportunities that allow the different communities (especially women and young people and especially in Bangui) to interact on a topic that is important to them in order to reduce stereotypes and facilitate experiences of positive interaction. This could take place within the framework of a project activity or be included as part of an initiative in an action plan of a local peace structure (see recommendation 2c and 4a).

Ind.2.2: % of respondents who report having worked with someone from the “other” group on issues important to them

Baseline: Total: 62,3% (M: 71,9% / W: 51,6%) Bangui: 51,6% / Bambari: 72,8%

Mid-term value: Special attention needed Total: 63,2% (M: 68,1% / W: 57,6%) Bangui: 55,0% / Bambari: 71,6% Participants project activities Search: 78,5%

Target: 85%

Search has already implemented 36 of the 45 planned inter-community solidarity activities as well as 1 town hall forum in Bambari out of 12 planned town hall forums, but these activities do not necessarily seem to have further stimulated collaboration between individuals and groups across religious dividing

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(Very)positive

Neutral (Very)negative

(Very) high Moderate (Very) low Don't know (Very) high Moderate (Very) low Don'tknow/ No

answer

Perception Respect Trust

Comparison Perception / Respect / Trust by age group

Under 18 18-30 31-45 Over 45


lines within the targeted communities. The mid-term value of the indicator does not show any changes since the beginning of the project (63.2% compared to 62.3% in May 2019) but is slightly higher for those who participated in the project’s activities (78.5%).

Collaboration with someone of another group seems to be higher among men and also seems to increase with age (under 18 years: 39.1%; 18-30 years: 62.2%; 31-45 years: 63.9% and over 45 years: 83.3%), which is somehow logical, but nevertheless illustrates the need to create more opportunities so that young people and also women can interact with their peers from other communities on issues that are important to them. The examples of collaboration provided by the respondents were not always very clear and detailed, and included meetings on social cohesion (42 mentions), work in general (14 mentions), inter-community marriages (13 mentions) and trainings (9 mentions).

From the FGDs and KIIs, it also emerged that in Bambari, there are several actors working on social cohesion and creating spaces and platforms for collaboration and interaction, which may explain why the respondents in Bambari have had more opportunity than those in Bangui to collaborate with someone from another group. Mercy Corps’ peace committees, youth clubs and community liaisons as well as Red Cross trainings were mentioned several times. Search should therefore continue to ensure that its project activities complement the activities of other organizations and fill gaps (see recommendation 6b).

4.1.3 Mid-term Values for the Indicators on the Consultative Process

Specific Objective 3: To create a consultative process that mobilizes citizen buy-in to national-level processes and institutions critical to stability and durable peace, preventing rumors and stimulating constructive dialogue and local ownership.

Ind.3: Members of the SCRCA / AFPC / CNJCA who report to be able to relay peace and security concerns from the local level at the national level

Baseline: Total: 100%

Mid-term value: Target met Total: 100%

Target: 75%

The above mid-term values were provided by Search and are based on data collected during activities. The survey questions and individual interviews with the SCRCA and CNJCA did not cover this particular topic.

Ind.3.1: % of listeners surveyed who report that the project’s radio programs resonate with their concerns for peace and security

Baseline: Not available

Mid-term value: Target met Total: 97,1% (M: 100,0% / W: 90,9%)

Target: 75%

The majority of survey respondents (88.3%) listen to the radio both in Bangui (95.5%) and in Bambari (80.9%). The preferred formats (see also p.30) are the news (34.5%), followed by radio shows in general (30.7%) and radio talk-shows (30.2%). Search's decision to produce and broadcast radio programs on subjects related to key national processes (such as Search’s radio show VAKA TI SIRIRI) can therefore be considered highly relevant. However, only 20.1% of the listeners surveyed (21.5% in Bangui and 50.2% in Bambari) listen to Search's radio broadcasts. 97.1% of the interviewed listeners who listen to Search's radio broadcasts report that these radio programs resonate with their concerns for peace and security - the target for this indicator has therefore already been reached. Nevertheless, several lessons can be drawn from the survey results for the project’s radio broadcasting. These are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.3 (lessons learned and areas for improvement) and Chapter 5 (recommendations 5a-c).


Ind.3.2: % of respondents who report having opportunities to express their opinion in relation to peace and security in CAR

Baseline: Total: 45,2% (M: 53,2% / W: 36,3%) Bangui: 47,9% / Bambari: 42,6%

Mid-term value: Special attention needed Total: 51,3% (H: 53,3% / F: 48,9%) Bangui: 59,0% / Bambari: 43,3% Participants project activities Search: 60,4%

Target: 75%

This indicator will also require special attention for the remaining duration of the project. Although there has been an improvement since the beginning of the project, especially in Bangui (59% compared to 47.9% in May 2019), more effort is needed to reach the target of 75% and to provide Central Africans with more opportunities to express their opinion in relation to peace and security. Among the project participants surveyed, the percentage of those who reported having opportunities to express their opinion on peace and security is slightly higher (60.4%), but still far below the target as 49.0% of the project participants surveyed participated in a mass community activity (football etc.) of the project. Such activities are important for awareness-raising and fostering social cohesion, but they do not necessarily provide opportunities to express views and opinions in relation to peace and security. A closer look at the results of the survey shows that special attention should be paid to women and especially to young people who report having fewer opportunities to express their views on peace and security as illustrated in the graph below. The project should therefore focus the activities foreseen under result 3.2 (e.g. radio talk-show) on women and especially on youth (see Chapter 5, recommendations 4b and 5).

87.0%

52.9%

35.1% 33.3%

13.0%

47.1%

64.9% 66.7%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Under 18 18-30 31-45 Over 45

Opportunity to express opinion in relation to peace and security according to age group

No Yes


4.1.4 Table of Indicators – Mid-term Results

Indicators Initial value Mid-term value Target

General objective: To prevent atrocities by halting perpetuated cycles of violence in the peripheral regions and the capital of CAR.

O1: To empower peace structures, including peace committees, local leaders, local officials, and government representatives to respond to the immediate risk of violence in select areas in CAR

Ind.1: % of surveyed stakeholders who report feeling empowered to peacefully respond to immediate risk of violence in select areas in CAR

Total: 72,9% Bangui: 73,4% Bambari: 72,3%

Total: 84,0% Bangui: 73,0% Bambari: 95,4%

Men: 86,7% Women: 81,0%

Participants project activities Search: 87,9% Members peace committees: 96,1%

80%

Outcome 1.1: Local peace structures/mentors have increased capacities to respond to immediate risks of violence, foster peaceful coexistence, and promote reconciliation across religious lines.

Ind.1.1: % of members of the trained local peace structures/mentors who have new knowledge related to mediation and consultation processes

Total: 0%

Total based on pre/posttest: 100%

Total based on survey (for illustration only): Mediation: 63,2% (M: 60% / W: 67.7%) Bangui: 62,2% Bambari: 64,1%

Consultation: 55,3% (M: 55,6% / W: 84,8%) Bangui: 48,6% Bambari: 61,5%

85%

Output 1.1.1: Identification and tailored capacity building of “peace mentors”.

Ind.1.1.1: Number of peace mentors identified and trained.

0 Total: 24

24

Output 1.1.2: Training of religious leaders in Bangui and Bambari on leadership skills, human rights and religious freedom.

Ind.1.1.2: Number of trainings for religious leaders

0 4 4

Output 1.1.3: Capacity Building and Development of Advocacy and Action Plan for Local Peace Structures

Ind.1.1.3: Number of trainings to local peace structures who develop an action plan and implement the initiatives of the plan.

0 Total: 3 Bangui: 0 Bambari: 3

4



Ind.1.1.3: % of local peace structures that developed an action plan and implemented initiatives of the plan

0 Total: 72,4% Bangui: 70,3% Bambari: 74,4%

95%

Output 1.1.4: Exchange visits for local peace structures.

Ind.1.1.4: Number of visits facilitated 0 Total: 0 Bangui: 0 Bambari: 0

2

Outcome 1.2: Local peace structures have increased opportunities to facilitate responses to immediate risks of violence, foster peaceful coexistence, and promote reconciliation.

Ind.1.2: % of members of the targeted local peace structures who report collaborating with other local security actors on a peace or mediation initiative

Total: 76,5% Bangui: 85,7% Bambari: 70%

Total: 89,5% Bangui: 81,1% Bambari: 97,4% Men: 86,7% Women: 93,5%

80%

Output 1.2.1: Joint large-scale peace initiatives led by the peace structures

Ind.1.2.1: Number of USG-funded events, trainings, or activities designed to build support for peace or reconciliation on a mass scale (F indicator).


2

Output 1.2.2: Facilitation of monthly information sharing and dialogue platforms.


0 Total: 1 36

O2: To foster social cohesion and inclusion that promotes religious tolerance in communities vulnerable to atrocities.

Ind.2: Improvement in ability of communities to work together (levels of empathy, commitment to working across the aisle for peaceful solutions, trust, etc. will be assessed)

a) Willingness of the community to collaborate with the “other” Total: 82,4% Bangui: 83,3% Bambari: 82,4% Men: Not available Women: Not available

b) Positive evolution of the relations between the communities in the last 3 months: Total: 71,9% Bangui: 63,2% Bambari: 80,5%

a) Willingness of the community to collaborate with the “other” Total: 94,2% Bangui: 90,5% Bambari: 97,9% Men: 92,4% Women: 96,2%

b) Positive evolution of the relations between the communities in the last 3 months: Total: 96,9% Bangui: 94,0% Bambari: 100%

a) 85%

b) 85%



Men: 77,3% Women: 66,3%

Men: 96,7% Women: 96,2%

Outcome 2.1: Respect and trust towards the “Other” group increase among target communities.

Ind.2.1: % of respondents who have a positive perception of “the other”

a) Positive or very positive perception of the “other”: Total: 63,0% Bangui: 58,3% Bambari: 67,5% Men: 64,3% Women: 61,1% Participants project activities Search: N/A

b) High or very high levels of respect for the “other”: Total: 55,5% Bangui: 52,1% Bambari: 59% Men: 58,1% Women: 52,8% Participants project activities Search: N/A c) High or very high levels of trust for the “other”: Total: 32,6% Bangui: 27,1% Bambari: 37,9% Men: 30,5% Women: 34,6% Participants project activities Search: N/A

a) Positive or very positive perception of the “other”: Total: 91,1% Bangui: 87,5% Bambari: 94.8% Men: 91,9% Women: 90,2% Participants project activities Search: 95,3%

b) High or very high levels of respect for the “other”: Total: 70,1% Bangui: 69,5% Bambari: 70,6% Men: 70,3% Women: 70,1% Participants project activities Search: 77,9% c) High or very high levels of trust for the “other”: Total: 48,2% Bangui: 41,0% Bambari: 55,6% Hommes: 50,4% Femmes: 45,7% Participants project activities Search: 51,0%

a) 85%

b) 80%

c) 70%

Output 2.1.1.1: Moderator training.

Ind.2.1.1.1: Number of moderators trained on countering hate speech.

0 Total: 0 20

Output 2.1.1.2: SMS and Facebook campaigns against violence

Ind.2.1.1.2: Number of SMS campaigns for peace

0 Total: 0 2

Output 2.1.1.3: Facebook platform against violence

Ind.2.1.1.3: Number of Facebook platform campaigns for peace.

0 Total: 0 1

Output 2.1.2.1: Trainings on mobile cinema screenings



Ind.2.1.2.1: Number of trainings on mobile cinema screening

0 Total: 0 2

Output 2.1.2.2: Mobile cinema screenings

Ind.2.1.2.2: Number of USG-funded events, trainings, or activities designed to build support for peace or reconciliation on a mass scale (F indicator).


18

Output 2.1.3: Radio soap opera production and broadcast.

Ind.2.1.3: Number of episodes produced and broadcast.

0 Total: 8 50

Outcome 2.2: Collaboration among individuals and groups across religious dividing lines increases within target communities. Ind.2.2.: % of respondents who report having worked with someone from the “other” group on issues important to them


Total: 63,2% Bangui: 55,0% Bambari: 71,6% Men: 68,1% Women: 57,6% Per age groups: Under 18: 39,1% 18-30 years: 62,2% 31-45 years: 63,9% Over 45 years: 83,3%

Participants project activities Search: 78,5%

85%

Output 2.2.1: Inter-community solidarity activities

Ind.2.2.1: Number of solidarity activities facilitated

0 Total: 36

45

Output 2.2.2: Town hall forums



12

Outcome 2.3: Social barriers between Christian and Muslim youth in selected areas are reduced

Output 2.3.1: Organizing strategic communication planning workshops on this issue.

Ind.2.3.1: Number of strategic communication planning workshops organized

0 Total: 0 1

Output 2.3.2: Co-organizing campaign on inter-religious cooperation

Ind.2.3.2: Number of campaigns organized

0 Total: 0 1

O3: To create a consultative process that mobilizes citizen buy-in to national-level processes and institutions critical to stability and durable peace, preventing rumors and stimulating constructive dialogue and local ownership.



Ind.3: Members of SCRCA / AFPC / CNJCA who report to be able to relay peace and security concerns from the local level at the national level

100% Total: 0

SCRC: 100% AFPC: 100% CNJCA: 100%

75%

Outcome 3.1: Community members have increased information on key national-level peace and security processes. Ind.3.1: Percentage of listeners surveyed who report that the project’s radio programs resonate with their concerns for peace and security.

Not available Total: 97,1% Men: 100,0% Women: 90,9%

75%

Output 3.1.1: Radio talk shows on themes related to key national processes produced and broadcast.


0 Total: 4 Total: 8

Outcome 3.2: Community members have increased opportunity to share their perspectives and dialogue on issues related to these key national-level processes.

Ind.3.2: % of listeners surveyed who report that the project’s radio programs resonate with their concerns for peace and security


Total: 51,3% Bangui: 59.0% Bambari: 43,3% Men: 53,3% Women: 48,9%

As per age groups: Under 18: 13,0% 18-30 years: 47,1% 31-45 years: 64,9% Over 45 years: 66,7%

Participants project activities Search: 60,4%

85%

Output 3.2.1: Compilation of, reflection on, and sharing of the outcomes of the locally led consultation initiatives at the national level. Ind. 3.2.1: Number of USG-funded events, trainings, or activities designed to build support for peace or reconciliation on a mass scale (F indicator).


7 (5 at local level and 2 at national level)


4.2 Sustainable Changes in Social Norms/Institutions (Evaluation Objective 2)

This chapter aims to assess the extent to which the project has contributed to sustainable changes in social norms and institutions. Although it is quite early to assess the sustainability of these changes, this section provides partial answers under each evaluation question.

Evaluation Question: Does the engagement at the local level in Bambari and Bangui, as well as at the national level, prevent religious violence and atrocities? Are we seeing the mobilization of communities through dialogue and constructive engagement to support sustainable peace in the country?

The statement of a project stakeholder in Bambari provides a summary answer to this question: "Yes, local and national commitments have prevented religious violence and atrocities in that we have seen a decrease in religious violence". This decrease in religious violence and other forms of violence and the improved social cohesion is also confirmed by the vast majority of survey respondents in both Bambari and Bangui, as shown in the following table:

Question: In your opinion, has the level of relationship between the two communities changed in the last 3 months? Reply Total Location Gender Age

Bangui Bambari Men Women < 18 18-30 31-45 >45 Has improved significantly

44.9% 49.0% 40.7% 47.6% 41.3% 47.8% 47.9% 42.3% 30.6%

Has improved

52.0% 45.0% 59.3% 49.1% 54.9% 52.2% 50.0% 51.5% 66.7%

Neutral: neither better nor worse

2.3% 4.5% 0.0% 2.4% 2.7% 0.0% 1.3% 5.2% 2.8%

Has gotten worse 0.8% 1.5% 0.0% 0.9% 1.1% 0.0% 0.8% 1.0% 0.0%

In response to the question of how this development manifested, respondents mainly mentioned: free movement (128 mentions): in Bangui, reference was mainly made to the access to PK5/Km5 (3rd arrondissement)14: "There is free movement. I go to Km5 and Muslims circulate in our neighborhood" and in Bambari the statements were more general: "There has been a lot of change in the city of Bambari. Previously neither of the two communities could access where they wanted, but for the moment everything is fine". Respondents also mentioned social cohesion (61 mentions) without giving more details, the good relationship between the two communities (46 mentions) and the normalization of the cohabitation/coexistence (27 mentions). For this last point, respondents mentioned that there is peace, a normal resumption of activities and that the communities greet each other to illustrate this positive evolution. A minority of 3.1% of respondents (all from Bangui) felt that the situation had not improved or had even gotten worse and mentioned persisting mistrust, tensions and robberies, or that the situation had not yet improved enough. On the basis of the data collected in the KIIs and FGDs, this improvement of the social climate is mainly attributed to the engagement at the local level for peace, to awareness-raising and sensitization among the population who wish to live in peace, but also to a greater mobilization of communities to support lasting peace. Search's engagement at the local level can therefore be considered highly relevant.

14 The district PK5 (Km5), in the 3rd arrondissement of Bangui, is located in the center of Bangui. This predominantly Muslim neighborhood has experienced violence since the beginning of the conflict and many Muslims from Bangui fled to this neighborhood after the clashes between Seleka and anti-Balaka groups in 2013. The neighborhood has long been controlled by self-proclaimed “self-defense” groups.


The survey results have already shown that the vast majority (94.0%) of respondents are willing to collaborate with "the other" for peace, and the KIIs and FGDs further confirmed this readiness to collaborate. The majority of participants felt that the community was mobilized through sensitization, dialogue and constructive engagement. Young people, both in Bangui and Bambari, seemed to be aware of their important role and expressed their desire for peace: "We must all mobilize for peace, that is what we do every day among young people, we really want peace, only peace in our district". From these discussions and interviews, it also emerged that different groups have played a key role in engaging and mobilizing communities, namely religious leaders, 'groups of wise men', associations and NGOs that have set up platforms, associations or peace committees.

Evaluation Question: Are vulnerable communities, especially young people, becoming resilient to religious violence and atrocities?

This question was asked during FGDs and KIIs, but the analysis of the responses show that the question was not always well understood, and that people do not share the same understanding of resilience.

For some, being resilient is equivalent to forgetting the past: "some become resilient because they have forgotten what they have been through and they have reintegrated into the community", for others, resilience manifests itself in opposition to religious violence: "we (young people) reject violence, because youth is the future of tomorrow" or in taking action and awareness: "Yes, vulnerable communities become resilient in the sense that they are key actors in mobilizations and workshops on the subject of reducing religious violence and atrocities". In general, the responses clearly show that communities and young people are against religious violence and committed to peace. A group of adult women also mentioned that they see signs of resilience in the fact that they now demand justice instead of revenge.

The ability to respond to shocks or risks in a more positive and non-violent manner is an important element for becoming resilient to religious violence. We have already seen in the previous sub-chapter that the majority of survey respondents (84.0% compared to 72.9% in May 2019) mentioned having the ability to respond peacefully to immediate risks of violence. For this specific evaluation question, it is important to look at how the different age groups rate their ability to respond peacefully to immediate risks of violence. The following chart illustrates the responses according to location and age group and clearly shows that it is mostly young people in Bangui who doubt their ability to respond peacefully to risks of violence. In the FGDs, a group of young men from Bangui specifically asked for support with building the capacities of young people.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

No Yes Don't know No Yes Don't know

Bangui Bambari

Capacity to respond peacefully to risks of violence disaggregated by location and age group

Under 18 18-30 31-45 Over 45


Evaluation Question: Is there a coalition of local peace actors in place, including local peace committees, youth and religious leaders?

This question was asked in the focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The analysis of the responses shows that in Bambari there is agreement across the different groups and interlocutors on the existence of a coalition of local peace actors that includes local committees, youth, and religious leaders: "Yes, there is a coalition of local actors for peace, local youth committees including religious leaders" with a collaboration that was described as "frank" by several people.

In Bangui, the situation seems to be more complicated. While most respondents also confirmed the existence of local coalitions for peace, there was disagreement on the functioning of the collaboration between the different actors, authorities and young people, and respondents from the same district provided contradictory information. According to the FGDs, only in the 6th arrondissement, does collaboration seems to be working (including that between religious leaders and youth). For the 8th arrondissement, the FGDs and KIIs revealed that there is a certain lack of cohesion among young people to work together for peace, as well as a lack of mutual trust and collaboration between young people and local authorities/coalitions for peace.

In general, it can be observed that in Bangui, young people consider themselves as victims of violence and are sometimes seen as a source of problems and "vectors of destabilization" (by certain interlocutors among the authorities consulted). While young people find that they have a role to play in the peace process, it is important that local authorities (mayors and traditional leaders such as ‘chefs de groupe’) also adopt a vision that takes into account the potential of young people as agents of social change. For Search, it is important to reinforce its work with mayors, leaders and local peace committees in Bangui on youth participation for the remainder of the project duration in order to help strengthen these coalitions; for example by strengthening some of the project activities that are already being implemented and by introducing new activities such as: raising awareness about the opportunity for peace that the involvement of youth represents, integrating specific initiatives that promote youth participation in the local peace committees’ action plans, and fostering dialogue between youth and the authorities in problematic districts/arrondissements (see also recommendations 2d and 4).

Evaluation Question: At what level is the collaboration among key actors strengthened in order to identify and effectively respond to threats of violence and to safeguard freedom of religion in targeted communities?

In the baseline study, a minority of 12.9% (8% in Bangui and 4,9% in Bambari) was aware of the existence of a peace committee in their locality. As this question was no longer included in the survey, it is not possible to directly compare the level of knowledge among respondents. However, during the FGDs and KIIs in Bangui and Bambari, the vast majority of participants confirmed the existence of a peace committee (with the exception of some districts in Bangui) and of a coalition of local peace actors.

However, the discussions with regards to this question did not provide any details that would allow the determination of the level of enhanced collaboration between these parties. Responses were very generic and tended to focus on whether or not there was a collaboration among the various actors (see previous question). It would have been interesting to treat this aspect more in depth with members of the different local peace committees, youth groups and local authorities.


4.3 Lessons Learned and Religious Tolerance (Evaluation Objective 3)

This chapter aims at deriving lessons learned from the implementation of the project and at understanding the level of religious tolerance within communities vulnerable to atrocities. Like the previous chapter, it responds to this objective by providing answers for each evaluation question.

Evaluation Question: What are good practices and areas for improvement in terms of project implementation?

a) General Lessons Learned and Areas for Improvement in Terms of Project Implementation A minority of those surveyed (37.8%) have participated in an activity of the DRL project (35.2% of men and 40.8% of women; 35.5% in Bangui and 40.2% in Bambari). The majority of these participants (78.9%) belong to a local peace structure. The project participants surveyed have mostly participated in a mass community event (football, etc.) and in a security forum organized at the town hall, both in Bangui and Bambari.

As the survey questionnaire did not include any questions that aimed at evaluating these activities, it is important to draw on the results of the FGDs and KIIs for identifying good practices and areas for improvement. Most of the actors interviewed who were familiar with the project and its activities reported that they appreciated what was being done by Search, highlighting especially the training and awareness-raising activities on tolerance and social cohesion. However, two key stakeholders in Bambari expressed a negative opinion, highlighting the low impact on the ground and the lack of follow-up. It should also be considered that a large number of young people participating in focus group discussions in Bambari were not aware of Search's project activities. Therefore, areas for improvement include increasing the visibility of the project and its activities and ensuring regular communication on the activities for maximum dissemination of the project’s messages and maximum mobilization for peace. Furthermore, the project’s monitoring should also be strengthened to ensure that the project has the desired impact, even beyond the direct beneficiaries (see also Chapter 5, recommendation 6).

With regard to the inclusion of women and young people, it should be noted that the project seems to pay attention to their inclusion in the project, but that their involvement can still be improved. Of all the participants in DRL project surveyed, 50.3% were women (40.8% of all women surveyed participated in the project) and 61.7% were under 30 years of age. In addition, among the members of local peace structures, more women were trained in mediation and counselling than men (see page 12). However, for women, many mid-term values of the indicators are below those of men. Furthermore, as young people and women reported having less opportunity to express themselves on topics like peace and security, areas for improvement should lie in placing greater emphasis on their involvement in activities that enable

56.3%

22.5%

7.0%

4.2%

9.9%

42.3%

28.2%

17.9%

11.5%

0.0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mass community activity (soccer…)

Security forum at the town hall

Mobile cinema

Public forum

Other

Participation according to type of project activity

Bambari Bangui


them to work for peace, to express themselves on topics of peace and security and to tailor activities more to their needs and issues that are important to them (see also Chapter 5, recommendations 4a-c and 5c).

FGD and KII respondents identified the following areas for improvement, some of which go beyond the scope of the project (expansion of activities, income generation activities, etc.): ▪ Expanding activities beyond Bangui and Bambari to remote provinces, especially in regards to the

radio shows that should be broadcasted on more radio stations (see also the section on radio broadcasting below).

▪ Continuing to monitor and provide support to local peace structures and committees ▪ Including more sporting activities as well as training/income generation activities ▪ Working more with youth and religious actors

b) Lessons Learned in Regards to the Differing Levels of Social Cohesion between Bambari and Bangui The results showed very clearly that almost all of the mid-term values of the project’s indicators are higher in Bambari than in Bangui which indicates greater social cohesion, a stronger collaboration for peace at the local level between the different groups as well as a better impact of the activities in Bambari. In order to better understand the reasons for these differences, it was necessary to look more closely at the main points of the FGDs and KIIs and to take into consideration the project activities implemented in both locations. The following reasons might provide some explanations for these differences:

▪ 3 out of 4 trainings planned for the local peace committees (for the elaboration of an action plan) have been held in Bambari which could have led to boosting the activities of these committees in Bambari.

▪ According to the FGD and KII respondents in Bambari, other actors in Bambari are implementing similar projects and initiatives (e.g. Mercy Corps) that are better known than Search’s project and that also contribute to foster social cohesion. In Bangui, no other actors were mentioned.

▪ According to FGD respondents, there are some districts in Bangui that do not have a local peace committee and in general there are districts (e.g. 8th arrondissement) where tensions between young people and the authorities persist and where collaboration does not seem to work well.

▪ The survey also revealed that respondents in Bangui listen less to the project’s radio broadcasts because of the radio stations chosen (see below), that young people in Bangui feel they have less ability to respond peacefully to risks of violence and that young people in general report having less opportunities to express their views on peace and security.

All these aspects should be taken into account and addressed in the remainder of the project. Specific recommendations are provided for each of these points (see Chapter 5, recommendations 2 and 4).

c) Good Practices and Areas for Improvement in Relation to Search’s Radio Programming

Because most Central Africans surveyed listen to the radio (95.5% in Bangui and 80.9% in Bambari; 91.9% of men and 84.2% of women across all age groups) and because radio is an important means for the dissemination of information in the DRL project, it is important to identify good practices and areas for improvement.

Radio Station: Most survey respondents listen to the radio station Radio Ndeke Luka, followed by Guira FM. A year earlier, Radio Bangui had been the most popular radio station with 62.8% of the baseline survey participants listening to this station, yet in 2020, only 9 people mentioned it. Search broadcasts via the two community radio stations Radio Sewa and Radio Lengo Songo and the two faith-based radio stations Radio Notre Dame and Radio Esca (see Chapter 4.4 Risks). The chart below shows that not many respondents listen to these radio stations.


Therefore, it is not surprising that only 70 people, or 20.1% of all radio listeners surveyed (21.5% in Bangui and 50.2% in Bambari) know and listen to Search’s radio broadcasts.

One lesson learned from this midline evaluation is that Search works with radio stations that are not popular among survey participants. Search should therefore seek to include more popular stations (especially in Bangui) such as Radio Ndeke Luka to broadcast its programs. This recommendation also emerged from the majority of FGD and KII respondents and was mentioned by 12 people in the survey.

Day and Time: More than half of the respondents (55.5% compared to 52.3% in 2019) in both Bangui and Bambari, both men and women, listen to the radio seven (7) times a week. Of all the listeners surveyed, the preferred days to listen to the radio fall in the period between Friday and Monday. Muslim respondents mostly listen to the radio on Fridays (21.1%) and Saturdays (35.1%) and for Christian respondents the preferred days are Saturdays (20.5%) and Sundays (24.3%).

The usual listening hours correspond more or less to the slots identified in the baseline study, but in 2020, there are more people who start listening to the radio as early as 5:00 a.m. If the times have been entered correctly (meaning 5 = 5 a.m. and not 5 p.m.), then the following time slots are the preferred listening times: 05:00-07:00, 11:30-14:00 and 17:30-20:00.

The table below provides an overview of Search’s radio programming:

Radio station Frequency Location RADIO BROADCASTS Vaka ti siriri Radio spots Coverage Radio SEWA

100.1fm Bangui Every Friday from 10:10-10:40

Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday at 7:00, 12:50 and 16:45

Bangui Bambari

Radio Notre Dame (RND)

103.3 Bangui Every Monday at 6:40

Monday to Friday 13:10 and 15:30

Bangui Bambari

Radio ESCA

98.5 Bangui

Monday at 10:30-10:45

Monday to Saturday 7:45, 10:45 and 13:45

Bangui Bambari

Radio Lengo Songo

98.9 Bangui Monday to Friday -7:45-7:55 -17:45-17:55

Monday to Friday 7:40, 11:50 and 17:15

Bangui Bambari

Based on these findings, it can be confirmed that it is a good practice of the project to broadcast its spots and radio soap on Mondays, Fridays, Saturdays. Some of the chosen time slots correspond quite well to the peak radio listening hours (e.g. spots at 12:50 and 13:10, soap opera at 6:40 etc.). There is certainly still room for improvement; for example, the slot at 10:00 am is not quite ideal, but it must also to be recognized that the possibilities for broadcasting at peak times are limited, and that it seems, ultimately, more important to choose the right radio station.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

NdekeLuka

Guira FM RadioEvangile

Autre LengoSongo

RND Sewa ESCA

Preferred radio stations by location

Total Bangui Bambari

020406080

100120140160180200

01:00

02:00

03:00

04:00

05:00

06:00

07:00

08:00

09:00

10:00

11:00

12:00

13:00

14:00

15:00

16:00

17:00

18:00

19:00

20:00

21:00

22:00

23:00

00:00

Peak radio listening hours

Bangui Bambari Total


Format and Content: Most of the listeners surveyed listen to the radio with their family (60.6%) or alone (30.2%). Women listen to the radio mostly with their families (78.1%), while men prefer to listen to the radio either alone (42.0%), with their families (46.6%) or in a group (11.4%). In terms of formats, the majority of listeners prefer news shows above all, and then favor shows in general and radio talk-shows. In the 2019 baseline study, radio talk-shows were the preferred format. The current preference for news could be related to the greater information needs in relation to the Coronavirus pandemic.

Indeed, among the preferred topics, information/news were mentioned most often (80 mentions), followed by topics related to peace and security (50 mentions) and topics related to Covid-19/hygiene and health (47 mentions). In addition, it can be observed that the trust in journalists to provide reliable information has increased:

Question: In your opinion, do journalists provide reliable information to radio listeners? Response Total Value from 2019 Bangui Bambari Yes, I fully trust them 82.5% 55.3% 78.5% 87.3% Yes, I trust them more or less

12.9% 23.3% 14.7% 10.8%

No, not really 3.7% 9.5% 5.2% 1.9% No, not at all 0.3% 3.4% 0.5% 0% I don’t know 0.6% 8.3% 1% 0%

There is no significant difference in responses between men and women.

On the basis of these results, it can be concluded that the use of radio as a means of disseminating awareness-raising information related to peace and security is a very appropriate choice. It constitutes a good practice and the radio talk-show format (Activity 3.1 in the project) is also well-favored and thus an appropriate choice. Although in the survey, the soap opera not among the most preferred formats, the question was too generic to draw useful conclusions for the radio soap opera from this project. It would certainly be interesting to ask more specific questions on the various Search radio programs in the final evaluation.

In any case, Search’s radio broadcasts generally seem to be appreciated by those who listen to them, as 55% of the listeners consulted asked to change nothing/to continue in the same direction (18 mentions), to broadcast on more stations (12 mentions), to extend the duration of the broadcasts (8 mentions) or to increase the number of broadcasts or shows (4). This is also echoed by the FGD and KII respondents.

Among those who felt that Search should improve its radio broadcasts, the responses were unfortunately very generic: 8 people said that there should be an improvement of the broadcasts and modification of

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

34.5 % 30.7 % 30.2 % 3.2 % 1.1 % 0.3 %

120 107 105 11 4 1

News Radio Shows ingeneral

Radio talk-shows Soap opera Radio chronicles Refusal to answer

Preferred formats

Bangui Bambari Men Women


the program (without giving details) and another 8 people asked that Search should complement the broadcasts with field/door-to-door visits. Some individuals also mentioned that replies provided to questions from listeners during talk shows were not satisfactory, that information should be better verified that the public should be given the opportunity to participate and that new material should be included for everything.

Evaluation Question: What strategy can be adopted to progressively integrate lessons learned into the project implementation?

This question was also asked during FGDs and KIIs, but instead of providing ideas on possible strategies to progressively integrate the lessons learned, respondents provided suggestions on how the project could be improved, such as expanding the scope of the project (expanding the activities to remote provinces, expanding to other sections of the population, broadcasting radio programs on other/all radio stations) and further disseminating information on the activities.

With regard to possible solutions to overcome current challenges, several people stressed the crucial role of local peace structures and asked Search to provide ongoing support for these structures and associations as well as to help creating new ones. They also stressed the importance of the DDR process, vocational training and of income-generating activities for youth to provide them with economic opportunities for their future.

From the consultant's point of view, the following strategy could be adopted to progressively integrate the lessons learned: a) To share, present and discuss the findings and recommendations of this midline evaluation with

implementing partners and key stakeholders in order to build on good practices and enable mutual learning among partners.

b) Beforehand, for some aspects, it might be useful to hold additional discussions with peace structures in Bangui in order to gain a better understanding of the challenges and problems they face and the type of support required.

c) For some aspects, it might be useful for Search to organize a consultation of young people and women to get their views and inputs on the challenges they face in their efforts for peace at the local level, on issues that are important to them and to identify how the project could be better tailored to suit their needs.

d) To agree with the implementing partners (based on the good practices, gaps and areas for improvement identified) on an action plan (or the adaptation of the existing action plan) with a timetable that allows for the gradual integration of the necessary changes and good practices.

e) Seek approval/inform the donor (if necessary) of possible major changes that go beyond Search’s flexibility and scope of implementation (e.g. reallocation from one budget line to another, inclusion of additional activities following consultations with peace committees, youth and women, etc.).

Evaluation Question: How does religious tolerance currently manifest?

As mentioned earlier, the relationship between the two communities, their mutual perceptions and their respect and empathy towards the other community have all improved since the beginning of the project, although it is very possible that these responses also contain a certain courtesy bias.

The graph on the following page illustrates and groups all these aspects which can be seen as a manifestation of greater religious tolerance.


This question of the manifestation of religious tolerance was also discussed with groups of youth and adults, women and men in Bambari and Bangui, as well as with key stakeholders. Everyone agreed that there is currently religious tolerance, but for some it is still weak, fragile and superficial and that there is certainly no religious tolerance in remote provinces such as Ndélé. According to a key stakeholder in Bangui "Religious tolerance currently manifests through free movement, but not all people have a pure heart. If there was religious tolerance, our Muslim brothers would live in all the districts of Bangui as before. Religious tolerance is superficial (...).”

As an example of the manifestation of religious tolerance, the majority mentioned free movement both in Bambari (in the city and the main roads) and in Bangui (especially in relation to the PK5). Others mentioned that churches or mosques are no longer destroyed and are being rebuilt, that there are inter-religious marriages, meetings and soccer matches, and that people from different religious communities spend time with each other, work together and live in the same neighborhoods in peace.

4.4 Risk Assessment (Evaluation Objective 3)

This chapter aims to address the evaluation objective "To conduct an assessment of the risks and opportunities for peace and provide recommendations on programming in order to ensure that the Do No Harm principle and a conflict sensitive approach are respected” and provides partial answers per each evaluation question. Unlike the other chapters, there is no quantitative data for this part as section 'C. Risk Assessment" from the baseline survey questionnaire was unfortunately not repeated in the survey for this midline evaluation. Answers are therefore based on the general lessons drawn from the data analysis as well as the results of the FGDs and KIIs. Recommendations for programming are included in Chapter 5.

Evaluation Question: What are the contextual and project-related risks that need to be monitored?

a) Continued Presence of Armed Groups and Possible Deterioration of the Security Situation The greatest contextual risk still seems to be the destabilizing presence of armed groups, cited by all the FGDs in Bangui and Bambari, which continue to be a source of concern for the population. The local authorities that were consulted acknowledged that there has been an improvement since the signing of the peace agreement, but that the situation still remains fragile. Violations against the civilian population continue, and the risk that the situation could deteriorate yet again remains.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Havingcollaborated with

another community

Willingness tocollaborate with

"the other"

(Very) positiveperception of "the

other"

(Very) high respectfor "the other"

Empathy (death) Empathy(marriage)

Positive evolutionof the relationship

Evolution of relationships, empathy, respect and perception between communities

Baseline value (2019) Total (2020) Bangui (2020) Bambari (2020)


b) Possible Increase in Tensions Between Communities Although relations between communities have clearly improved as shown by this midline evaluation and that Search’s project contributes positively to greater social cohesion, it must also be taken into consideration that a residual level of tension still exists within the Central African society and that it takes time to rebuild trust between communities (as shown by the indicator on trust, see page 15). Considering the fragile security situation, there remains, therefore, a risk that tensions between communities might resurface. A group of young people from Bambari also mentioned tensions between pastoralists and farmers. Search's continued support and assistance in empowering local peace structures to deal with such conflict situations and equipping them with the necessary mediation and consultation skills therefore remains very important.

c) Possible Increase in Tensions Between Young People and Local Authorities Many interlocutors among the authorities consulted and also adult respondents from FGDs, both in Bangui and Bambari, considered young people, especially those who are unemployed, to be a particularly vulnerable population group that is likely to cause trouble within the population. These actors recognize that young people are very much committed to peace, but they do not always see the role young people can play as agents of social change and they do not always collaborate with them. In general, young people seem to have less opportunities to express their opinion on peace and security, especially in Bangui (8th arrondissement in particular), and they have expressed their frustration with the local authorities. This frustration combined with a possible lack of dialogue with the authorities and a lack of opportunities to actively contribute towards peace can quickly degenerate into new tensions between young people and the authorities. Search's DRL project activities seek to involve young people and promote their inclusion in local peace coalitions, but it will be important to monitor this aspect in contact with key stakeholders and local peace committees. This midline evaluation clearly showed that there is a need to work more on fostering dialogue between young people and local authorities and on youth involvement in Bangui.

d) Possible Mistrust of Government Representatives It should also be noted that apart from mentioning the peace agreement, the deployment of the FACA, UNMISCA troops and the DDR process as a solution or response to mitigate tensions stirred by armed groups, very few of the actors consulted mentioned the role of government representatives and their support for local coalitions for peace and security. It therefore appears that in this context, civil society actors remain at the forefront of conflict resolution at the local level. It will be important to verify in more detail whether this is indeed related to a certain level of mistrust of government representatives or whether it is simply due to the fact that the questions did not address this particular aspect. However, it should be stressed that several actors mentioned the establishment of self-defense groups or the populations request to set-up such groups, which can be seen as an expression of lack of confidence in the official authorities and forces of law and order. A possible lack of trust by citizens in state authorities would clearly constitute a risk to lasting peace that Search should monitor. Even if it is ultimately the role of the state to build trust among the civilian population, in case this lack of trust is confirmed, Search and its local partners could play a role in making its interlocutors among the authorities aware of the need to build confidence and in advocating for social accountability mechanisms.

e) Possible Lack of Neutrality by Mass Media The baseline study highlighted the risk that Search's media partners could be biased, which would have a serious impact on both the project and Search's reputation. This midline evaluation showed that the majority of those surveyed trust journalists. Even if respondents did not make any particular comment and that Search has the opportunity to keep a neutral image through its programs on peace and social cohesion, seen from the outside, the fact that two Christian (and no Muslim) faith-based radio stations


were chosen among the 4 radio partners may constitute a certain risk for the project, the perception of Search (and its conflict sensitivity). It is therefore very important to be aware of and to monitor the positions of these two stations with regard to their neutrality and religious tolerance.

f) Possible Lack of Trust in Search This midline evaluation shows that those who are familiar with Search's activities and the DRL project generally appreciate it, but that a large number of people are not familiar with the project. There remains a risk that participants do not trust Search. The NGO should make sure to inform key interlocutors, but also the civilian population in general on the project, its objectives and activities (see recommendation 6).

Opportunities for Peace: In addition to the empowerment of local peace structures, which still constitutes an opportunity for peace on which this project focuses, another important opportunity for peace is the involvement of women and especially young people in activities in which they can contribute to peace and express themselves on peace, security and other issues that are important to them. This midline evaluation has already shown that in local peace committees, women play a key role for peace and are more likely to collaborate with other actors than men. Young people also play a very important role as agents of social change, as illustrated by the positive developments in Bambari, where good collaboration within local peace coalitions, including with young people, plays an important role according to key actors consulted. A lack of involvement of young people can constitute a significant risk of tensions as mentioned above under c). Therefore, specific recommendations are provided to Search under Chapter 5, recommendations 2c and 4.

Evaluation Question: What can the project do to ensure that it is conflict sensitive and respects the "do no harm" principle?

In any context, but especially in an environment of volatile security, the importance of ensuring that the project is conflict-sensitive and respects the "do no harm" principles is paramount.

Search's DRL project demonstrates its commitment to conflict sensitivity and respect for the Do No Harm principle by having been developed on the basis of a detailed analysis of the context in which the NGO operates, and because the project seeks to reduce tensions and violence at the local level and support structures and coalitions that promote peace. Considering that the majority of FGD and KII respondents consider awareness-raising activities for peace and social cohesion and the promotion of collaboration within the community for peace as solutions/responses to mitigate tensions that have affected them in the past, it can be concluded that the project indeed builds on the society. In addition, Search's commitment to transparency and to consultation of the local population by giving them the opportunity to express their views and concerns on the project in focus group discussions contributes to a climate of trust between the communities and Search. Search should maintain and strengthen all these elements that maximize the positive effects on social cohesion and reduce negative effects and should monitor the various risks mentioned before (contextual and project-related).

In addition, Search should continue, in close collaboration with local peace structures, youth groups, CNJCA and key interlocutors, to analyze the context and try to better understand the current dynamics in the different districts. This would allow identifying how the project and the planned activities can better act on the reduction of tensions that have been raised in the framework of this evaluation such as those between the youth and the authorities in some districts of Bangui and the conflictual relationship between pastoralists and farmers in Bambari.

With the exception of one person who raised the lack of follow-up by Search in Bambari, none of the respondents mentioned any potential negative effects of the project.


5 Recommandations

In general, it is recommended to build on the good practices highlighted in this report and to maintain the good momentum that Search has created with this project. Based on the results of this midline evaluation, the following recommendations should enable Search to further refine its intervention strategy and maximize the desired impact even beyond the direct beneficiaries:

(1) Integrating the lessons drawn from the midline evaluation in the project implementation

a) Share the results of this midline evaluation with the implementing partners (SCRCA, CPSA, CNJCA), for example as part of the forums planned in the project. This transparency and accountability not only assists in strengthening the cohesion of the teams and encouraging them to continue their efforts by showing them that their actions have a real impact, but also constitutes an important step and attitude for a conflict-sensitive approach. Moreover, this step is particularly important in order to be able to discuss and integrate lessons learned into the implementation of the project.

b) Find a participatory strategy to integrate lessons learned and areas for improvement into project implementation, see proposal on page 31.

(2) Focusing more of the effort on Bangui given its weaker social cohesion compared to Bambari

a) Place particular emphasis on empowering local peace committees in Bangui (training, support for the action plan, exchange visits, etc.): In the first year of the project, activities mainly targeted Bambari, but in view of the lower mid-term values of the indicators in Bangui, it seems appropriate to provide more support to the local peace structures in Bangui. If the budget allows, it might be useful to organize an exchange visit between a functional peace committee in Bambari and a less functional peace committee in Bangui.

b) Organize a discussion/consultation between the implementing partners, Search and the local peace committees in Bangui to better understand the obstacles and challenges they face in their work in order to be able to adjust the support provided by the project.

c) Create more opportunities for interaction in Bangui for young people from different communities as well as for women from different communities on a subject they consider important. Such occasions will help to reduce mutual prejudices and stereotypes and strengthen inter-community collaboration. This could be organized as part of a project activity or included in an initiative as part of an action plan of a local peace structure in Bangui.

d) Promote dialogue between youth and local authorities (mayors) in problem districts so that both have the opportunity to share their frustrations and to find common ground. It is recommended to see which activity would be best suited to include this aspect (e.g. town hall forums etc.).

(3) Maximizing the impact of the trainings

a) Analyze in more detail the weak points of the post-tests from the trainings provided to the members of peace structures in order to get a better understanding of the aspects of the mediation and consultation training that were not well understood by the majority of the participants at the end of the training so that the curriculum and the pedagogical approach can be adjusted and improved.

b) Adjust training methods and content according to the results of the analysis of the pre-post-tests and include elements that are of current interest and of particular importance for these


structures (e.g. inclusion of specific strategies for mediating tensions between farmers and pastoralists in Bambari). For this purpose, committees would need to be consulted on issues of current importance prior to the training.

(4) Focusing on promoting the involvement of women and especially of young people

a) Make sure that implementing partners sensitize local authorities (mayors, traditional leaders ‘chefs de groupe’), especially in Bangui, on the importance of working with young people and on the opportunity for peace that the involvement of young people and women represents. It also needs to be ensured that local peace structures continue to involve young people in their work and include specific initiatives on promoting youth participation in their action plans.

b) Organize a consultation of youth and women, especially in Bangui to identify how project activities can be better tailored to their needs.

c) Create more opportunities for youth and women to express their views on peace and security in the activities that remain to be implemented. For example, as part of its radio talk-shows, Search could plan a "Youth" or "Women" special talk-show.

(5) Enhancing the impact of the project’s radio broadcasts

a) Try to broadcast the project's radio shows/spots/soap opera also on other more popular stations (e.g. Radio Ndeke Luka) to reach a larger number of listeners, especially in Bangui, and to meet the recurring request of the various listeners of Search’s radio broadcasts. Given the important role that radio plays in obtaining new information in the Central African Republic, failure to use this medium in the best way possible will be an important missed opportunity.

b) Take into consideration the suggestions made by Search's listeners.

c) Use the radio to contribute to other areas that can be improved (e.g. involvement of women and youth, dissemination of information about the project etc.).

(6) Improving the project’s visibility and communication and ensuring continuous coordination and monitoring for maximum impact of the project

a) Increase regular communication on the project and its activities in order to disseminate its messages and reach the greatest number of people. Good communication around activities between Search/implementing partners and beneficiaries not only contributes to better visibility, but also to a conflict-sensitive approach. Search could also take advantage of its partnerships with radio stations and its radio talk-show to invite project partners (e.g. members of local peace committees) to disseminate information on local peace initiatives and to seek feedback from listeners. This would contribute to a better visibility of the project and could also inspire other regions beyond Bangui and Bambari to set up similar local initiatives.

b) Ensure good coordination with other actors working in the same field: Continue to ensure that the project complements and fills gaps with regards to the efforts of other organizations that work with the same target population in Bambari (e.g. Mercy Corps).

c) Verify if monitoring can be improved in Bambari: Analyze internally why one of the key interlocutors in Bambari raised the lack of monitoring in Bambari and why a group in Bambari asked for more monitoring of and support to the peace committees so that Search’s monitoring and support can be improved.


(7) Recommendations for the final evaluation of the project

a) Repeat the survey at the end of the project to compare the values from the baseline study, the midline evaluation and the final evaluation. Ensure that the question that was misleading is formulated in a clearer way and that additional questions are included to collect information on the type of actors with whom the peace committees collaborate as well as on the factors that contribute to improved perception of, respect for and trust in the other community.

b) Incorporate the views of the SCRCA network, the CNJCA and the AFPC in the final evaluation and conduct interviews with members of the local peace structures. In addition to the survey data, it would be important to explore certain aspects in greater depth with the local peace committees and also to take into consideration the opinion of actors who have implemented activities and therefore faced a number of difficulties.

c) Evaluate the coordination of the project activities in order to assess the extent to which the intervention has been harmonized, promoted synergies, filled gaps and avoided duplication.

d) Involve the external consultant in the development of the data collection instruments. This report has highlighted that additional questions or a different wording of some questions (especially for FGDs and KIIs) would have allowed for a more in-depth analysis and thus a more detailed answer to the evaluation question. For this reason, it is recommended that this opportunity be provided to the external consultant for the final evaluation.

6 Conclusions

This midline evaluation has clearly shown that Search's DRL project "Strengthening Coalitions for Peace: Preventing Atrocities and Fostering Social Inclusion in CAR" is highly relevant and responds to the needs of the populations consulted, in the sense that it involves local actors in fostering collaboration among communities for peace, strengthens their skills to prevent and manage conflicts, raises communities’ awareness on peace and social cohesion and provides them with more opportunities for interaction and dialogue.

The current values of the project indicators confirm that the project is generally on the right track and that initial positive effects can already be observed. Although it is still too early to make judgements on the sustainability of these changes, it can be observed that religious tolerance and social cohesion in communities vulnerable to atrocities have improved since the beginning of the project and have the potential to become the new social norm, especially in Bambari.

However, as the evaluation underlined that religious tolerance and social cohesion are still considered to be fragile by the key actors consulted, that the risk of violence and inter-community tensions persists and that the situation in Bangui has improved less in comparison to Bambari, the evaluation provides recommendations to adjust and intensify the effort in Bangui. These recommendations mainly aim at strengthening coalitions for peace in Bangui, promoting the involvement of women and especially of youth, and fostering collaboration between young people, peace committees and authorities to create spaces for dialogue and for finding common ground. More generally, based on the results of the midline evaluation, it was also found that Search should create more opportunities for women and youth to express themselves on peace and security and improve the impact of its trainings, the reach of its radio broadcasts as well as the visibility of and communication on the project.


By refining the programming and activities accordingly, it is expected that the project will achieve its objectives, maximize its impact and make an important contribution to ending perpetuated cycles of violence in the peripheral regions and the capital of CAR.

Annexes

I. Survey Questionnaire (in French) II. Interview Guide Questions for the Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews (in

French)

Annex I: Survey Questionnaire (in French)

CONSENTEMENT L’enquêteur doit lire à haute voix

Réponses et Codes

Bonjour. Mon nom est ________________ Je suis un enquêteur issu de la Commune/Territoire de _________________ qui collabore avec Search for Common Ground, qui travaille dans la transformation des conflits. Nous menons des entretiens dans votre localité dans le cadre du projet «Renforcement des coalitions pour la paix: prévenir les atrocités et favoriser l'inclusion sociale en République centrafricaine ». Ce projet à pour but de prévenir les atrocités en mettant fin aux cycles de violence perpétrés dans les régions périphériques et dans la capitale de la RCA. Les résultats de cette étude nous permettront de mieux adapter les activités aux besoins identifiés et au contexte. Nous aimerions vous poser une série de questions afin de comprendre mieux la situation dans laquelle vous vivez.

La participation à cet entretien est volontaire et si vous ne voulez pas répondre à une ou plusieurs questions, n’hésitez pas à nous le faire savoir. Vos réponses seront gardées confidentielles. Vos noms ne seront pas enregistrés. Notre entretien durera environ 50 minutes. Nous vous remercions d’avance pour votre participation. Voulez-vous y participer ?

(1) Oui (2) Non / Si oui commencer l’entretien, si non remercier la personne et passer au prochain enquêté

A. Caractéristiques de l’enquêté

A.1. Date de l’enquête (jour/mois/année): ______/ /2019

A.2. Code enquêteur: |______| 1= 4= 2= 5= 3= 6=

A. 3. Heure début: _____ H _____ Min Heure de fin: _____ H ______ Min

A. 4.Arrondissements: |______| |______| 1= 1er, 2= 2ème 3=3ème 4=4ème 6=6ème 5=5ème 7=7ème 8=8ème 9=S1, 10=S2, 11=S3

A. 5. Quartier ______________________________________________

A.8. Niveau d’étude de l’enquêté |______||______|

• 1= Jamais étudié • 2= Primaire • 3= Collège • 4= Lycée • 5= École supérieure/ Université • 6= École coranique • 7= École Bà là • 97= Refus de répondre • 99= NSP

A.9. Age de l’enquêté |______||______|

A10. Sexe de l’enquêté |______| • Masculin • Féminin

A.11. Catégorie professionnelle de l’enquêté (Si la personne exerce plusieurs professions demandez-lui l’activité principale)

A.12. Religion de l’enquêté

• 1= Catholique • 2= Musulman • 3=Protestant • 4= Animiste • 96= Autre (à préciser) ___________________ • 97= Refus de répondre • 99= NSP

□ 1= Étudiant □ 2= Éleveur □ 3= Agriculteur □ 4= Pécheur □ 5= Maraîcher □ 6= Commerçant □ 7= Fonctionnaire □ 8= Chômeur □ 9= Ménager(ère) □ 10= Religieux □ 11= Autorité locale □ 12= Forces de l’ordre □ (militaire, police, gendarmerie) □ 13= Enseignant/instituteur □ 14= ONG/Privé □ 15= Groupe armé □ 96= Autres (à préciser):

__________________________________ □ 97= Refus de répondre □ 99= NSP

A.13 Avez-vous participé aux activités du projet DRL?

0 = Non 1= Oui (passer à la question suivante)

A.14 Si oui, à quelle activité du projet du DRL avez-vous participé?

Activité communautaire de masse (football…) Forum mairie sur la sécurité Cinéma mobile TEP Autre précisez……………

1. MEDIAS

D.1 Ecoutez-vous la radio ? 1. Oui 2. Non

99 Je ne sais pas (NSP)

Une réponse possible

D.2 Si non, pour quelle raison ? 1. Jen’aipasd’accèsàune

radio2. Pasdetempspourécouterla

radio 3. Jen’aipasd’intérêtàécouter

laradio|____|

96.Autre_____________________________________

_

97.Refusderépondre

99. Je ne sais pas

une réponse possible

D.3 Quelle radio écoutez-vous le plus souvent ? (1) Guira FM

(2) Sewa

(3) RND

(4) Radio Evangile

5. Autre______________

1 réponse possible

D.4 Combien des fois par semaine vous écoutez la radio en moyenne ?

(1) Une fois

(2) Deux (2) fois |____||

(3) Trois (3) fois

(4) Sept (7) fois par semaine

(5) Rarement/exceptionnellement

(6) Jamais

D.5 y-a-t- il des jours de la semaine ou vous écoutez plus la radio ?

(1) Lundi

(2) Mardi |____||____|

(3) Mercredi

(4) Jeudi

(5) Vendredi

(6) Samedi

(7) Dimanche

(8) Jour férié

D.6 A quelles heures écoutez-vous la radio habituellement ?

(Troischoixmaximum)

_____H--------à-----------____H_____H---------à----------____H_____H---------à----------____H

Ecrivez les trois propositions

correspondantes possibles

D.7 Avec qui vous écoutez la radio normalement?

1. Seul

2. En famille

3. En groupe |____||____|

4. Autre (a spécifier)

99. NSP

1 réponse possible

D.8 Dans quel endroit vous écoutez le plus souvent la radio ?

1. Maison |____||____|

5. Au champ

6. Au bureau

99. NSP

D.9 Quels sont vos thèmes/sujets que vous préférez écouter à la radio

1. _____________________________

______________________ 2.____________________________

_______________________ 3.____________________________

________________________ 4.

___________________________________________________

Ecrivez au moins trois thèmes/ sujets possible

D.10

Quels est votre format de programme radio préférés ?

1= Feuilletons

2= Emissions

3= Emissions-débats

4= Chroniques

5= Informations

Cochez au plus les trois cases correspondantes possibles

D.11

Si oui à D.1, ces émissions répondent-ils à vos préoccupations en matière de la paix et

sécurité?

1. Oui 2. Non |____|

99 ---NSP Si oui allez à D.10

D.13 Selon vous, les journalistes donnent des informations fiables aux auditeurs à la radio?

1. Oui, tout à fait

2. Oui, plus ou moins |____||____|

3. Non pas trop

4. Non pas du tout 99. NSP

97. Refus de répondre


D14 Ecoutez vous les émissions de SEARCH 1= Oui (passer à D15)

0= Non

D14 Que retenez vous de ces émissions SEARCH ?

D14 Qu’est qu’il faut corriger selon vous dans ces émissions SEARCH ?

E. Interactions et Collaboration

E.1 Estimez-vous avoir les capacités à répondre pacifiquement aux risques immédiats de

1. Oui |____| |____| 2. Non 97. Refus de répondre 99. je ne sais pas


violence dans votre localité?

Si non allez à E.6

E.2 Avez-vous collaboré avec quelqu’un(e) d’une autre communauté/group autour d’un sujet important pour vous ?

1. Oui |____| |____| 2. Non

97. Refus de répondre 99. je ne sais pas

une réponse possible

E.3 Si oui à E.3 citez au moins un exemple SVP

1. ___________________________________________________ 2.___________________________________________________ 3.____________________________________________________

Notez maximum trois exemples

E.4 Comment définissez-vous « l’Autre » ?

□ 1= Les gens d’une famille différente □ 2= Les gens d’une religion différente □ 3= Les gens d’une tribu différente □ 4= Les gens d’une ville différente □ 5= Les gens d’un pays différent 96= Autres____________________________________

Plusieurs réponses sont possibles. Cochez les cases correspondantes aux réponses données par l’enquêté. ‘’ Ne pas lire les réponses’’. Si non, donnez des détails sous « Autre »

E.5 Selon la définition d’ « autre » que vous venez de partager ci-dessus, qu’elle est la perception de ce groupe en ce moment dans votrecommunauté

□ 1= Très positive □ 2= Positive □ 3= Neutre: ni positive ni négative □ 4= Négative □ 5=. Très négative

Cochez une case correspondante à la réponse données par l’enquêté

E.6

Quel est le niveau derespect pour «l’Autre»dans votrecommunauté?

1=Trèsélevé2=Élevé3=Moyen4=Bas5=Trèsbas97=Refusderépondre99=NSP(NeSaitPas)

|______||______|

E.7

Quelestleniveaudeconfianceen«l’Autre»dansvotrecommunauté?

1=Trèsélevé2=Élevé3=Moyen4=Bas5=Trèsbas97=Refusderépondre99=NSP(NeSaitPas)

|______||______|

E.10

Croyez-vous que lesmembres de votrecommunauté soientprêts à travaillerensembleavec «l’autre» pour lapaixdansvotrelocalité?

1=Oui2=Non97=Refusderépondre99=NSP |______||______|

E.11

Selonvous,est-cequeleniveaude relation entrelesdeuxcommunautésachangédanslesderniers3mois?

□ 1= Il a beaucoup amélioré □ 2= Il a amélioré □ 3= Neutre: ni amélioré ni devenu pire □ 4= Il est devenu pire □ 5= Il est devenu très pire

|______||______|

E.12 Comment se manifestecetteévolution?

1. ___________________________________________________ 2.___________________________________________________

3.____________________________________________________

Notez au moins trois raisons possibles

E.13

Quel est votre niveaud’accord avec ladéfinitionsuivante:«Si un membre del’autre communautédécède,macommunautésesenttristepourelle»?

1. Très d’accord 2. D’accord 3. Ni d’accord ni en désaccord 4. En désaccord 5. Très en désaccord 97=Refusderépondre99=NSP

E14

Quel est votre niveaud’accord avec ladéfinitionsuivante:«si un membres del’autre communauté semarrie avec unmembredema communauté,macommunautéréjouisse»

1. Très d’accord 2. D’accord 3. Ni d’accord ni en désaccord 4. En désaccord 5. Très en désaccord 97=Refusderépondre99=NSP

E15Quel est votre niveaud’accord avec ladéfinitionsuivante:

1. Très d’accord 2. D’accord 3. Ni d’accord ni en désaccord 4. En désaccord

«les membres de macommunauté n’ontaucun intérêt à initierdes activitéscommunautaires avecdesmembresdesautrescommunautés»

5. Très en désaccord 97=Refusderépondre99=NSP

E.16 Avez-vous déjà eu la possibilité d'exprimer votre opinion sur la paix et la sécurité en RCA?

1. Oui 2. Non |____|


Evaluation des indicateurs pour les membres des structures locales de paix

# Question Options de Réponse instructions

% of members of the trained local peace structures/mentors who have new knowledge related to mediation and consultation processes..

2 Faites vous partie d’une structures de paix / groupes des mentors locaux? Si structures de paix passez Q2.a

Si mentors locaux passez à Q2.b

1 réponse possible

2. a Votre structure a-t-elle reçue une formation du projet DRL ?

0 = Non (passer à Q3) 1= Oui 1 réponse possible

2.a.a Vous avez combien de membres ?

Nombre

2.a.b Combien de vos membres ont été formés en processus de médiation ? Nombre

2.b.a Combien de vos membres ont été formés en processus consultation ? Nombre

2.b.b Avez-vous été formé en processus de médiation ?

0 = Non

1= Oui

1 réponse possible

2.b.c Avez-vous été formé en processus consultation ?

0 = Non

1= Oui

1 réponse possible

% of local peace structures that developed an action plan and implemented initiatives of the plans.

3.a Votre structure a-t-elle élaborée un plan d'action ?

0 = Non

1= Oui

1 réponse possible

3.b Combien des initiatives sont prévus dans ce plan?

Nombre

3.c Combien de ces initiatives prévues dans le plan d’action ont été mise en œuvre ?

Nombre

% of members of the targeted local peace structures who report collaborating with other local security actors on a peace or mediation initiative..

4.a Avez -vous eu des collaborations avec d’autres acteurs locaux de sécurité pour des initiatives de paix ou de médiation?

0 = Non (passer à Q5)

1= Oui

1 réponse possible

4.b Si oui, sur combien d’initiative avez collaboré?

Nombre

4.c Pouvez vous en citer au moins 2?

Citer

# of members of the SCRCA/AFPC/CNJCA who report to be able to relay peace and security concerns from the local level at the national level.

8 Sélectionnez

1= SCRCA

2= AFPC

3= CNJCA

8.a Combien de membre avez-vous ?

Nombre

8.b Combien de ces membres sont capable de transmettre les

préoccupations de paix et de sécurité du niveau local au niveau national.

Nombre

Merci beaucoup pour votre participation

Annex II: Interview Guide Questions for the Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews (in French)

Cher Monsieur, Chère Madame,

Bonjour. Mon nom est __________________________________________________, je mène une enquête pour le compte de Search For Common Ground (Search) une étude en d’évaluation son projet qui est à mi-parcours.

Partie 1: changements des normes sociales (50 min)

A travers un exercice participatif basé susciter l’avis des participants pour répondre aux questions suivantes

● Est-ce que l’engagement au niveau local au niveau national, prévient la violence religieuse et

les atrocités? (FGD) / Est-ce qu’il y a un engagement au niveau local, à Bambari/ Bangui pour prévenir la violence religieuse et les atrocités? (KII)

● Est-ce que nous observons la mobilisation des communautés, à travers un dialogue et engagement constructif, afin de soutenir une paix durable dans le pays?

● Est-ce que les communautés vulnérables devient résilientes à la violence religieuse et les atrocités, en particulier les jeunes?

● Y-a-t-il en place une coalition d'acteurs locaux pour la paix, y compris des comités locaux pour la paix, des jeunes et des chefs religieux?

● Y-a-t-il une collaboration entre les principaux acteurs afin d'identifier et de répondre efficacement aux menaces de violence et la sauvegarde des libertés religieuses dans les communautés ciblées ?

Partie 2: évaluation de risques et contexte ● Est-ce que vous êtes à connaissance des personnes ou structures qui ont dans le passés créé des

tensions ou qui ont exacerbé les tensions existantes ?

● Quels ont été les solutions pour répondre à ces effets négatifs ou quels auraient pu être les réponses/mécanismes de mitigations de ces effets négatifs ?

● Comment est-ce que la tolérance religieuse se manifeste présentement?

Partie 3 – Leçons apprises ● Quels sont les bonnes pratiques et les points d'amélioration dans la mise en oeuvre du projet? ● Quelle stratégie peut être adoptée pour intégrer progressivement les leçons apprises dans la

mise en oeuvre?

Merci pour votre participation

coalitions for peace: preventing atrocities and … · 2020. 9. 3. · the peace committees in...

Documents