Morel-2010-Using CDD for Post-Conflict Reintegration ~ BRA-KDP Program in Aceh

8/13/2019 Morel-2010-Using CDD for Post-Conflict Reintegration ~ BRA-KDP Program in Aceh

1/30

Using CDD for Post-conflict reintegration:

Lessons from the impact evaluation of the

BRA-KDP Program in Aceh

Adrian Morel, Conflict & Development Program, WB Indonesia

Presentation to the

Development Impact Evaluation Initiative (DIME) workshop

Dubai, June 1 st , 2010


2/30

Summaryo Assistance to conflict victims through community-based approach increasinglyused in post-conflict reintegration programso CDD approach viewed as an effective mechanism for channeling such support:

o Ensure the right people benefit (targeting)o Funds are effectively used (transparency, accountability)o Help repair the social fabric (participation, inclusion)

o Based on assumption that CDD may not only achieve welfare outcomes butalso lead to improvements in social and state-society relations

o The BRA-KDP program (2006-2007) delivered US$ 20.4 million in assistance toconflict victims in 1,724 villages (one third of Aceh)

o This presentation is based on a large-scale mixed methods evaluation of the

program.o Main findings:

o BRA-KDP successful in reaching a large number of conflict-affected people (over230,000)

o Substantial welfare impactso Less successful in improving social relations and building trust in state


3/30

Reintegration in Aceho Six months after the Dec 26 th 2004 tsunami, the Helsinki MoU

peace accord (August 2005) ended 30 years of separatistconflict between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and theGovernment of Indonesia (GoI):

o 30,000 deaths; over 400,000 displacedo US$ 10.7 billion in damage and loss; 50% of ruralinfrastructure damaged or destroyedo 1.5 million Acehnese or 39% of the population consider

themselves conflict victimso Government Reintegration Fund (US$ 150 million) set up to

help combatants, prisoners and conflict-affected groupso The Aceh Reintegration Board (BRA) established to manage

funds and programs Supervision by National PlanningAgency (Bappenas)


4/30

Community-Based Reintegration Assistancefor Conflict Victims (BRA-KDP)

o Genesis of the BRA-KDP program:o Initial attempts to individually target victims problematic BRA lacked

capacity and proper mechanisms to verify claimso Change to use of Kecamatan Development Program (KDP) which

already operated in every village in Aceho Targeting devolved to community-level, with safeguards to ensurefunds are used effectively in a transparent and accountable manner

o BRA-KDP mechanisms:o Village meetings, facilitated by KDP staff, decided on local criteria for

who was a victim and how funds should be spento Open menu: communities can decide whether to finance public

infrastructure or economically beneficial private goodso Ex-combatants not eligible (they receive targeted support from other

BRA program)


5/30

Selecting Sub-districts to Receive BRA-KDP

Program aimed to target the mostconflict-affected sub-districts. Combinedseveral variables into an index of conflictaffectedness

Only sub-districts that surpasses aspending capacity threshold (60 percentdisbursement of 2005 KDP funds) were

eligible.


6/30

Within Sub-district Allocations

Within selected sub-districts, all villages get a block grant allocation Grant sizes depend on conflict intensity (sub-district level) and village

population


7/30

Community-Based Reintegration Assistancefor Conflict Victims (BRA-KDP)

o From 2006-2007, US$ 20.4 million channeled to 1724villages in 67 sub-districts (one-third of Aceh)

o BRA-KDP objectives: providing assistance to civilians

most affected by the conflict in ways that improve theirwell-being, enhance relations between groups, buildtrust in Gvt


8/30

Questions

o How successful was BRA-KDP in improving the welfare ofconflict victims, improving social relations and buildingtrust in the state?

o What does the BRA-KDP experience tell us about howCDD can be used for reintegration in other post-conflictareas?


9/30

Learning from BRA-KDP: Data Sources

o Primary data source: the Aceh Reintegration and LivelihoodsSurvey (ARLS)o Administered in all 67 treatment sub-districts and 68 matched control sub-

districts, one year after program completion (2008)o Interviews with 2,150 randomly selected households (5 per villlage), 460

village heads and around 1,000 ex-combatantso Statistical strategies for ex-post matching of treatment and control sub-districts, and account for systematic differences between treatment and

control areas (sampling weights to account for variation in village andhousehold size; clustering at level of treatment) --- this allows for accurateestimation and attribution of program impacts

o Design and data analysis by Macartan Humphreys (Columbia), JeremyWeinstein (Stanford), Laura Paler (Columbia), Yuhki Tajima (Harvard) withhelp from C&D team

o Field Implementation by AC Nielsen


10/30

Learning from BRA-KDP: Data Sources

o Management Information System (MIS): Designedto collect info on program progress, participationrates, proposal recapitulation, conflict victimsmaps, complaints, financial flows

o Supervision missions and facilitator surveys


11/30

PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION


12/30

Reaching Conflict Victims

o A large number of people benefited from BRA-KDP:233,282 direct beneficiaries (or 22% of the overallpopulation of target sub-districts).

o Challenge: widespread perception that everyone in Acehis a conflict victim to some extent tension between atendency to spread assistance broadly to satisfyeveryone and avoid creating disputes, and the need toprioritize the most-affected


13/30

Reaching Conflict Victims

o Multiple levels for trying to reach conflict victims:o Selecting most conflict affected sub-districts (but conditional

on spending capacity and plans for a second round ofprogramming)

o Villages in more conflict affected areas receive more

o Prioritizing conflict victims within villages , although others canalso benefit (community decision-making)

o Throughout analysis, we look at whether treatment effectsare different for conflict-affected and most conflict-affected.These were based primarily on self-reported answers to thesurvey


14/30

Targeting within Villages

(1) Degree of conflict-affectedness Asong Tongpeuding village, Titeu Keumala sub-district, Pidie

Four categories of conflict victims were decided upon, each receiving a different amount of assistance High: people whose house was burned (Rp. 3.5 million/HH); Medium: people who had a death in the family (Rp. 2million/HH); Low: people who were tortured (Rp. 1 million/HH); common community members (Rp. 500,000 /HH)

(2) Degree of conflict-affectedness and economic needMeriah Jaya village, Timang Gajah sub-district, Bener Meriah Out of 322 HHs, 167 were selected as beneficiaries. Beneficiaries were divided into three groups: HHs who suffered a death in the family, or had houses and fields destroyed; HHs who suffered trauma or whowere unable to tend fields; Poor HHs that did not possess land or did not have money to purchase food

The amount of assistance was scaled with the first group receiving the largest amount of assistance

(3) Degree of conflict-affectedness and prior receipt of economic assistanceTimanang Gading village, Kabayakan sub-district, Aceh Tengah Twelve out of 49 IDPs were prioritized as BRA-KDP beneficiaries Prioritized because they had not received assistance and were severely affected Each beneficiary received Rp. 2.5 million. The remaining block grant funds were used for community projects.

Communities used wide variety of criteria and approaches for

deciding who was a victim and who should benefit


15/30

Prioritizing Conflict Victims

569 629 668

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Non-victims Vic tims Mos t-Affected Victims

Figure3.3: Average amounts of assistance perceived per victimhood category (.000 Rp)

Conflict victims were more likely to be benefit from BRA-KDP

than non-victims. 54 percent of conflict victims were in treated areas, and 44% of these

got benefits. The probability of benefitting for victims was 24% 41 percent of non-victims were in treated areas and 40 percent of

those got benefits. The probability of non-victim benefitting was 16%

Conflict victims got more


16/30

Perceptions of the Program

The program was very popular: 96% of villagers & 98% of most-affected thought BRA-KDP helpful A useful injection of capital; provided victims with a sense that their sufferingwas acknowledged and compensated Only 12% of conflict victims thought they did not benefit enough


17/30

PROGRAMIMPACTS


18/30

Welfare Impacts: Poverty

BRA-KDP resulted in an 11 percent decrease in the share ofhouseholds in the village classified as poor


19/30

Welfare Impacts: AssetsTABLE 1: ASSET INDEX

Index of 2008 asset holdings

Individuals incontrol

communities

(N)

Individuals intreatment

communities

(N)

DifferenceOLS(se)

DifferenceIV

(se)

0.22 0.07 -0.16** 0.04(1225) (1090) (0.07) (0.12)

All

0.04 -0.01 -0.05 0.34**

(455) (528) (0.09) (0.17)

Conflict victims

Most conflict-affected 0.13 0.04 -0.09 0.43(282) (269) (0.12) (0.26)

*** Significant at 99%; ** Significant at 95%; * Significant at 90%. The table reports population averageresponses (with sample Ns below, where total sample size is 2315), and the difference for populations intreatment and control communities using least squares and instrumental variable regressions. All r egressionscontrol for conflict and spending capacity, their quadratic and cubed terms, and their interaction.Question: How many of the following things do you or a member of your household possess?

Gains for conflict victims in overall asset holdings Largest difference was for motorbikes Little evidence that the project directly funded motorbikes. Program

participants used money they generated from extra economicopportunities to buy bikes.


20/30

Welfare Impacts: Land Use

TABLE 1: LAND USE

m 2 of land that is farmed byhousehold

Individuals in

controlcommunities

(N)

Individuals in

treatmentcommunities

(N)

Difference

OLS(se)

Difference

IV(se)

7740.13 9437.52 1697.4 12200.81(644) (617) (2855.43) (7940.23)

All

6905.98 7043.51 137.53 7590.92***

(245) (297) (1114.56) (2174.80)

Conflict victims

Most Conflict-affected 8215.34 7607.05 -608.29 7382.25***(152) (200) (1614.86) (2774.70)

*** Significant at 99%; ** Significant at 95%; * Significant at 90%.Question: How many m 2 of land is being farmed by this household?

Conflict victims in treatment communities have more than7500 sq-meters of additional land cleared as a result of theprogram (a doubling of land use)


21/30

Welfare Impacts: Subjective PerceptionsConflict victims 18% more likely to report improvements in welfare in project

areas than control areas


22/30

Welfare Impacts: Other Measures

o Weaker or no improvements found with respect to:o Employmento Health and education outcomes

o Availability of amenities

o A possible result of:o Choice of villagers for private goodso One-round program needs more sustained investments


23/30

Social Impacts

Acceptance of returning groups, reported social tensions,measures of collective action capacity / involvement inassociational life: similar between treatment and controlareas

No consistent evidence of impacts positive or negative ofBRA-KDP on attitudes towards government / state These findings contrast with other research on KDP in

Indonesia: positive impacts on various measures of socialcohesion

Might result from BRA-KDP being one-off and spent on privategoods less opportunities for cohesion-building collectiveaction


24/30

Social Impacts: Acceptance of Former Combatants

Communities in project areas more accepting of ex-combatants BUTconflict victims significantly less likely to accept former combatantsafter program implementation

Reasons: Ex-GAM extorted funds from BRA-KDP, leading to higherlevels of non-acceptance; BRA-KDP empowered non-GAM groups insociety, enabling them to voice their non-acceptance of GAM


25/30

CONCLUSIONS


26/30

Conclusion 1: Strong evidence of welfare impacts

o Strong evidence on welfare gainso 11% reduction in share of poor householdso Doubling of land use for victimso Reported improvements in welfareo Asset increases

o Shows CDD projects can be an effective mechanism for :o rapid compensation in ways hat have significant welfare impacts

in post-conflict environmentso delivering private goods

o Scope for post- conflict compensation projects that havedevelopmental impacts in other conflict-affected areas


27/30

Conclusion 2: Social cohesion impacts

o Some negative impacts on acceptance of former combatants :o Failure in reintegration programs targeted at ex-combatants had a

negative spillover effect on BRA-KDPo Problems of separating victims and combatants: Ex-GAM more likely

to cause problems in BRA-KDP villages where they were excluded fromreceiving benefits. Lower levels of conflict in BRA-KDP locations whereGAM were among the beneficiaries.

o Need to better link CDD with other post-conflict programs /possibly best to have same programs for ex-combatants andcivilians rather than separate ones

o CDD not a silver bullet peace -building solution. It does notinevitably results in enhanced social cohesion, in particular whenprograms have a limited duration.


28/30

Recommendations

Continue to experiment with CDD as a mechanism forreintegration, gather information on what works andwhat does not, where and why in order to inform thedesign of future post-conflict interventions

In post-conflict areas where relations between formercombatants and civilians are relatively good, deliverassistance to both groups altogether using the samemechanism

Deliver assistance over multiple rounds to maximizesocial impacts


29/30

Full Reports

o Adrian Morel, Makiko Watanabe, Rob Wrobel (2009),Delivering Assistance to Conflict -Affected Communities:The BRA-KDP Program in Aceh. ISDP No. 13 . Jakarta, WB

o

Patrick Barron, Macartan Humphreys, Laura Paler andJeremy Weinstein (2009), Community -BasedReintegration in Aceh: Assessing the Impacts of BRA-KDP. ISDP No. 12 . Jakarta, WB

Available online at: www.conflictanddevelopment.org


30/30

Thanks!

Documents

Morel-2010-Using CDD for Post-Conflict Reintegration ~ BRA-KDP Program in Aceh