DCPSF Biannual Report 2017 - UNDP

1

DCPSF Biannual Report 2017

2

Project Information

UN Multi donor Trust Fund Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund

Program period Phase II: 2011-2017

Funding Phases I and II (to date): $ 80,342,461

Donors Phase II: Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States

Goal To achieve local-level peace and stability, and support inclusive and sustainable Darfur-wide peace negotiations.

Purpose Communities are stabilized, and trust and confidence among communities is restored, paving the way towards early recovery.

Expected outputs (Phase II or in 2017 only) please specify.

1. Effective community-level conflict resolution and prevention platforms in Darfur are in place. 2. Cooperation among communities over disputed livelihoods assets and income-generating activities increased. 3. Cooperation among competing communities over access to natural resources and basic social services increased. 4. A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas.

Reporting period January-June 2017

2017 Participating Organizations Current partners include: ADRA, CARE, CRS, Darfur Development & Reconstruction Agency (DDRA), Darfur Org. for Peace & Development Initiative (DPI), Oxfam, Peace Bridge Association (PBA), Plan International, Practical Action, Rural Community Development Organization (RCDO), Sudanese Development Call Organization (NIDAA), Sustainable Action Group (SAG), United Peace Organization (UPO), and Welthungerhilfe (WHH)

Contact information Mr. Selva Ramachandran, Country Director, UNDP Sudan; E-mail: [email protected] Ms. Erin Cornish, Head of DCPSF Technical Secretariat, E-mail: [email protected] Ms. Elizabeth Whitehead, Head of the Fund Management Unit, UNDP Sudan E-mail: [email protected]

3

Table of contents

Executive Summary 5

Information on the Fund 6

Context 2017 9

Progress Review 12

DCPSF Technical Secretariat activities 39

Challenges, opportunities and lessons learned 42

Summary financial report and use of fund 41

Annexes: Risk and Issues logs 42

4

List of acronyms

AU African Union

CAHW Community Animal Health Worker

CBRM Community Based Reconciliation Mechanism

DCPSF Darfur Community Peace & Stability Fund

DDPD Doha Document for Peace in Darfur

DDS Darfur Development Strategy

DDDC Darfur-Darfur Dialogue Process

FMU UNDP Fund Management Unit

FPC Farm Protection Committee

MPTF Multi-Partner Trust Fund

SC DCPSF Steering Committee

SDG Sustainable Development Goals

SHF Sudan Humanitarian Fund

TS DCPSF Technical Secretariat

UNAMID African Union – United Nations Mission in Darfur

VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association

5

Executive Summary

The Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund (DCPSF) continues to support peacebuilding and conflict mediation at the community level, through the work of our international and national NGO partners.

This report covers the first half of calendar year 2017.

• During the reporting period 1459 cases were brought to DCPSF- supported Community Based Reconciliation Mechanisms (CBRMs). Seventy-eight percent were resolved at the CBRM level.

• Most cases are related to family disputes, crop destruction or crime. While crop destruction, land disputes, and crime often have a tribal component, family disputes are most likely a quarrel between spouses or over inheritance. The most common criminal matters are to do with theft.

During the reporting period, partners supported 57,000 people directly (51 percent women), and 917,000 indirectly, with peacebuilding, livelihoods, and natural resource management activities.

The DCPSF technical secretariat moved forward with a call for concept notes. 141 concept notes were received, and 24 organizations were invited to submit full proposals in July.

The Fund evaluation of DCPSF Phase 2 continued, with Khartoum- based interviews taking place between March and June.

The DCPSF Gender & Peacebuilding Specialist undertook a rapid appraisal of institutional and staff capacity of implementing partner organizations around gender, and based on this conducted field- based trainings to improve gender mainstreaming in DCSPF-supported projects.

6

Information on the Fund

Background to the DCPSF The DCPSF supports peace and stability in Darfur by strengthening community-based reconciliation mechanisms (CBRMs), providing livelihoods support, promoting effective natural resources management, and building and linking networks among peacebuilding actors and initiatives in Darfur.

Theory of change The DCPSF has a two-track theory of change:

1. If processes of dialogue and consultation are independently brokered, then trust and confidence among diverse communities is restored

2. If targeted material inputs (programmes and services) are delivered, then community needs are responded to and processes of dialogue and consultation are underpinned.

How the Fund works The DCPSF’s overall goal is to achieve local-level peace and stability. The Fund works through partnership with UN agencies, INGOs, and local NGOs to implement projects which further the objectives established in the Fund results framework. The geographic and thematic areas of each round of funding allocations are established following a detailed conflict assessment - with the aim of providing peacebuilding support where it is most needed.

An independent appraisal panel evaluates proposals and recommends them for funding to the DCPSF Steering Committee (SC), which makes all final funding decisions.

Fund outputs 1. Effective community-level conflict resolution and prevention platforms in Darfur are in place.

2. Cooperation between communities enhanced through shared livelihood assets and income generating opportunities.

3. Cooperation between competing communities over management of natural resources and access to basic social services increased.

4. A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas.

7

Sudan United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) 2018-2021 The DCPSF contributes to achieving UNDAF Outcome 5:

• “By 2021, security and stabilization of communities affected by conflict are improved through utilization of effective conflict management mechanisms, peace dividends and support to peace infrastructures and durable solutions that augment peaceful coexistence and social cohesion.”

The DCPSF bolsters the UNDAF’s goal of “reinforcing traditional conflict resolution mechanisms and native administration, and developing capacities for dialogue and mediation.”1

Links to global and Darfur agendas The DCPSF supports Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, to “significantly reduce all forms of violence, and work with governments and communities to find lasting solutions to conflict and insecurity.” The Fund also contributes to SDG 5 – Gender Equality, to "achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls"' and SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth, to "promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all".

The Fund’s objectives contribute to Pillar I of the Darfur Development Strategy (DDS), supporting Governance, Justice, and Reconciliation.

DCPSF and “the new way of working” The work of the DCPSF supports collective humanitarian and development outcomes in Sudan.

Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus discussions emphasize "the need for all actors to proactively address root causes…and drivers of conflict and to support the long-term capacities and institutions that are required for sustainable peace and development"2.

DCPSF models this process through the use of conflict/context analysis as a key factor in determining program priorities and strategies. DCSPF supports the development of local capacities for peace by working with national partners and peacebuilding institutions.

As a well-established Multi-Partner Trust Fund (MPTF), DCPSF contributes to the efficient and collaborative use of funds. The DCPSF TS coordinates with the other Sudan- based pooled funds - the Sudan Humanitarian Fund (SHF) and the United Nations Darfur Fund (UNDF) - to share both programmatic and operational information and best practices.

The Commitment to Action signed by the UN Secretary General and eight UN principals at the World Humanitarian Summit in 2016 frames the work of development and humanitarian organizations and their national counterparts in support of collective outcomes. These outcomes reduce risk and vulnerability and build toward the Sustainable

1 Sudan United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), page 11

2 Background paper on Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus. Inter-Agency Standing Committee and UN Working Group on Transitions. Workshop, 20-21 October 2016

8

Development Goals (SDGs). This “new way of working,” emphasizes collective outcomes, multi-year planning, and leveraging institutions’ comparative advantage.

In Sudan, the Sudan Humanitarian Plan and the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF), both of which now cover a three- year period, define collective outcomes.

The DCPSF’s outcomes, under the overall goal of achieving peace and stability (an UNDAF outcome); also support basic needs and social cohesion, (both of which fall under the new Sudan Humanitarian Plan).

9

Context 2017

Darfur situation update In early July 2017, and ahead of the 12 July date for a United States decision on lifting economic sanctions on Sudan, the Government of Sudan renewed its unilateral declaration of cessation of hostilities for a period of six months. On 12 July, United States decided to extend the decision on sanctions for 3 more months. In October the sanctions were lifted.

In March, the President of Sudan issued a decree lifting death sentences from 66 members

of Darfuri armed movements, pardoning 193 others.3

On 6 March, the 12th meeting of the Implementation Follow-up Commission (IFC) of the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD) took place. The Chair, Deputy Prime Minister of the State of Qatar, H.E. Ahmed bin Abdullah Al Mahmoud, “renewed his country’s pledge to continue its unwavering support for the DDPD.”4

In May, UNAMID Joint Special Representative Kingsley Mamabolo met with the Sudan Liberation Movement Minni Minawi (SLM-MM) and the Justice and Equality Movement

(JEM) in Paris “to discuss ways to reach a peace deal in Darfur.5 Despite signing the African

Union High Implementation Plan (AU HIP) Roadmap last year, peace talks between these armed groups and the Government have not taken place, hence these groups remain non-signatories of the DDPD.

Meanwhile, the Darfur Internal Dialogue and Consultations – DIDC – process continues, with consultations throughout Darfur during the reporting period. Twenty-five locality consultations have been completed in the five Darfur States this year, making for a total of 67 consultations: 63 in Darfur and four in Khartoum. Nearly 10,000 Darfuris have participated so far.

In April, Chad and Sudan met to discuss “ways to boost the ability of joint border forces to preserve security”. "The border between the two countries is not a barrier between peoples in common areas, which have strong social ties," noted Sudanese Lieutenant-General Saad Mohammed al-Amin.6 Security along the border region affects the work of DCPSF supported CBRMs. A DCPSF partner reported that CBRMs have trouble resolving crime here “where the culprit crosses the border and is difficult to track.”

In late May, there were several clashes between Government forces and the Sudan Liberation Movement- Minni Minawi and SLM-Transitional Council in East and North

3 UNAMID. “UNAMID welcomes Presidential decree pardoning members of Darfuri armed movements,” 15 March 2017.

4 UNAMID, “12th Meeting of the Implementation Follow-Up Commission of the Doha Document convenes in Khartoum,” 6 March 2017. 5 Sudan Tribune, “UNAMID head briefs Sudanese gov’t on meeting with Darfur groups,” 15 May 2017. 6 Sudan Tribune. “Sudan, Chad discuss boosting joint border forces,” 28 April 2017.

10

Darfur.7 Some of these clashes, in Kutum locality (where DCPSF partners are active),

reportedly drove displacements in the area, according to the Sudan tribune.8

UNAMID recommended drawdown. Despite these clashes, UNAMID reported that “the level of armed confrontations in Darfur continued to subside” in the first quarter of the year,9 and that throughout the reporting period “the level of armed hostilities…remained significantly lower than in previous years.”10 Notably, “for the first time since the outbreak of the conflict in 2003, the annual dry season in Darfur witnessed only one major and a few minor military confrontations between government and armed movement forces in April and May.”11 The Government did not relaunch its campaign against armed movements during the dry season, in line with the unilateral declaration of cessation of hostilities by the Government and the armed groups.

At the same time, UNAMID noted the “lack of tangible progress in addressing the causes and consequences of conflict,”12 emphasizing that “root causes…remained unresolved.”13

In April, UNAMID Joint Special Representative Mamabolo told the United Nations Security Council that “fighting between the Government and the three main armed movements that were non-signatories to the 2011 Doha Document for Peace had considerably diminished. Meanwhile, the Sudan Liberation Army/Abdul Wahid (SLA/AW) had been weakened and was no longer capable of mounting and sustaining significant military operations.”14

In May, Secretary General Antonio Guterres and the African Union recommended to the Security Council a “phased drawdown of peacekeepers” that will reduce military forces by 44 percent; police by 30 percent, and close 11 Team Sites.

South Sudanese refugees South Sudanese refugees continued to flee to the Darfur States, with nearly 80,000 in East Darfur; 44,500 in South Darfur; and 19,500 in North Darfur as of August 2017.15 As one DCPSF partner notes,

“new arrivals mean additional competition for the limited resources with existing communities and is considered a possible new source of conflict in the future.”

7 Sudan Tribune, “Sudan holds Darfur rebels responsible for the recent clashes,” 5 June 2017. 8 Sudan Tribune, “New wave of displacement reported in North Darfur,” 31 May 2017. 9 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ March 2017. 10 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ June 2017. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 UN Security Council. “Despite Increased Stability in Darfur, Reconfiguration of Peacekeeping Mission Must Not Compromise Gains, Special Representative Tells Security Council,” < http://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/despite-increased-stability-darfur-reconfiguration-peacekeeping-mission-must-not> 4 April 2017. 15 UNHCR. “Sudan: Refugees from South Sudan. 15 August 2017,” < http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/document_12.pdf>

http://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/despite-increased-stability-darfur-reconfiguration-peacekeeping-mission-must-not

http://reliefweb.int/report/sudan/despite-increased-stability-darfur-reconfiguration-peacekeeping-mission-must-not

11

Intercommunal clashes For the first quarter of the year, UNAMID reported “fewer incidents of intercommunal clashes than during the previous period, owing in part to the conclusion of the harvest season”16

However, several clashes were reported during this reporting period, “related to unresolved disputes over land, livelihood, and natural resources…exacerbated by the prevalence of weapons.17 Most intercommunal violence “took place between Arab tribes over access to limited resources such as grazing pastures and water along migration routes.”18

There were several conflicts that escalated into violence, including the following in areas where DCPSF partners were active:

• between Ma’aliya and Rezeigat in Abu Karinka, East Darfur, on 1 and 18 February “over disputes related to cattle theft.” In the same area, 19 February saw a firefight between Berti and Ma’aliya following the destruction of a farm. Government forces were deployed. 20 February saw the burning of two Ma’aliya villages.19 Tensions between Ma’aliya and Rezeigat persisted, with disputes “over the ownership of land and oil in Abu Karinka and Adila” and “Ma’aliya…[rejecting] the draft Marawi agreement which [would] grant land rights to the Southern Rezeigat.”20 Clashes on 9 April killed 9 Rezeigat and Ma’aliya as well as two government soldiers. Clashes again took place later in April and May. “Government police investigated but failed to apprehend the perpetrators, while community leaders urged both sides to treat these incidents as crimes and not an escalation of the broader conflict.”21

• Between Fur and Misseriya in Mukjar and Um Dukhun, Central Darfur, where a peace agreement including compensation was signed on 28 January following clashes in December and January.

• Between Beni Hassan and Aballa and others in Saraf Omra and AL Seiref, North Darfur who in March exchanged fire around an attempted carjacking, according to DCPSF partner reports. (They report that the CBRM in Al Seiref and Gharra Elzawiya worked with local authorities to resolve the issue, arranging an appropriate diya payment between parties.)

• Between Misseriya and Salamat in Um Dukhun in May, clashes extended to Bindisi and Mukjar, according to DCPSF partner reports. Cattle theft escalated into a fatal stabbing and a cycle of revenge attacks throughout May and June. The DCPSF partners noted “communities from seven villages in Um Dukhun locality were displaced to Um Dukhun town.”

16 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ March 2017. 17 Ibid. 18 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ June 2017. 19 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ March 2017. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid.

12

Progress Review

Figure 1: Currently active projects during January-June 2017 (no changes since the previous period.)

Projects active during the reporting period During the reporting period, 14 projects were active, as listed below.

Two projects, DDRA and SAG, ended their programmes and submitted final reports to the technical secretariat.

Project State Locality End date

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Central Darfur Mukjar; Um Dukhun 28/02/2018

CARE International Switzerland (CIS) East Darfur Abu Karinka; Assalaya 31/05/2018

Darfur Development & Reconstruction Agency (DDRA) East Darfur Abu Jabra; Ed Daein 14/10/2017

OXFAM North Darfur Saraf Omra; Al Sireaf 31/10/2017

Peace Bridge (PBA) North Darfur Tawilla 30/09/2017

Plan International Sudan North Darfur Alwaha; Kutum 30/11/2017

Practical Action North Darfur Kebkabiya 31/03/2018

Sustainable Action Group (SAG) North Darfur Mellit 30/04/2017

Welthungerhilfe (WHH) North Darfur Kutum; El Fasher 28/02/2018

13

Darfur Organization for Peace & Development Initiative (DPI) South Darfur Bielel 14/10/2017

Sudanese Development Call Organization (NIDAA) South Darfur Katila 15/08/2017

United Peace Organisation (UPO) (SUSPENDED) South Darfur Al Radom 19/07/2017

ADRA West Darfur Um Tajok 31/07/2017

Rural Community Development Organization (RCDO) West Darfur Sirba; Jebel Moon 31/08/2017

Key results by output People reached by output and activity. In this report, partners were asked to differentiate between direct and indirect beneficiaries. Partners reported reaching over 57,000 people directly during the reporting period, including:

• 5,992 people under Output 1, including CBRM formations, trainings, peace messaging sharing, and other activities;

• 4,356 under Output 2, supporting livelihoods interventions including savings groups, income generation activities, vocational trainings; among others

• 47,534 under Output 3 activities including construction of community centres; construction/rehabilitation of water points; and rehabilitation of haffirs and migratory routes. 22

The 463 people reached by Output 4 are from two peace forums hosted by Plan international, including multiple CBRMs and taking place at the state and locality levels. Overall, partners estimate project interventions reached some 917,000 people indirectly through support to basic infrastructure, water points, migratory routes, and broader peacebuilding support.

Table 1: Sum of people reached directly by Outputs, January-June 201723

Men

over 35 Women over 35

Men under 35

Women under 35

Total

Output 1 2,017 1,157 1,628 1,190 5,992 (39% women)

Output 2 551 1,811 748 1,246 4,356 (70% women)

Output 3 12,650 13,968 10,767 10,149 47,534 (51% women)

Output 4 214 126 65 58 463 (40% women)

22 Three partners reported direct beneficiaries over 20,000 for Output 3 activities. For consistency of calculation

with previous reports, these outlying numbers (all other partners reported 5000 people or less reached by Output

3) were changed to ‘indirect beneficiaries’ by the TS.

• CRS reported reaching 36,020 people directly (40,500 indirectly) through the restoration of 185 hectares

of pasture land in Amar Gadeed and Beltibie.

• Oxfam reported reaching 25,300 people directly (and 85,000 indirectly) through the rehabilitation of 2

haffirs and 10 handpumps used by different tribes in El Serief localities.

• ADRA reported reaching 20,373 people (35,000 indirectly) through the construction of 2 markets in Um

Tojouk and Um Dalbah

23 In this table; Populations reached may overlap between Outputs.

14

Table 12: Number of people reached direct and indirectly though DCPSF project interventions, January-June 2017

Men over 35

Women over 35

Men under 35

Women under 35

Total

Total people reached (Direct)

15,282 16,892 12,982 12,389

57,545

Total people reached (Indirect)

194,685

320,601

194,370

598,893

917,803

15

Purpose: Communities stabilized and trust and confidence between communities is restored, paving the way towards early recovery.

The Fund’s purpose level results are based on 1) communities’ perception of restored trust and confidence and 2) the perception of tribal leaders that there is agreement to use a common and collaborative approach in addressing causes of conflict in their communities. These purpose level results are updated once per year, following the DCPSF-TS organized perception survey. There is no update to these figures at the biannual report.

DCPSF Purpose indicators

Target

Most recent achievement

Remarks

% of community members sampled stating trust and confidence is restored

90%

90% (90% women 89% men)

The information is a comparison between the milestones set on DCPSF’s results framework 2014-17. Each year, the perception survey is carried out in the active project locations implemented in that year.

% of tribal/civil society leaders sampled agreeing to a common and collaborative approach on how to address root causes of conflict

90%

98% (99% women 98% men)

Output 1 Effective community-level conflict resolution and prevention platforms in Darfur are in place

This section outlines DCPSF partners’ efforts to support Community Based Reconciliation Mechanisms (CBRMs) in rural Darfur with trainings in peacebuilding and management; organizational support; the dissemination of peace messages and the organization of inter-community activities.

The CBRMs build on traditional conflict resolution structures that already exist in the community and are central to the Fund’s activities as they provide the forum to resolve disputes before they escalate into conflict.

During the reporting period, active partners reported 115 CBRMs were functional in five states of Darfur. Of these, 6 were established during the reporting period.

Partners support the CBRMs by offering training and capacity building from local experts, support “continuous and regular record keeping”, provide advice on referrals for higher level mechanisms, and facilitate communication and networking amongst CBRMs.

16

CBRM members The Technical Secretariat asked partners to report on the gender and age of CBRM members; partners who reported sex-disaggregated figures reported 26 percent of CBRM members were women (the same figure as at the Annual Report 2016), 32 percent were youth between 15 and 35 (compared to 25 percent youth at the Annual Report 2016), and 33 percent belonged to “minority or other vulnerable groups.” It should be noted that depending on context, partners identify minority or vulnerable groups differently, they could include returnees, refugees, or members of a particular tribe.

Types of cases handled by DCPSF supported CBRMs. All partners provided information on the types of cases handled by the CBRMs. During the reporting period 1459 cases were brought to DCPSF supported CBRMs. 78 percent were resolved at the CBRM level, a further two percent were referred to courts or other bodies. Murder cases were most likely to be referred to higher bodies, with 34 percent of cases referred. Inheritance cases are also more likely than others to be referred, with 26 percent of them passed to a court or other higher body.

Most cases concern family disputes, crop destruction or crime. While crop destruction, land disputes, and crime often have a tribal component24, family disputes are most likely a

24 The current reporting template does not specifically ask whether a given case has a tribal component. Some partners supply this information in the narrative. It would be useful to modify the template to specifically ask for each case.

Figure 2 CBRM training in Kebkabiya Town. Photo: Practical Action

17

quarrel between spouses or over inheritance. The most common criminal matters are to do with theft.

Figure 3Types of cases managed by CBRMs, January-June 2017

Since the 2016 Annual Report, the Technical Secretariat has modified the partners reporting format in attempt to better capture the types of cases being addressed. This has allowed a deeper understanding of, for example, what type of family disputes are being managed by CBRMs. It was discovered that a majority of these cases are between spouses – 230 out of 402 cases. The CBRMs managed to resolve 90% of them. The more detailed reporting also reveals that most crimes are related to theft. These interpersonal matters have the potential to escalate into larger scale conflict, and so the CBRMs’ success in addressing them is critical.

Crime21%

Crop destruction26%

Family dispute28%

Other5%

Other land disputes

11%

Water related9%

18

Figure 4 Case type, resolution rate, and referral rate by DCPSF supported CBRMs (including subtypes) January-June 2017

Number of cases managed by CBRMs

Cases resolved by CBRM

Resolution rate

Sum of Number of unresolved referred to a court

Sum of Rate of referral

Crime 298 222 74% 20 7%

Abandonment of child 1 1 100%

0%

Killing of Animals 4 3 75%

0%

Murder 35 10 29% 12 34%

Rape 11 9 82% 0 0%

Theft 195 166 85% 4 2%

Specifics Unknown 48 32 67% 1 2%

Harassment 4 1 25% 3 75%

Crop Destruction 376 346 92% 0 0%

Family Disputes 402 280 70% 12 3%

Adultery 7 6 86%

0%

Between spouses 230 207 90% 1 0%

Broken engagement 1 1 100%

0%

Conflict between youth and elders 1 1 100% 0 0%

Fight between families 2 2 100%

0%

Fire incident 1 1 100%

0%

Inheritance 39 20 51% 10 26%


Other 70 48 69% 1 1%

Debt 6 6 100%

0%

Fight 11 11 100% 0 0%

Professional (between teachers and school leader) 1 1 100%

0%

19

Number of cases managed by CBRMs

Cases resolved by CBRM

Resolution rate

Sum of Number of unresolved referred to a court

Sum of Rate of referral

Shooting accident 1 1 100%

0%

Traffic Accident 4 4 100% 0 0%


Other land disputes (not crop destruction) 158 132 84% 2 1%

Building of houses 42 28 67% 0 0%

Dispute between nomads and farmers. 3 3 100%

0%

Natural resource related 1 1 100% 0 0%


Water-related disputes 131 103 79% 1 1%


Water point 36 24 67% 0 0%

Grand Total 1435 1131 78% 36 3%

20

Below are examples of cases that CBRMs were able to successfully resolve, according to partners. As can be noted resolutions may or may not include the payment of a fine.

• Crop destruction, resolved through a “dialogue facilitated by CBRM members, compensation paid by the pastoralists, [and] a treaty signed between the parties to not allow animals to enter the farms in the future.”

• Crop destruction and dispute between farmer and nomad, resolved by the CBRM facilitating mutual agreement of the property lines.

• Other land related matters: a case had been pending in court for a year around a contested piece of land. The CBRM intervened and solved the problem by dividing the land in a way that was agreed by both parties.

• Adultery (Family Dispute), a man from one tribe accused a man from another tribe of adultery. The perpetrator was fined 10,000 SDG, of which the CBRM contributed 3,000 SDG.

• Theft (Crime), a man was caught entering a house by neighbours who reported him to the CBRM. He was warned and agreed not to repeat the offence.

• Water related conflict over a hand pump between different tribes. Both sides signed an agreement to share the pump and not fight over it further.

• Water related conflict where farmer and pastoralist children were fighting over water. The CBRM intervened with families to resolve the issue.

• Water related conflict that escalated to “using knives”, the CBRM intervened to compensate one of the victims and helped the police to find a perpetrator.

• Conflict between Awlad Jonoub and Mahada over hand pump. Reconciliation achieved without charges after both sides had provided written commitment not to repeat it again.

A CBRM in Bargo village, near Kebkabiya, managed a string of kidnapping cases:

• “The CBRM of Bargo village including men and women has played important role in releasing [a man] who has been kidnapped by [another tribe]). The CBRM (men and women) in question managed to mediate negotiation between [the person’s] family (the kidnapped person) and the kidnappers, a space was given to everybody to express their opinion on the outcome.

• A second kidnapping incident, the CBRM “did an intelligence work to collect information about who are the kidnappers and where they have taken the victim. They have been able to determine who are the kidnappers and the place where the victim has been taken to, within ten days. After that they reported to the CBRM at locality level and the native administration. This incidence has also been solved peacefully between kidnappers and the family of the victim through mediation from CBRM and the native administration.”

Partners also described reasons why CBRM cases weren’t resolved. Sometimes, the perpetrator cannot be found, a “thief disappeared” after stealing some goats, for example or the “killer…ran away” and “until now has not been found.” A man entered a village and stole people’s money and cell phones, but managed to slip away. In another example, in Mukjar, a farmer was killed by two men on camel back. The case was reported by another farmer who witnessed the incident. While the Farm Protection Committees (FPC) of Saro

21

village and the police visited the scene for investigations, by then then the killers had disappeared.

Sometimes, an accusation is made that cannot be verified. For example, a herder accused a farmer of killing his camel, but the CBRM spoke to witnesses who were unable to corroborate the event.

Overall, the numbers show CBRMs are able to resolve the cases brought to them. Dealing with these seemingly small thefts or matters effectively early on can prevent conflict from escalating. As partner NIDAA notes, the

“only unsolved major tribal conflict in June, the case has started with robbery of goats by two pastoralists (Gimir), … the pastoralists exchanges shooting with [the farmers] as a result the two pastoralists were killed and one farmer, the CBRM and the police got involved in solving the conflict and had a reconciliation meeting in the Mosque with

both families, however during the meeting the sons of the pastoralists attacked the meeting, two farmers were killed and the others were injured. After that pastoralists left the locality and efforts for reconciliation has failed until now.”

While several partners note that the current time-scale of DCPSF projects is quite short to observe peacebuilding impact, partner Practical Action, working in Kebkabiya, notes that:

“The reduction in criminality cases [over the course of the project] is evidence of improved trust and confidence between the conflicting parities in the project area; last year the total cases raised to the CBRMs were about 104, while the CBRMs succeed to resolve only 65 of them (62%), while this year the total number of cases submitted to the same CBRMs were only 77 cases while 62 of them were successfully resolved by the CBRMs (81%). Thus, both the number of cases were reduced and the effectiveness of the CBRMs were improved as well.

In addition to the support to CBRMs, which includes trainings, capacity building and management support, partners conduct numerous other activities in support of peacebuilding in their communities. Several partners held social events in support of peace, and youth sports events remain popular activities that have been covered in other reports. However, some partners have identified targeted responses to specific peacebuilding challenges in their target communities.

For example, NIDAA identified illiteracy as a leading factor fuelling conflict. The organization designed training for volunteer teachers, who enrolled 570 people (most – 557 – are women). In addition to this class for adults, a literacy course for out-of-school children was established in one of the target villages. The partner reports that “these classes attracted students from diverse age and ethnic groups” and provide a “suitable opportunity for knowing each other [in a] friendly space,” increasing trust and confidence.”

THESE CLASSES ATTRACTED STUDENTS

FROM DIVERSE AGE AND ETHNIC GROUPS”

AND PROVIDE A “SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY

FOR KNOWING EACH OTHER [IN A] FRIENDLY

SPACE,” INCREASING TRUST AND

CONFIDENCE.”

22

Practical Action described that in addition to direct discussions between returnees and new community residents, who also face tribal differences, drama shows have played a role “leading to consensus…and agreement for the need for the continuation of mutual benefits.” The results are clear: this is the second planting season where IDPs are accessing their lands and cultivating them freely, while some are planning for permanent return and resettlement.

Partner ADRA, whose project ended during the reporting period, “observed that the frequency and number of cases reported reduced gradually from the first to the second year of the project. This was attributed to the increased level of awareness in the need to dialogue to resolve matters amicably, and to the provision of services such as water since resource scarcity leads to increased conflicts.”

.

23

Output 1: Effective Community-Level Conflict Resolution and Prevention Platforms in Darfur Are in Place

Output Indicators DCPSF Targets Milestones for 2017

Progress 2017 Remarks

1.1 Number of community based resolution mechanisms (CBRM) functioning

122

115 CBRMs (6 new)

6 new CBRMs were established between Jan-June 2017; 115 CBRMs were reported as functional.

1.2 Percentage (%) of community members (male/female & total) with access to CBRM

95%

Total Women Men To be updated in 2017 AR

1.3 Percentage (%) of community members (male/female & total) stating satisfaction with CBRM

85% Total Women Men To be updated in 2017 AR

1.4 Percentage (%) of the number of cases submitted that are successfully addressed.

75% 78%

78% of cases were resolved by CBRMs

1.5 Percentage (%) of community members stating an increase in the percentage of cases submitted and successfully addressed

75% To be updated in 2017 AR

1.6 Percentage (%) of community members (male/female & total) stating a decrease in communal conflicts because of the presence of CBRM

80% Total

Women Men To be updated in 2017 AR

1.7 % of CBRMs with active participation of vulnerable groups in the decision-making process of the CBRMs (women, youth, minorities)

90%

26% of the CBRMs had women as members

32 % of the CBRMs had youth as members

26% of CBRM members are women (. 32% of all CBRM members are youth (between 18 and 35 years of age). And 33% are from vulnerable groups.

24

Output 2: Cooperation between communities over disputed livelihoods assets and income generating opportunities increased

Figure 5 Packaging foods for sale as part of livelihoods activities. Photo: RCDO

DCPSF partners’ livelihood activities aim to reduce tensions by strengthening cooperation around livelihood assets.

During the reporting period partners implemented a variety of activities around this output, totalling 73 new initiatives (with 135 ongoing cumulatively during the reporting period) including supporting youth in market analysis and small enterprise management; the support of cooperative group savings groups; trainings on mobile phone repair; etc. The rehabilitation of markets also promotes interaction among people from different groups.

• Several partners used Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) to support livelihoods. These serve a dual purpose in the context of peacebuilding, as one partner notes, “in addition to savings and investment, which is expected from VSLAs, important information was shared as to how to contribute to the peace and stability activities of the project and how care must be taken not to contribute to further conflict. After the training, the wider communities of the six villages were familiarized on the role of VSLAs in recovery as well as promoting mutual co-existence among youth, women and men from pastoralist and farming communities.”

• Over 2,000 people participated in vocational training during the reporting period. NIDAA conducted trainings in mobile phone maintenance, and each participant was provided with a maintenance kit to start work. Participants appreciated this training particularly as many smaller villages did not previously have someone able to make those repairs. One graduate said his income had increased 70 percent since he started making the repairs.

• Several partners supported income generation for women through the VSLA modality. A partner noted that:

25

“the support for the women groups fostered close relationship among women in the community through joint planning and implementation of

activities. It also created space for women to gain recognition and acceptance in their household. Some women spoke of being consulted more often in decision-making processes in their community and within their homes. For many, this was viewed as once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. It has helped them to build stronger family ties with their spouses. “

SOME WOMEN SPOKE OF BEING CONSULTED

MORE OFTEN IN DECISION-MAKING

PROCESSES IN THEIR COMMUNITY AND

WITHIN THEIR HOMES.

26

Output 2: Cooperation between communities over disputed livelihoods assets and income generating opportunities increased



2.1 Number of community initiatives that deliver collaborative livelihoods and income generating opportunities (including joint labour, trading, community youth and women)

176 initiatives 73 initiatives

Cumulatively 135 community or joint initiatives were reported by 14 DCPSF’s partners. 73 initiatives were delivered between Jan-June 2017. The range of activities included: IGAs, Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs), VSLAs (Village Savings and Loan Groups) SSB (Stabilized Soil Block) production, carpentry, electricity, etc.) for youth of different backgrounds, and oil production using presser, flour grinding, vegetables gardens.

2.2 Number of new/re-established markets that enable diverse communities to interact/cooperate

24 15 Cumulatively 19 market places were rehabilitated in -West Darfur, South Darfur and North Darfur states. Fifteen of these were established during January-June 2017.

2.3 Percentage (%) of community members stating an increase in the economic interventions between diverse communities

85% To be updated in 2017 AR

27

Output 3: Cooperation between competing communities over access to natural resources and basic social services increased

Figure 6 Migratory route demarcation activities. Photo: RCDO

As competition over natural resources is often a root cause of conflict, DCPSF partners support activities that foster cooperation. These include demarcating animal routes and, managing shared resources (including migratory routes, water yards, pasture land) through committees made up of representatives from diverse groups using, competing for, and impacted by these resources.

Thirty-four community based management groups for natural resources were newly supported during the reporting period (with a total of 54 ongoing). These included water, migratory route, and plant nursery committees. Partners worked with communities to demarcate 6 migratory routes. Some 9 pasture/fodder areas were maintained and supported.

Basic social service provision also provides an opportunity for interaction of diverse groups around a shared social service (for example, a school or community center). During the reporting period, some 73 social service infrastructure projects were supported, including: schools, health facility improvement and community centers.

• Partners found that demarcating animal routes continues to reduce conflict between farmer, pastoralist, and resident communities. Practical Action supported demarcating a 40KM route from Kebkabiya to Wadi Bari.

• Farm protection committees continue to support conflict mitigation particularly during the movement of animals. As partner CARE describes:

“An example of this is the work of the Agriculture and Animals committees in facilitating the planned movement of pastoralists from North to South. Farmers were informed in advance to guard their fields. The trust between the ’Ma’aliya and Rezeigat (who suffer from chronic tribal conflict) has increased since the peacebuilding process started during a project workshop

28

where CARE brought the community leaders from both tribes together last year. “

• Some partners provide small grants for basic services in support of this output. CRS conducted Participatory Rural Appraisals interviews with community members from different tribal groups to identify what basic services would be most useful. A total of 17 small grants were prioritized by the communities from the 17 villages where the Promoting Trust Project is being implemented. The prioritized projects by the communities were drilling of hand pumps and the rehabilitation of hand pumps.

• Several partners support education by rehabilitating schools, which then provide a space for intra-community interaction. As ADRA noted, “support for education in the project communities was low, fostering feelings of marginalization among the inhabitants. “The project constructed two schools with latrines (in Mastariha and Griada), and provided furniture, and teaching and learning materials. The construction process of the schools created opportunities for parents, particularly

women, from different communities to meet and interact freely. The project also facilitated the training of a School Management Committee (SMC) with both female and male representatives from pastoralists and farmers. Two school peace clubs were established and

supported with recreational facilities to create a forum for children to socialize. A series of sensitization meetings were held by SMCs in communities among pastoralists, farmers, and others for parents to send children to school.

THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS OF THE

SCHOOLS CREATED OPPORTUNITY FOR

PARENTS, PARTICULARLY WOMEN, FROM

DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES TO MEET AND

INTERACT FREELY.

29

Output 3: Cooperation between competing communities over access to natural resources and basic social services increased.



3.1 Number of community based management mechanisms25 for natural resources (water, pasture, forest reserves, migration routes, minerals, etc.)26

79

34 Cumulatively 54 committees include water, migratory route, nursery, education, health and Village Development Committees (VDCs). committees. 34 of these were established during the reporting period.

3.2 Number of migratory routes demarcated / cleared /rehabilitated through communal consensus

13 6

Five secondary migration routes to wadi/pasture in Ambar and Goze-Alfaras villages (counted as 1 route). -16km 2 routes demarcated in -40 km route (PA describe) -10 km route Goz Bagar to Mangora. -30km route Girba to Um Khahairn - One main route (Algorof-Alahmer) link to Mukjar and Um Dukhun

3.3 Number of areas of restoration of communal pasture, fodder, or communal forests/fodder/

communal forests

29 9 These activities include distribution of seedlings, rehabilitation of pastures etc.

3.4 Percentage (%) of community members

75% Total


25 The information monitored is not the number of infrastructure but the management mechanisms. 26 This to be disaggregated according to activity i.e. water, pasture, migration route, minerals, etc. in reporting

30

confirming communal consensus around restoration of migratory routes/pasture/fodder/communal forests

3.5 Number of social service infrastructure rehabilitated/newly built27

109 77 Infrastructure services such as, water sources, rehabilitation of school, rehabilitation of dam, construction of multipurpose community centers etc.

3.6 Percentage (%) of community members (male, female & total) stating an increase in the number of interactions between diverse communities through basic services (health initiatives, schools, vocational education, water)

85% Total


27 This to be disaggregated by the social service rehabilitated or built i.e. school, clinic, etc. in reporting

31

Output 4: A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas

Output 4 has two components: to support Community Based Organizations to conduct peacebuilding activities; and to facilitate the interaction of DCPSF supported CBRMs with higher level Darfur peace for and processes.

While most partners did not include Output 4 at the proposal phase, five have reported some activities in support of this output.

As of the reporting period, partners reported having developed the capacity of a cumulative total of 19 civil society organizations; and that these 19 organizations they had supported were implementing and practicing peacebuilding activities

Partners reported 4 interactions of CBRMs with state and regional for a, that is, at the locality or state level. These were all peace foras hosted by CBRMs that included representatives at the locality and or state level.

Output 4: A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas



4.1 Number of civil society organizations develop capacity to prioritize, plan, design and implement projects leading to equitable and sustainable growth (including peacebuilding skills, livelihoods skills, vocational training, etc.)

35 19 cumulative (9 additional in reporting period).

Four partners planned to support and train CBOs during the calendar year. To date, one partner reports supporting 9 new CBOs (for a cumulative total of 19 organizations supported).

4.2 Number of Civil Society organizations implementing and practicing peacebuilding activities

22 19 cumulatively Three partners reported CBOs they supported were actively engaged in peacebuilding work.

4.3 Number of collective interactions of conflict resolution mechanisms with state and regional forum (Fora and Agenda)

7 4 One partner noted that they support NGOs implementing peacebuilding projects to establish a peacebuilding forum, agree a specific ToR, and hold two peacebuilding foras.

32

A second partner

reported two Peace

forums were

conducted during

this reporting period,

one in Alwaha

locality and one in

Kutum. The

participants were

mainly members of

the CBRMs in the

targeted project

locations, peace

promoters

(ambassadors),

community leaders

from the current and

previous targeted

DCPSF locations,

communities, IDPs,

local authorities of

these 2 localities,

HAC and other

government’

representatives (line

ministries, police and

armed forces).

33

DCPSF Technical Secretariat activities

DCPSF Governance The role of the DCSPF Technical Secretariat is to manage the Fund day-to-day and prepare

information and analysis for decision-making processes of the Steering Committee.

The DCPSF Steering Committee convened in March and endorsed the following:

• The Funding Allocations for Window 1, Window 2, and the Gender Pilot Project were

endorsed by the Steering Committee, with the ceilings of $600,000 for Window 1

and $250,000 for Window 2 and for the Gender Pilot Project.

• The SC reviewed and endorsed the Call for Proposals documents, including

thematic and geographical target areas. The SC agreed to endorse concept notes

via email and meet in person to hear from the Appraisal Panel directly on the

recommended proposals.

• The Steering Committee endorsed an updated DCPSF Steering Committee Terms

of Reference, which aligns the DCPSF ToR with the standard template

recommended by the MPTF.

• The Steering Committee endorsed proceeding with an extension of Phase II through

2020. The Committee furthermore approved the development of a 3-year strategic

plan for the Fund covering the years 2018 -2020.

Partnerships and Coordination

Missions In January, DCPSF participated in a high-level visit from the UK Government. The

delegation travelled to Nyala, South Darfur. Following a presentation by UNDP Senior

Management, the delegation met with DCPSF project participants representing CBRMs,

water committees, women’s groups, migratory route committees, early warning

committees, and youth.

The DCPSF TS participated in the ‘From Funding to Financing: Sudan’ mission which took

place in April/May. The objective of this mission, and the follow-up work, is to feed into

broader efforts to deliver an effective financing strategy for Sudan and to explore how

collective outcomes could be financed taking into account best practices in other contexts

where addressing the humanitarian-development-peace nexus is crucial.

Peacebuilding working groups The DCPSF TS continued to support the Peacebuilding Working Groups (PBWG) active in

Darfur states. The functioning of these groups varies across the different states and is

dependent upon both the interest and capacity of DCPSF partners to drive and sustain

these networks. In North Darfur, the PBWG has evolved into a self-sustaining network and

during the reporting period they drafted a Terms of Reference for the group, whose

purpose “is to enhance/increase the effectiveness and efficiency of peacebuilding works in

Darfur so as to strengthen/enhance resilience and the human security of people living in the

region.” A total of 6 Peacebuilding Working Group meetings were held in 2017 to date.

34

The PBWGs act as a forum for partners to share lesson learned and also to disseminate

information from the DCPSF TS. PBWG members update on their projects’ progress and

challenges, discuss CBRM monthly reports, shared guidance on collecting and writing

success stories; and discussed and reviewed monitoring tools and the programming

implications of the new DCPSF gender strategy. In some cases, during the conflict analysis

period additional discussions were held in the PBWG to clarify information.

# State PBWG meetings between Jan- June 2017

1 North Darfur Peace Building Working Group Meetings held in January, March, and May

2 West Darfur Peace Building Working Group Meetings held in February and April

3 Central Darfur Peace Building Working Group Meeting held in March

Call for proposals On 23 March, a Call for Concept Notes was issued, inviting proposals applications that would contribute to the following focus areas:

Governance for Peace:

• Community capacities for peacebuilding at local level.

• Awareness raising and messaging within communities on the nature, cause and effects of conflicts affecting their communities;

• Early warning and information systems at the sub-state level;

• Revival and strengthening of indigenous approaches/mechanisms for conflict management and mitigation.

Management of natural resources driven conflicts:

• Negotiation and dialogue over access to natural resources (pastoralist migration routes).

• Initiatives to reduce competition over natural resources (water harvesting, pasture restoration, community forests etc.).

• Mechanisms for co-management and conservation of available resources.

Livelihoods for stabilization and social cohesion:

• Investment in priority livelihoods assets that bring communities together around shared interests (water, schools, clinics, etc.).

• Livelihood connectors that provide for community interaction, cooperation and establishing mutual trust. (Markets etc.)

• Interventions that enhance resilience and tenacity of communities for improved social cohesion.

35

Organizations were invited to submit to funding Window 1 (for $600,000) or Window 2 (for $250,000). A total of 141 concept notes were received by the 17 April deadline: 70% from Sudanese NGOs, 23% from INGOs, and 7% from United Nations agencies. These were then screened by the DCPSF TS for completeness, timeliness, and operational presence in Darfur, leaving a total of 111 eligible concept notes.

The Appraisal Panel, an independent group of experts on Darfur, gender, and peacebuilding, then reviewed each concept note and scored them based on established criteria around: quality of context analysis, CBRMs, gender and inclusion, innovation, M&E planning, sustainability, experience peacebuilding, technical capacity, and value for money. After this process, a total of 24 organizations – 12 Window 1, and 1212 Window 2 applicants were invited to submit full proposals, which were received in July.

An additional call for a Gender Pilot Project, with a ceiling of $250,000, is under development and will be initiated in the second half of the year.

Perception Survey During Q1 2017, the TS implemented the Perception Survey, using smartphone based

communications software to collect and process survey results. This information was

incorporated into the 2016 Annual Report.

Field monitoring and risk management The DCPSF TS conducted 17 monitoring visits during the reporting period. These visits identify project performance issues and challenges, track progress toward results, and suggest mitigation measures. Women’s participation, the need to ensure more minority group involvement in CBRMs, are among issues identified by TS monitoring officers.

Financial monitoring is conducted through the quarterly review of financial reports,

followed-up by field-based financial monitoring missions, and ‘spot checks’, of

organizations where issues have been identified. Fraud management and mitigation

measures of the DCPSF include the requirement that all partners have in place an anti-fraud

policy, as well as quarterly fraud reporting by Executive Directors and Country Directors. In

addition to the standard project audit, the forensic audit was introduced in 2016 to focus on

specific budget lines across several partners. The findings of either audit may result in

suspension of eligibility, of which the Steering Committee is notified.

Based on lessons learned from other pooled funds, the DCPSF will consider developing a performance management framework in order to better support project performance and delivery.

36

List of M&E Missions (January -June) 2017

# Name of Partners

Date of monitoring

Place of Visit State

1 DPI 22 – 24 January

Bielel village/Locality

South Darfur

2 PBA 8 - 9 February Tabit East, Magarin, Dulbei in Tabit Administrative Unit in Tawilla Locality

North Darfur

3

NIDAA 13th – 17th Feb

Khor-Shamam, Antakeana, Seasaban, Katila Locality

South Darfur

4

ADRA 14-16 Feb

Umtagouk, Graida, Dangaia Mastariha, Amar and Tendelti-Krenik Locality

West Darfur

5 Plan International Sudan

27 February – 01 March

Massry, Umlayona, Jortoba, Manar and Jomboly, Kutum Locality

North Darfur

6 DPI 1-2 March

Fasha, Beleil Locality

South Darfur

7 SAG 9 March Tofai, Gozlaban at Mellit Locality

North Darfur

8

DDRA 14 – 21 March

Khazan Jadeed, Hilat Al-Shanabla, Sheiarya Locality -Mikheazeen l-Furookh, Abu-Jabra Locality -Al-Menjar, Ed Dein Locality

East Darfur

9 WHH 29 March Umsiyala, Kafoud, Abu Sakin, Lamaina at El Fasher Rural/ AlWaha Localities

North Darfur

10

UPO 24th – 30th April

Gerba, Assalaya, Wadhjam, Umkherien

South Darfur

37

DCPSF Phase II Evaluation The selection of a firm to conduct the evaluation was completed in February and the selected firm began work on the DCPSF evaluation in March. Desk review and Khartoum based interviews occurred between March and May. Project visit sites were identified and partners were informed of planned visits in June and July. Due to some delays in securing appropriate clearances for visiting evaluator, field training and data collection and field based interviews will occur between August 21-30, with a draft report to be submitted on in23in October. September.

Gebebish, Shurab, Almalam, Al- Radoum Locality

11 Oxfam America 25 – 27 April Taghae, Gharra elzawiya, Gaback Allah, El Sereif Locality

North Darfur

12

RCDO 2-3 May

Gorni, Abusoroj Sirba Locality and Manjura, Jabal Moon Locality

West Darfur

13 Practical Action 16 – 18, May Villages of Girgo, Mastariyha at Kebkabyaia Locality

North Darfur

14

ADRA 19-20 July

Umtagouk, Graida, Mastariha ,Umdalba-Krenik Locality

West Darfur

15 WHH 26-28, July Villages of; Umsiyala, Abu Sakin, Kafoud, Shaly at El Fasher Rural and Kutum localities

North Darfur

16

CRS 31 Jul – 3 Aug

Mukjar, Amar Gadid and Buru, Mukjar Locality

Central Darfur

17

CARE 1st – 8th August

Abu Karinka, Bakheet, Abu Karinka Locality Maaly, Esharia, Assalaya Locality Aljalabi, Higliega, Ed Daen Locality

East Darfur

38

Gender assessment and results During the reporting period, the DCPSF gender officer undertook a rapid appraisal of the institutional and staff capacity of implementing partners to identify existing capacity and design future training programmes.

She found that in the partner organizations

• Partners have a mixed understanding of international frameworks on Gender.

• INGO partners have mixed quality of gender policies

• NNGO partners “lack the knowledge about gender policies” and “had no gender policies in place.” Only one NNGO had a policy but staff were not informed about this.

• Nonetheless, one organizations “demonstrated excellent ad-hoc practices on building women’s capacities and leadership.

The gender appraisal further looked at gender mainstreaming in the CBRMs and found that:

• Most, but not all, of DCPSF partners manage to diversify the members of the CBRMs and to not only include traditional leaders but include representative from each of the existing tribes and increasing participation of women and youth (male and females).

• The DCPSF-TS does not provide guidance on how to select and integrate Partners differed in their selection processes

• Female members of the CBRMs often have the specific responsibility to address cases that involved female disputants.

Based on these findings, the gender officer developed training materials for capacity development and prepared a training calendar for regularly upgrading the capacity of partner staff. Two 3 days training workshops were held North Darfur and West Darfur.

In addition to ensuring that the Call for Proposal materials had gender mainstreamed and a gender-sensitive guidance was provided to applicants, she contributed to the review of the recommended proposals as to their gender sensitivity.

39

Challenges, opportunities, and lessons learned

Issues identified by technical secretariat

Coordination

The TS has been coordinating with other Sudan based pooled funds (the UN Darfur Fund and the Sudan Humanitarian Fund), UNDP projects, and peacebuilding and resilience projects receiving bilateral funding from our donors in order to better identify synergies and avoid overlaps. These practical discussions mirror the more theoretical discussions taking place regarding the humanitarian/peacebuilding/development nexus and the new way of working. Some of the questions being addressed focus on: how are different types of peacebuilding/resilience interventions sequenced and/or layered; what does it mean for a community to be “stabilized” in the context of Darfur; and what are the criteria for identification/targeting of communities for the different approaches. The DCPSF TS recognizes the need to expand and continue these discussions with the aim to develop a common understanding among peacebuilding actors, a more cohesive approach in communities, and an efficient use of resources.

Guidance and quality control of data around people reached

The TS is working to improve data collection around people reached estimates. While the reporting format now distinguishes between direct and indirect beneficiaries, it is evident from partner reports that there is still a lack of clarity around this distinction. The partner onboarding process and the call for the annual report should highlight this with partners and the TS will follow up with them during the annual report writing period to ensure a stronger evidence base for these numbers.

Perception survey implementation

The TS used new mobile based tools to carry out the perception survey. However, there were quality issues that the TS was unable to fix on the ground. One instance is the under-representation of female perspectives in the conducted survey. As in past surveyed, nomadic groups were underrepresented as well. For next year’s survey, the TS will consider other options – including an external consultant to oversee the survey process – to improve survey quality and better train enumerators.

Conflict analysis process

The conflict analysis underpins the DCPSF’s funding priorities. While the TS was able to identify key conflict themes and funding priorities from its most recent conflict analysis process, the TS encountered some difficulties in finalizing a high-quality conflict analysis. For the first time, the TS adopted UNDPs CDA tool, conducting training of trainers’ sessions with the University Peace Centers in Darfur capitals to carry out and facilitate the sessions. However, not all conflict stakeholders were included in the field-level meetings. Also, the time allotted did not allow for full use of UNDP’s CDA tool. Finally, information was not collected systematically, meaning the final report was incomplete. The TS will consider these lessons learned to improve the next round of conflict analysis.

Issues identified by partners

40

As in previous reports partners were asked to identify challenges encountered thus far during implementation. There were no new issues that had not been identified in previous reports.

Delay in signing technical agreements

This is a holdover from the beginning of most projects when it took several weeks longer than expected to finalize technical agreements with relevant authorities, leading to some delays in implementation.

Youth involvement in peacebuilding activities

A few partners mentioned drug use among youth as an increasing factor hindering their efforts at involving youth in activities. As mentioned in previous reports, in some communities elders don’t believe youth can contribute to peacebuilding “as it is believed they lack experience and don’t have the patience needed,” and especially cannot deal with more complicated issues like murder. There is also the sense that youth meetings are a waste of time, because “they think they meet because they have no work to do.”

Gender equality

Several partners reported continued barriers to women’s full participation. Specifically referring to their work around VSLAs, one partner noted that “there is resistance to accept…allowing women to engage in business,” and that women in the community felt comfortable taking a leadership position only if they were widows.

Another partner wrote that “although some female youth participated in some meetings to resolve conflicts, the level of participation by female youth in peacebuilding platforms is still challenging due to the conservative nature of rural communities.”

Record keeping

Some partners see their principal support to the CBRM, after trainings and offering new perspectives, to be ensuring “continuous and regular record keeping.” One partner noted that this was challenging at first as there were sensitivities around recording certain incidents.

In some villages, illiteracy is also a factor in ensuring quality record keeping. Particularly among women, this “hampers full and effective participation…” in one community “there are no women able to read or write.”

Partnership capacity

One partner noted that “the capacity of the national NGOs to implement plans was the major challenge faced by the project. Frequent staff turnover and poor presence in the field led to low performance. Despite repeated meetings and support…liquidation of the first instalment took more than three months. “The INGO noted they had devised a catch-up plan with improved monitoring and more frequent meetings to ensure success. Frequent staff turnover at INGOs themselves was also cited as a challenge.

Another partner noted the value in working with several partners, as different partners have specific skill-sets as well as specific relationships with line ministries: “the acceptance

41

of each varies from ministry to ministry but as we are working as one, the support from every side is good.”

42

43

Annex 1: Risk and Issues logs

RISK LOG

# Description Type

Impact and Probability

Measures Owner Date Identified

Status

1

Risk of gaps in peacekeeping activities due to the withdrawal of UNAMID.

Political & Security

Impact: Insecurity could increase leading to limited access to communities. Probability: High

DCPSF TS will Coordinate with UNDP and RC's office about potential impact of this.

DCPSF TS

June 16 Updated September 17

Ongoing and increasing with news of increased closures

2

Risk of increased insecurity in Darfur and escalation of sporadic conflicts.

Political & Security

Impact: Partner access to communities may be limited. -Monitoring of project activities may be limited -Community members may be reluctant to participate in activities Probability: Medium

DCPSF TS and partners will work in close cooperation with the community, officials, and other organizations to build trust and share information. -DCPSF’s international partner’s will work closely with sub national partners to build their capacity to implement the projects without constant supervision.

DCPSF TS

Jan 2014 Updated 2017

Decreasing based on UNAMID reports and mission change; however, departure of mission adds risk.

3 Risk of delays in obtaining approval for DCPSF activities from authorities- partner projects, surveys, evaluations, etc.

Political Impact: Project activities are delayed, changed, or cancelled. -Project assessments, baselines, and evaluations lack sufficient

-DCPSF’S partners will work closely with local HAC to expedite the process. -DCPSF’s partner to involve key local departments and officials in early project

DCPSF TS

Jan 2014 Updated 2017

Increasing and partners emphasized this in Annual 2016 and Biannual 2017 reports.

44

# Description Type



Status

evidence to make informed decisions. Probability: High

consultations and planning phase. -DCPSF TS to consider alternative ways of gathering data, such as using local institutions.

4 Breakout of large scale conflict involving or affecting community in the project area which in turn displaces project beneficiaries.

Political /Social

Impact: Project activities cannot be implemented as planned; -New priority needs development after project has been approved and implementation started Probability: Medium

-Continued close monitoring of conflict situation throughout Darfur. -TS will maintain communication with partners continuously for mitigation measures. -Continue work with National NGOs -DCPSF TS to allow for flexibility in change of activities due to extenuating circumstances

DCPSF TS

Jan 2014 Decreasing

5 Lack of qualified project staff as a result of slow recruitment, staff turnover, low salaries, or injury and accidents.

Organizational

Impact: Delays in project implementation; loss of organizational history and learning; quality of project implementation may decrease. Probability: High

-Ensure proper documentation of project, key stakeholders and progress/challenges - Long term agreements with partners could succeed in retaining staff with better contractual agreements.

DCPSF TS and Partners

Jan 2015 Updated Jun 2017

Ongoing and increasing: several partners identify staff turnover as an issue.

45

# Description Type



Status

6 Risk of INGOs or NNGOs being suspended from operating in Darfur.

Political Impact: Assistance for communities might be delayed or cancelled. Assistance may not be provided through a neutral or impartial manner Probability: Medium

-Continued close monitoring by TS. -Capacitating local partners to carry out project activities in such situations. -Partners develop and maintain close coordination with HAC and local officials


Nov 2016

Ongoing

7 Risk of CBRMs becoming inactive when partner support has ended.

Programmatic

Impact: The trust and confidence gained during project implementation could be weakened. Probability: Medium

-Strengthen formation of CBRMs and monitor the capacity building of CBRMs. -Work with partners to ensure that they encourage independent and sustainable CBRMs throughout the project. -Discourage partners from using incentives and other payments for CBRM members


Jan-2014 Ongoing

8 Risk of project activities having a negative environmental impact

Environmental

Impact: Environmental degradation could reduce sustainability of activities -Impact: Reduction of natural

Partners will try to ensure procurement and delivery of items is done to reduce environmental impact as much as possible. New DCPSF Projects will


Jan-2016 Ongoing

46

# Description Type



Status

resources could lead to conflict in/between communities. Probability: Medium

submit environmental impact assessments, with follow up throughout the project.

9 Occurrence of severe drought (floods or other natural disaster) causing crop or pasture failure or low yield.

Environmental

Impact: This could contribute to conflict between different groups competing for access to natural resources. Low yields could lead to higher prices of food. Probability: Medium

Use of appropriate inputs e.g. drought resistant crop and pasture seeds used. Support for diversification of livelihoods and sources of income. Support for early warning systems as appropriate.

DCPSF Partners

Jan-2016 Ongoing

10

Risk of insufficient funds for partners to implement planned activities due to unexpected rise in inflation, currency exchange rate fluctuation, or sharp increases in price of project inputs which

Financial Impact: this could lead to projects not being completed or being completed with inputs of lesser quality. Also, community expectations could be raised but not met. Probability: Medium

- Partners are encouraged to purchase goods locally whenever possible. -Close monitoring of market prices and security situation to provide early-warning of price increases and fluctuations. -Transparent decision making with communities regarding the use of project funds and changes in financial resources.


Jan-2016 Increasing

47

# Description Type



Status

11

Risk of incorrect attribution or wrong cause-effect analysis of peacebuilding interventions, due to complexity of measuring change in peace, social cohesion, and community perceptions.

Strategic Impact: Incorrect attribution of results could lead to inefficient use of resources and misidentification of programmed strategies. Probability: Medium

-Triangulation of information and results; -Use of multiple quantitative and qualitative tools to measure impact -Continual process of assessment, definition, and revision of Fund indicators

DCSPF TS and Partners

January 2016

Ongoing

12

Risk of possible mismanagement of resources (financial or material). If lack of effective internal control mechanisms or if lack of transparency in procurement and contracting processes exists, funds or goods could be lost or misused.

Financial & Reputational

Impact: This could affect efficiency and effectiveness of projects, delays in completion, credibility of all the parties. Probability: High

Financial, procurement, and asset management systems are continually being revisited to ensure effective control.

UNDP FMU, DCPSF Partners

January 2016

Ongoing

13

Lack of funding to support all aspects of DCPSF at the required level

Impact: Should the contributions from donors decrease, the Fund will no longer be efficient in terms of programmatic versus operational costs.

DCPSF TS and Steering Committee to review and forecast Funds needed and received. Strategic planning includes understanding donor mandates

DCSPF TS and Steering Committee

Jan 2016 Ongoing

48

# Description Type



Status

-The Fund risks being implemented in a way that does not reach the desired objectives or the Fund may need to cease operation. Probability: Medium

and requirements.

49

ISSUES LOG ID Category Date

Identified Description Status/Priority Management

Response Status Change Date

Author

1 Programmatic January 2016

High staff turnover or vacancies within DCPSF partners.

High DCPSF TS to request staffing updates from partners; Expenditure reports from partners to be matched with staffing lists DCPSF TS to consolidate best practices on staffing challenges to share with all partners

DCPSF TS

2 Strategic March 2016

Under-representation of nomadic tribes in perception survey

High DCPSFT TS to identify alternative methods to obtain perception survey data. DCPSF TS to consider changing the dates for the perception survey to better accommodate nomadic tribes.

DCPSF TS

3 Strategic March 2016

Permission to conduct Perception Survey in North Darfur has not been granted for second year in a row.

Medium DCPSF TS to liaise with authorities to see how to obtain permission for perception survey DCPSF TS to identify alternative ways to conduct perception survey. DCPSF TS to request additional funds in 2018 for Perception Survey in order

DCPSF TS

50

to hire independent consultants

4 Programmatic & Financial

January 2016

Partner financial reporting and narrative reporting not adequately linked.

Medium DCPSF TS to work with UNDP/FMU to improve system to ensure that financial reports and narrative reports are reviewed simultaneously.

DCPSF TS

5 Strategic June 2016

Due to schedules of donor reps and UN Resident Coordinator, steering committee decisions are sometimes delayed

Medium DCPSF Steering Committee to discuss ToR and procedures to better facilitate decision-making

Dec 2016 discussion at Steering Committee Meeting

DCPSF TS

6 Operational March 2016

Current DCPSF project budget format used by is complicated, leading to errors in budgeting and reporting

Medium DCPSF TS to revise budget format for next round of projects in 2017

Feb 2017 new budget format developed

DCPSF TS

7 Programmatic May 2016 Unexpected currency fluctuations and inflation has led to price increases for partners

Medium Partners to be counseled to initiative major procurements at the beginning of the project and to continually monitor their budgets.

Sept 2016 DCPSF TS

8 Strategic June 2016 DCPSF Phase II Evaluation firm has not yet

High DCPSF TS to work closely with Procurement

Firm identified and contract offered

DCPSF TS

51

been contracted

Unit to accelerate contracting with evaluation firm

February 2017 Firm carrying out evaluation from May 2017 Evaluation to be completed by October 2017

Documents

DCPSF Biannual Report 2017 - UNDP