dcpsf annual report 2016 - undp · un multi donor trust fund darfur community peace and stability...
TRANSCRIPT
13
DCPSF Annual Report 2016
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 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-December 2016 Partners with active projects in 2016
See Annex 3
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
DCPSF Annual Report 2016 ................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Information .................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of contents ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
List of acronyms ......................................................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Introduction to the Fund ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Context 2016 .............................................................................................................................................................. 0
Progress review ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Projects active in 2016 ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Perception Survey ........................................................................................................................................... 154
Key results by output ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Output 1: Effective community-level conflict resolution and prevention platforms in Darfur are in place........................................................................................................................................................... 18
Output 2: Cooperation between communities over disputed livelihoods assets and income generating opportunities increased ........................................................................................................... 25
Output 3: Cooperation between competing communities over access to natural resources and basic social services increased ............................................................................................................. 27
Farm protection committees provide early warning before conflict starts .................................. 28
Output 4: A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas ............................................................................................... 31
Gender and peace .................................................................................................................................................. 34
Young people building peace ........................................................................................................................... 37
DCPSF Technical Secretariat Activities ............................................................................................................ 39
Challenges and lessons learned ........................................................................................................................ 42
DCPSF Financial Management .......................................................................................................................... 44
The Role of the Administrative Agent ........................................................................................................ 44
2016 Financial Summary ................................................................................................................................. 44
Sources and Uses of Funds ............................................................................................................................. 44
Partner Contributions ........................................................................................................................................... 46
Annex 1 Risk and issues log ................................................................................................................................ 48
4
Annex 2 List of DCPSF projects active during 2016 .................................................................................. 59
Annex 3 M & E Field Mission Log (2016) ......................................................................................................... 61
5
List of acronyms
ACLED Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project AUHIP African Union High-Level Implementation Panel CAHW Community Animal Health Worker CBRM Community Based Reconciliation Mechanism DIDC Darfur Internal Dialogue and Consultations DSPSF SC DCPSF Steering Committee DCPSF TS DCPSF Technical Secretariat DDPD Doha Document for Peace in Darfur DDS Darfur Development Strategy DRA Darfur Regional Authority EWS Early Warning System FMU UNDP Fund Management Unit FPC Farm Protection Committee FSTS Federal Food Security Technical Secretariat GIS Geographic Information System HAC Humanitarian Aid Commission IDP Internally Displaced Person IP Implementing Partner JEM Justice and Equality Movement MOA Ministry of Agriculture MoPP Ministry of Physical Planning NRM Natural Resource Management PBWG Peacebuilding Working Group RoL Rule of Law SDG Sustainable Development Goals SDG Sudanese Pounds SILC Savings and Internal Lending Communities UNAMID African Union/United Nations Hybrid operation in Darfur UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework VAM WFP Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping VDA Village Development Association VSLA Village Savings and Loan Association
6
Executive Summary
The Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund (DCPSF), established in 2007, is a multi-donor trust fund supporting community-level peacebuilding and conflict mediation in the Darfur region. This report covers the DCPSF activities during 2016. and Sudanese NGO partners were able to reach some 12,800 people (directly) and 740,000 people (indirectly) with peacebuilding, livelihood, and natural resource management support. Communal violence persists in Darfur, and United Nations peacekeeping chief Herve Ladsous has
are yet to be addressed." toward collective outcomes in humanitarian, development, and peacebuilding programming, DCPSF works to address the underlying causes of communal conflict by strengthening community inclusiveness and cohesion through expanded livelihoods opportunities and sharing of natural resources, and by strengthening local peacebuilding structures to manage disputes as they arise and before they escalate. DCPSF partners implemented 26 active projects during the year. Fourteen partners began their projects during 2016, while 12 are ongoing from previous years. The DCPSF Technical Secretariat (DCPSF TS) conducted a Perception Survey in early March-April 2017. Some 90 percent of the community members surveyed said they have trust and confidence on the reconciliation mechanisms available in their communities. Further, 89 percent of people surveyed stated the presence of peacebuilding mechanisms and peacebuilding actors has contributed to the stability of their communities by decreasing communal conflicts. During the reporting period, the DCPSF-supported Community Based Reconciliation Mechanisms (CBRMs) have managed over 1,838 community disputes. The CBRMs resolved 90 percent of these successfully. As in previous years, most cases have to do with crop destruction and access to shared resources. DCPSF-supported Natural Resource Management Committees, Farm Protection Committees, and committees formed to demarcate livestock migratory routes and delineate pasture land, directly addressed the causes and triggers of conflict in communities. Indeed, 90 percent of the community members surveyed felt there is positive interaction over shared resources in their communities. While this year there was no Call for Proposals, it was agreed that the 2017 process will start with a Concept Note phase before partners are asked to submit full proposals, with the aim of strengthening the evidence base for partner programmes. A peacebuilding and gender specialist joined the DCPSF TS during the fourth quarter to support partners in designing and implementing projects which address the needs of women and men, boys and girls, in Darfur. Thanks to donor support, the DCPSF will continue working with our Sudanese, international, and United Nations partners, as well as Darfuri communities, to support peace in the region.
7
Introduction to the Fund
Background to the DCPSF Darfuri communities have a long history solving community-level conflict through negotiation and mediation. While conflict has eroded these community institutions, the foundation for peace is there. The Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund, established in 2007, is a multi-donor trust fund supporting Darfuri communities to rebuild and strengthen these local methods of mediation, reconciliation, and peaceful settlement. 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 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 -
level peace and stability. 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 team evaluates proposals and recommends them for funding to the DCPSF Steering Committee (DCPSF 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.
Links to global and Darfur agendas
The DCPSF supports Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 Peace, Justice,
reduce all forms of violence, and work with governments and communities to find
The Fund also contributes to SDG 5 Gender Equality, to "achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls"' and SDG 8
8
Decent Work and Economic Growth, to "promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all".
the Darfur Development Strategy (DDS), supporting Governance, Justice, and Reconciliation.
The DCPSF-TS plays a coordination role among peacebuilding partners in Darfur, through the development and support of statewide Peacebuilding Working Groups and ongoing coordination with the Peace Institutes.
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
support the long-term capacities and institutions that are required for sustainable peace and development"1.
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-Donor Trust Fund, 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 SDGs. This
outcomes, multi-year planning, and
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.
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).
1Background paper on Humanitarian-Development-
Peace Nexus. Inter-Agency Standing Committee and
UN Working Group on Transitions. Workshop, 20-21 October 2016
13
Context 2016
Darfur situation update A referendum held in April determined the administrative structure of the Darfur region. The result was to maintain the existing five-state structure rather than form a single region. Several armed groups within Darfur did not participate in the referendum. On 22 September, declaring the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (DDPD)
dissolved the Darfur Regional Authority (DRA) whose role was to implement the DDPD. Several key ministries which were part of the DRA now report to the President directly, including the Darfur Land Commission. In December 2016, the mandate of UNAMID was extended through 30 June 2017. The Darfur Internal Dialogue and Consultation (DIDC) process is ongoing in
promoting confidence-building and 2
Rainy season generally favorable Harvests in October and November
production [was] expected at above-average levels, as the 2016 rainy season (June-
2 United Nations Sudan, “Support to the Internal Darfur Dialogue and Consultations,” < http://sd.one.un.org/content/unct/sudan/en/home/our-work/joint-projects/support-to-the-internal-darfur-dialogue-and-consultations-.html> Accessed 6 June 2017. 3 Food and Agriculture Organization, “GIEWS Country Brief,”22 November 2016. <
September) has been generally very favorable 3
above- 4 throughout Darfur, except for some pockets in South Darfur.
Increase in South Sudanese refugees As of 31 December, more than 63,000 refugees from South Sudan had reached Darfur since January 2016, including some 50,000 into East Darfur. They first settled near existing internally displaced person (IDP) sites but are being relocated to two new sites identified by the Sudanese authorities. A smaller number, about 4,300 people, have arrived in Beliel locality in South Darfur. In addition to the South Sudanese new arrivals, Darfur also hosts about 10,000 refugees from neighboring countries, mostly Chad, as well as the Central African Republic.
Insecurity and internal displacement During the first quarter of the year, there was sustained fighting between government and opposition forces in the Jebel Marra area of the Darfur region. Since June fighting on the ground was reduced
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/SDN22-November-2016.pdf> 4 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ 30 December 2016.
11
5 according to UNAMID reports. Humanitarian partners had verified some 97,000 newly displaced people during the year, mainly due to this fighting.6 An additional 88,000 people were reportedly displaced but not verifiable. Most IDPs were in Central Darfur and North Darfur, including some in Tawilla and in Kabkabiya, where DCPSF partners were active.
Intercommunal fighting Overall, intercommunal hostilities were
7, though there was seasonal fighting related to
8 By the third quarter, UNAMID seasonal spike in violence between
-decreased, due, they reported, to increased security by state authorities and what
9 There were several ongoing communal conflicts which escalated into violence, including the following in areas where DCPSF partners were active:
between and Rizeighat
tribes in East and South Darfur,
5 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ 30 June 2016. 6 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ 23 December 2016. < https://unamid.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/sg_report_on_unamid_23dec2016.pdf> 7 United Nations Security Council, “Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,” 30 December 2016. 8 Ibid. 9 United Nations Security Council, “Report of the Secretary-General on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,”
including deadly clashes in Khor
Taan (Beliel locality, where DCPSF
partners were active) in April.
Tensions there led to the
deployment of military and security
personnel, the closing of markets,
and .
Later in the year, dispute over land
and resources in Adila and Abu
Karinka (where DCPSF partners are
active) escalated in a series of fatal
cattle rustling incidents. State
authorities mediated an agreement
on fair compensation.10
Clashes in South Darfur between
Fallatah and Salamat in Buram
locality during the first quarter of the
year, after accusations of livestock
theft on both sides. After fighting in
El Malwi in mid-February, thousands
of people fled following the burning
of their villages. In October, clashes
were again reported in Buram and
Gereida (where one DCPSF partner
was active), again related to seasonal
movement of animals. Clashes were
reported in Buram in November. 11
In December in North Darfur,
commercial traffic along the
26 September 2016. < https://unamid.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/sg_report_on_unamid_27sept2016.pdf> 10 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General
on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ 23 December 2016. < https://unamid.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/sg_report_on_unamid_23dec2016.pdf> 11 United Nations Security Council, ‘Report of the Secretary-General
on the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur,’ 23 December 2016. < https://unamid.unmissions.org/sites/default/files/sg_report_on_unamid_23dec2016.pdf>
12
Kabkabiya-Sortony road was
blocked by armed pastoralists citing
the theft 250 12. The alleged animal
theft is part of ongoing tension
between Northern Rizeighat
Sortony and displaced Fur. The
government-led reconciliation
process organized through the
Kabkabiya harvest prevention and
conflict management committee had
yet to reach a successful mediated
solution.
Table 1 Reported conflict events in Darfur by month, 2013-201613
Progress review
ress towards overall goals, using the perception survey conducted in February and March
anecdotal reports, and information from monitoring visits.
12 Sudan Tribune, “Armed Pastoralists Close Darfur Main Road,” 7 December 2016. < http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article61044>
Projects active in 2016 During 2016, 26 projects were active in five Darfur states. For this report, the DCPSF TS asked partners to more clearly differentiate between direct and indirect beneficiaries. DCPSF partners reported reaching 12,800 people directly, including:
13 UNDP Sudan analysis based on ACLED Data.
1
5,500 under Output 1, supporting
community based reconciliation.
5,100 under Output 2, supporting
targeted livelihoods interventions.
2,200 under Output 3, in support of
improved natural resource
management.
Overall, partners estimate project interventions reached some 740,000 people indirectly, through support to the themselves, support to basic infrastructure, maintenance of migratory routes, and other activities that reach the community more broadly.
Table 1: Number of people reached direct and indirectly though DCPSF project interventions
Table 2: Sum of people reached directly by Output
Men over 35 Women
over 35 Men under 35
Women under 35
Total
Output 1 1,919 1,429 1,342 861 5,546
Output 2 417 2,196 403 2,109 5,125
Output 3 942 833 296 121 2,192
Total 3,278 4,453 2,041 3,019 12.863
Table 3: Overall people reached indirectly
Men over 35 Women over 35
Men under 35
Women under 35
Total
215,538 219,353 140,923 163,599 739,413
Men over 35
Women over 35
Men under 35
Women under 35
Total
Total people reached (Direct)
3,278 4,453 2,041 3,091 12,863
Total people reached (Indirect)
215,538 219,353 163,599 140,923 739,413
13
Perception Survey Measuring impact of peacebuilding interventions is challenging, especially
intervention The DCPSF TS uses different data sources interviews, a perception survey, monitoring of conflict data to triangulate and verify information. The DCSPF TS conducted its annual perception survey in March and April 201714 in all Darfur states (save North Darfur) in communities where partners were active during 2016. However, perception survey in North Darfur15 could not be initiated due to lack of approval to conduct the survey. The Technical Secretariat interviewed 468 respondents across 20 villages covering 12 localities across four states. A random cluster sampling method was applied to select the locations in each state. The demographics of the respondents were:
70% men and 30% women.
43% of whom were community
leaders or elders.
80% residents, 12% returnees, 4%
Nomads, and 4% are IDPs.
72% between the ages of 15 and 45.
In addition to the perception survey conducted by the DCPSF TS, each DPCSF partner is now requested to conduct a perception survey in their project area, at an appropriate point in the project cycle. With the most recent round of projects, DCPSF partners have been requested to
14 ToR attached in Annex-3 15 2015 DCPSF TS attempted to conduct a survey but rejected by HAC. 2016 the survey is still pending the permission and clearance from ministry of finance and HAC. DCPSF TC is continuing to peruse
conduct project-level perception surveys. Ten of the 14 new partners initiated or completed these surveys, a positive first step. The project-level perception survey is meant to help partners have insight into the communities where they are working and analyze the impact of their work. The information will also serve to triangulate data obtained during the DCPSF fund-wide survey conducted annually by the DPCSF TS. Partner UPO found that,
81.9% out of the targeted population stated the conflicts are decreased specially between the Salamat and Habania tribes, as well as between the Fallatah and Salamat tribes. These tribes have fought in early Jan 2016 [causing] 50 deaths. There is currently conflict between the Fallatah and Salamat, but there are on-going efforts taken by CBRMs to find local solution for the causes of
And partner ADRA noted that the communities were responding to a more inclusive CBRM membership:
the respondents appreciated the fact that the 8 CBRMs reactivated and restructured by the project are more inclusive of: people from different ethnic groups; women; and members outside of native administration leaders (Omdas and Sheikhs) which were part of the traditional
the clearance with HAC and see if access could be granted in 2017 Q2.
16
Feedback from partners who conducted or are in the process of conducting their own perception survey show that :
While partners also face challenges in
getting HAC approval for their
surveys, at least one partner in North
Darfur has been able to conduct a
perception survey;
Partners are unclear on the
differences between baseline
surveys and perception
surveys and require additional
guidance on the purpose and
process for each;
Partners have been provided
with the perception survey
questionnaire used by the
DCPSF TS. However, without
access to appropriate
software, it is difficult to
assure correct data analysis.
The type and design of
questionnaire used needs to
be adjusted to the data
analysis tools and software
available to the partner
organization.
17
Key results by output
Purpose: Communities stabilized and trust and confidence between communities is restored, paving the way towards early recovery.
The F on 1) commu 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 indicators are supported by all fund outputs: the establishment and support of CBRMs, increased cooperation on the use of shared livelihoods assets, the support of natural resource management, and networking of peace initiatives and support to local structures in
peacebuilding. In 2016 results, 98 percent of the community leaders
surveyed that DCPSF partners activities had succeeded in securing a collaborative approach to addressing community conflict.
DCPSF Purpose indicators
2016 target
2016 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
-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)
Figure 1 Conducting perception survey in Azoum locality. Photo: DCPSF.
17
18
Output 1: Effective community-level conflict resolution and prevention platforms in Darfur are in place
Figure 2 Community mobilization sessions. (Photo: CARE)
This section outlines DCPSF partners efforts to decrease and manage communal conflicts by supporting Community Based Reconciliation Mechanisms (CBRMs) with trainings in peacebuilding and management; organizational support; the dissemination of peace messages and the organization of inter-community activities (for example, youth sports days). These CBRMs are core to support to grass-roots peace building, and build on existing community structures for the resolution of conflict. During the reporting period, partners reported 187 CBRMs were functional in five states of Darfur. 78 of these were newly established during 2016. Overall, partners who reported sex-disaggregated figures reported 26 percent of CBRM members
decision making roles have yet to be measured. 95 percent of partners reported CBRMs had at least one woman member.
19
Of community members surveyed,
90 percent reported they had access to a CBRM, and 93 percent reported they were satisfied with the mechanism in their community. CBRM members The technical secretariat asked partners to report on the gender and age of CBRM members.. Partners reported 29 percent of CBRM members are women, and 25 percent are under 35.
Types of cases handled by DCPSF-supported CBRMs For the third time since the 2015 Annual Report, partners were asked to provide information on the type of cases handled by the CBRMs and whether these were resolved successfully. This year was the first report where partners were
asked to disaggregate data by specific village. Over time this will allow for more detailed analysis of trends over time. All but one active partner provided this information, which is an improvement from previous reports. Partners report that CBRMs are largely successful at resolving the cases brought to them. They report a total of 1955 cases of which 93 percent (1813) were successfully resolved. As in previous years, most cases brought to the CBRMs have to do with crop destruction (29 percent); followed by family related disputes (26 percent) (including domestic violence, quarrels over inheritance, and other cases); and crime (22 percent), (including murder, and theft)).16
16
(as can be noted, the most frequent subtype is
Women, 29%
Men, 71%
Figure 4 Types of cases managed by CBRMs, January-December 2016
Figure 3 Gender of CBRM members
20
It will be useful to support partners to further disambiguate cases within these broader categories. The table below shows subcategories where partners have provided them, however, most partners did not disambiguate to that level. Figure 5 Case type and resolution rate by DCPSF supported CBRMs, (including subtypes) January-December 2016
Number of cases
managed by CBRMs Cases resolved
by CBRM Resolution
rate
Crime 417 377 90%
Abandonment of child 1 1 100%
Injury 2 2 100%
Kidnapping 2 2 100%
Livestock killed 4 4 100%
Murder 52 49 94%
Rape 5 3 60%
Theft 69 61 88%
(blank) 279 252 90%
Killing of animal. 3 3 100%
Crop Destruction 568 533 94%
Family Disputes 510 477 94%
Domestic violence 8 8 100%
Inheritance 9 5 56%
Out of wedlock pregnancy 3 3 100%
(blank) 477 448 94%
Between brothers 3 3 100%
Spouses 3 3 100%
Divorce 7 7 100%
Other 18 11 61%
Harassment 8 3 38%
Refusal to pay for services 2 2 100%
Tribal conflict 1 1 100%
(blank) 7 5 71%
Other land disputes (not crop destruction)
358 332 93%
Burning of fence 1 1 100%
Destruction of a tree. 1 1 100%
Farm ownership 1 1 100%
Firewood collection 2 2 100%
(blank) 337 318 94%
Land boundaries 16 9 56%
Water-related disputes 84 83 99%
DCPSF reporting template in order to better understand the specific matters being referred to CBRMs.
21
Grand Total 1955 1813 93%
which also have a low
resolution rate (56 percent) had long-standing historical roots and were thus difficult to resolve within the CBRM mechanism. Rape cases in a few cases partners mentioned the perpetrators could not be found were also less likely to be resolved within the CBRM. However, the data needs to be further disambiguated by subcategory in order to better understand what kind of cases the CBRMs are unable to resolve. Different programs of support. Partners support CBRMs in different ways, according to the needs and status of the CBRMs in their target communities. CBRMs are structured differently depending on the communities in which they operate. Many partners higher spanning multiple
For example: in Kereinik locality DCPSF partner ADRA established a Higher Executive Committee17 composed of eight individuals (one woman, four young men and three men) who are members of the CBRMs from eight villages. This Higher Executive Committee has the responsibility to monitor and supervise these CBRMs at the village level and address conflicts involving more than one village, or the whole area. Another way DCPSF partners support CBRMs is through training of existing groups. CBRM members increased their skills in community organization and management, negotiation, peace building, conflict resolution and conflict mapping, referral pathways, recordkeeping, gender awareness, communication and leadership skills. Some rely on Sudanese experts familiar with the traditional conflict resolution mechanisms, such as the Peace Centers affiliated with Darfur universities, to train the CBRMs and provide guidance. Partners also offer resources to contribute to specific mediation:
requested 3 times to contribute in mediation process between the youth groups and farm The project supported consultation with someone from the University in El Geneina. Partners also support CBRMs to disseminate peace messages through media including FM radio and theatre groups. One theater group performed at community gatherings using drama and traditional music. CBRMs are keenly aware of the importance of engaging youth in peacebuilding and reconciliation activities and mentoring youth on non-violent approaches to
17 ADRA Sudan
22
resolving conflicts. Several partners supported CBRMs to host football tournaments to bring young people together. One partner reported CBRMs and football teams in each community area organized visits to neighboring communities to express good will and extend hands of peace and cooperation.
Output 1: Effective Community-Level Conflict Resolution and Prevention Platforms in Darfur Are in Place
Output Indicators DCPSF Targets Milestones for 2016
Progress 2016 Remarks
1.1 Number of community based resolution mechanisms (CBRM) functioning
53
78 new CBRMs
Cumulatively 186 CBRMs are functional throughout 2016. 78 new CBRMs were established in 2016 DCPSF target project locations. And 108 CBRMs established in 2015 and earlier have been reported as functional.
1.2 Percentage (%) of community members (men/women/total) with access to CBRM
70%
Total Women Men 90% women and 89% men surveyed say they have access to CBRMs. The remaining respondents said CBRMs were in far-off places and difficult to reach and/or members are not available on a regular basis
90% 90% 89%
1.3 Percentage (%) of community members (men/women/total) stating satisfaction with CBRM
85% Total Women Men 93% of the community members surveyed said
satisfied with CBRMs. The remaining respondents were
CBRM in their community. Five of the six respondents
93% 94% 92%
23
from Adila, were there were several violent cattle rustling incidents during the year.
1.4 Percentage (%) of the number of cases submitted that are successfully addressed.
75% 93% A total of 1,955 cases were submitted and addressed during the reporting period, of which 1,813 cases were resolved by the CBRMs at the community level.
noted CBRM members solved 93% of the cases. Sometimes, unresolved cases are referred to the police or the court system. Cases that could not be resolved by the CBRM often included
community. The
brings challenges in that those who might ordinarily help persuade (elders, leaders, and family) agreement may not be present during the negotiation.
bring challenges in terms of enforcing agreements which have been made.
1.5 Percentage (%) of community members stating an increase in the percentage of cases submitted and successfully addressed
75% 86% 86% of the community members felt there was an increase in successfully addressing the cases.
1.6 Percentage (%) of community members (men/women/total) stating a decrease in communal conflicts because of the presence of CBRM
80% Total
Women Men However, respondents also noted some communal conflicts require higher level political interventions, which are beyond the scope of CBRMs.
89% 92% 88%
1.7 % of CBRMs with active participation of
90%
95% of the CBRMs had women as members
29% of CBRM members are women (72% over
24
vulnerable groups in the decision-making process of the CBRMs (women, youth, minorities)
100% of the CBRMs had youth as members
the age of 35 and 28% young women from 18 - 35). 25% of all CBRM members are youth (between 18 and 35 years of age).
25
Output 2: Cooperation between communities over disputed livelihoods assets and income generating opportunities increased
6 Groundnut oil presser in West Darfur. (Photo: RCDO)
DCPSF partners aim to reduce tensions over disputed livelihood assets by strengthening cooperation among diverse communities. A range of activities support this output, including income generation activities, the training of community animal health workers who can provide a needed service to pastoralists, training on vocational skills for young people, and voluntary savings and loans groups to promote cooperation and income generation. Seventy percent (81 percent of women and 65 percent of men) of community members surveyed stated an increase in the economic interactions between diverse communities.
Several partners used Voluntary Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs)
as a modality to bring people together across community groups. For
example, Plan International reported 12 VSLA members including
returnees and host community members - in Um Dukhun and Mukjar
localities successfully started savings and internal lending activities and
saved over SDG10,300.00.
Two DCPSF partners trained selected community members as Community
Animals Health Workers (CAHW). CAHWs play a critical role in West Darfur
26
as they are the link between Ministry of Animal Resources and livestock
breeders. They provide sustained health care and treatment for the
pastoralists and agro-pastoralists in Jebel Moon and Kulbus localities, West
Darfur. Concern supported the CAHWs to open a veterinary supply store
that will serve the community into the future. As HelpAge, a partner who
implemented similar activities noted, the availability of veterinary services
in settled communities offers an opening for productive, peaceful
interaction by offering a much-needed service to pastoralists. As the
DCPSF projects supported the rehabilitation of eleven markets in five
states. The markets were used by different tribes, farmers and community
members. Partner HelpAge reported market places with 36 shops were
managed by a 20-member inter-tribal marketing committee. The market
place was constructed by skilled and unskilled labor from the local
community.
Finally, some partners used economic interventions to specifically focus on
reported on forming special committees for women around activities such
as handicrafts, baking, perfume making, vegetable production, and leather
goods. In Gereida locality construction of four seed banks and training of 20
women to manage it, gave them an opportunity to run their own
businesses.
Output 2: Cooperation between communities over disputed livelihoods assets and income generating opportunities increased
Output Indicators DCPSF Targets Milestones for 2016
Progress 2016 Remarks
2.1 Number of community initiatives1 that deliver collaborative livelihoods and income generating opportunities (including joint labor, trading, community youth and women)
113 initiatives
112
A total of 112 community or joint initiatives were reported by DCPSF partners. The range of activities included: IGAs, CAHWs, VSLAs, vocational training (Solid Soil Block production, carpentry, electricity, etc.) for youth of different backgrounds, and oil
27
production using presser, flour grinding, vegetables gardens.
2.2 Number of new/re-established markets that enable diverse communities to interact/cooperate
10 11 Six market places were rehabilitated in -West Darfur State and five in North Darfur State.
2.3 Percentage (% )of community members stating an increase in the economic interactions between diverse communities
85% Total
Women Men 70% Perception survey respondents say DCPSF project interventions increased economic interaction between diverse communities
70% 81% 65%
Output 3: Cooperation between competing communities over access to natural resources and basic social services increased
Partners aim to reduce competition over natural resources by increasing community cooperation around natural resource management, as well as supporting basic social service provision.
7 Training in fuel efficient stoves in Sirba locality, West Darfur. (Photo: RCDO)
28
Eighty percent of community members confirm communal consensus around the restoration of migratory routes, communal pasture, and forests; and 72 percent report an increase in interaction between diverse communities around basic social services. Natural resource management Overall, partners established 53 natural resource management committees including 30 water committees, 14 migratory route committees, and nine farm protection committees. Partners trained these committees in mediation and resource management, and brought together different community groups to manage water, forestry, pastures, and migratory routes. Some partners supported more strategic exercises, including the development of community resource management plans. In Jebel Moon and Kulbus CBRMs collaborated with State Ministries of Agriculture and Natural Resource Development to organize community environmental management planning. In this latter exercise, supported by Concern, participants carried out a historical trend analysis on natural resource use. In the exercise, communities highlighted deforestation and pasture degradation, caused by overgrazing, as well as the cutting down of forest trees for firewood and brick making as the major issues affecting their community. This resulted in clear plans on managing pasture, forest and animal grazing land.
Migratory Routes
Farm protection committees provide early warning before conflict starts Eight Farm Protection Committees (FPC) were established by CRS in Um
Dukhun and Mukjar localities, with 384 community members (28 percent
women) trained in Gender and Early Warning Notification Systems (GEWNS).
Coordinating between the community and the Ministry of Agriculture and
Natural Resources, the groups worked to develop plans for opening migratory
routes before the rainy season started.
They worked with farmers and pastoralists on the mitigation of existing risks,
fostering collaboration to resolve and avoid conflicts.
One FPC established a mechanism involving from six communities to ensure
livestock were not released onto farmland before harvesting season had
finished.
29
During the reporting period, partners supported the rehabilitation, demarcation or clearing of four migratory routes. As one partner noted, while migratory routes are clearly identified by the community, both nomads and farmers often ignore the boundaries. While some projects specifically created migratory route management committees, others supported resolving such issues through the broader CBRM. In South Darfur state, DCPSF partners carried out consultative meetings with state HAC, Nomads Commission, migratory routes committee, community leaders, the nomad leaders and CBRMs. Following these discussions, two inter-community migratory routes were successfully demarcated following the standard guidelines and tools set by the South Darfur State Higher Committee for Demarcation of Livestock Migratory Routes. The Geographic Information System (GIS) data was used to identify the start and end points for both migratory routes. Basic service provision Seventy-two percent of community members stated an increase in the number of interactions between diverse communities through basic services, including water points and hafir, the rehabilitation of dams, and the construction of community centers. Water Points and pasture To reduce water related conflicts, DCPSF partners supported communities with the rehabilitation of water points, hand pumps, construction of wells and hafir. As partner Concern noted, such water points of tension among different pastoralist communities, as water was more available for both people and animals. Another partner conducted training for hand-pump technicians so that they can keep the water points functional into the future. In addition several partners supported seed distribution specifically for the rehabilitation of pasture areas, so that animals on the move have designated
Output 3: Cooperation between competing communities over access to natural resources and basic social services increased.
Output Indicators DCPSF Targets Milestones for 2016
Progress 2016 Remarks
3.1 Number of community based management mechanisms18 for natural resource (water, pasture, forest
66
53 According to partner reports 30 Water Committees, 14 Migratory
18 The information monitored is not the number of infrastructure but the management mechanisms.
30
reserves, migration routes, minerals, etc.)19
Route Committees and nine Farm Protection Committee established in 2016.
3.2 Number of migratory routes demarcated / cleared /rehabilitated through communal consensus
6 4 30 Km of Total Migratory route has been demarcated in South Darfur State. 6 KM of Um Labanaya migratory route and 6km in Al Minjar migratory route demarcated in East Darfur State. 15 Km. Secondary migratory route demarcated in Azoum, West Darfur State.
3.3 Number of areas of restoration of communal pasture/fodder/ communal forests
13 3 These activities include distribution of seedlings, rehabilitation of pastures etc.
3.4 Percentage (%) of community members confirming communal consensus around restoration of migratory routes/pasture/fodder/communal forests
75% Total
Women
Men
83% women and 80% men surveyed said there is communal consensus over shared resources
80% 83% 80%
19 This to be disaggregated according to activity i.e. water, pasture, migration route, minerals, etc. in reporting
31
3.5 Number of social service infrastructure rehabilitated/newly built20
87 32 Infrastructure services such as, water sources, rehabilitation of school, rehabilitation of dam, construction of multipurpose community centers etc.
3.6 Percentage (%) of community members (men/women/total) stating an increase in the number of interactions between diverse communities through basic services (health initiatives, schools, vocational education, water)
85% Total
Women
Men
72.4% of the surveyed community members said the basic services increases interaction among different communities
72% 76% 71%
Output 4: A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas Output 4 aims to link the community peace initiatives with higher level peacebuilding for a in Darfur. Several DCPSF partners planned activities around this output. Their activities included:
Support to civil society organizations: Partners supported 69
organizations to increase their knowledge of peacebuilding through
management and peacebuilding trainings, with the goal of increasing
peacebuilding opportunities throughout Darfur.
Higher-level peacebuilding Committees:
three training workshops conducted in Kerenik locality assisted to enhance
community peacebuilding networks between different CBRMs and with
locality and state level fora.
20 This to be disaggregated by the social service rehabilitated or built i.e. school, clinic, etc. in reporting
32
Peace Conferences: DCPSF partners organized 4 inter and intra community
conferences for peace and reconciliation among the leaders of farming
communities, herders and locality and state-level officials in South Darfur.
These conferences resulted in agreements to demarcate two livestock
migratory routes in Abga Rajil and for herders to purchase water from the
community with a nominal payment. The CBRMs will oversee these
processes.
Output 4: A network of effective collaborative peacebuilding initiatives created and feeding into wider peace fora and Darfur agendas
Output Indicators
DCPSF Targets Milestones for 2016
Progress 2016
Remarks
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.)21
23 69 -Kereinek: 42 civil society organizations supported through capacity building trainings. -Tawilla 18 civil society organizations built their capacity to priorities, plan, design and implement projects. -Kabkabiya: nine community based organizations established and trained in administration and management and implementing peacebuilding activities.
4.2 Number of Civil Society organizations implementing and practicing peacebuilding activities 22
11 9 - Kabkabiya:9 community based organizations established and trained in administration and management and implementing peacebuilding activities.
21 Output 4.1 included activities from three partners: HelpAge, SAWA, and Practical Action, all of whom supported community organizations with capacity building. 22 Output 4.2 Practical Action reported that CBOs were practicing peacebuilding activities.
33
4.3 Number of collective interactions of conflict resolution mechanisms with state and regional forum (Fora and Agenda)
9 423
-During the reporting period, one partner reported two additional collective interactions (conferences) with state and regional actors. Most partners report engagement between CBRMs and state authorities, line ministries, etc. However these interactions were not captured under output 4 unless the partner had proposed activities under output 4 in their project proposal document.
23 Output 4.3: Biannual report includes one farm protection committee interacting with state and regional fora; and one CBRM interacting at a higher level.
34
Gender and peace
The DCPSF TS is working to support gender mainstreaming throughout the Fund. In addition, partners have their own initiatives to ensure gender-sensitive peacebuilding activities, and the participation of women and girls. All except one implementing partners reported women were part of the CBRMs, making up between six percent and 50 percent of the participants, with about 29 percent of CBRM members overall being women. This is an improvement from last
active projects, where the range was between ten percent and 30 percent with an overall participation of 18 percent This change may reflect a sharpened focus by partners on the issue, as well as the fact that projects have been active longer and have been able to successfully sensitize communities toward this issue. Some examples of activities include:
Peace Bridge Association, working in Tabit, North Darfur, conducted
workshops with community women on peace messages and supported
intercommunal peace.
In Umsilaya, North Darfur, partner Welthungerhilfe (WHH) supported
women to train as Community Animal Health Workers (CAHW) The training
of women for this role was unprecedented and allowed for more diverse
interactions across communities, as women health workers had different
access than men to members of other communities.
Current progress toward achieving the goals outlined in the DCPSF Gender Action Plan include:
Improved women’s representation and participation in CBRMs: total number
of women across CBRMs has increased from 18 percent last year to 29
percent this year.
Ensured all DCPSF partners are working on a ‘soft component’ for social
transformation within their project plan.
Ensured some partners have addressed points for gender mainstreaming
within their project plan.
DCPSF partners have made delibercommunity level peace structures and processes as beneficiaries, participants and leaders. With the peacebuilding and gender specialist now on board, the DCPSF TS is better able to provide technical assistance to partners on issues related to gender mainstreaming.
35
At the same time, it is recognized that gender mainstreaming is a long-term process, which will require continuous support to partners. Perception survey results gender break down The DCPSF TS perception survey conducted during the first quarter of the year asked both men and women about their perceptions of the project environment and activities. The gender breakdowns for each question are in the above log frames for each output. There were some interesting differences on several key issues, including:
In comparison to 2016, how is the current situation in your community?
Men see less improvement in community security over the last year. Seventy-one percent of women and 52 percent of men say
It may be that the DCPSF activities that women are more likely to be directly involved in (income generation activities or livelihood activities generally), are easier to describe as having an immediate improvement or impact.
Do you think income generating activities through DCPSF project created positive interaction (between different groups such as communities or groups in conflict)?
Further to the above, 81 percent of women, compared to 65 percent of men, felt income generation activities created positive interactions. The IGAs are an activity through which women from different groups interact positively. Men are less likely to
36
be involved in these activities.
Do you think CBRM has good mix of representatives of groups such as female, youth, tribes and minorities in the community involved?
Ninety-six percent of women, and 87 percent of men, think womens participation makes the CBRM more effective. More women (87 percent) than men (78 percent) feel the
mix of representatives (women, youth, and different tribes.)
37
Young people building peace
DCPSF recognizes the positive role youth can play in the peacebuilding process. Many partners have specific activities aiming to mobilize and empower youth as positive agents of change in their communities. Partners report between 25 percent of CBRM members were young men and women (15-35 years old). Partners supported thirty- two youth committees to bring together young people across different communities to discuss issues of concern and interest, and engage in social activities like football tournaments. Youth were also engaged in livelihoods activities, including vocational skills development, entrepreneurship opportunities, and savings and lending groups. Challenges to engaging young people include: illiteracy which makes participating in the CBRM or other resource management committees more difficult as cases are documented in writing; the need for income generating opportunities which match the economic needs and vocational preferences of
8 Youth football tournament in West Darfur. (Photo: RCDO)
38
today's youth, and cultural barriers that elders take the lead on solving problems between tribes or within a tribe, even when the main actors may be the youth of the community.others of the value of their active Some partners engaged young people to play a role in identifying conflict triggers before they escalate. CRS reported that in Um Dukhun, Central Darfur, 90 percent of the focal points of Early Warning Notification System (EWNS) were young people. Partners have identified some challenges to be addressed to enable further participation of youth in DCPSF:
Illiteracy among pastoralist young people in particular makes CBRM and
natural resource management committees less accessible.
Young people often participate in business activities during local market
days and so have been unable to consistently participate in project
activities due to scheduling conflicts.
Elders usually take the lead on mitigation and solving problems between
tribes or within the same tribe. Young people may struggle to convince
others of the value of their active role in peacebuilding in their
communities. At the same time, elders may not fully embrace youth as
members of the CBRMs or understand the milieu of Darfuri youth today.
39
DCPSF Technical Secretariat Activities
DCPSF Governance In accordance with the overall DCPSF governance architecture as a Multi-Partner Trust Fund, the role of the DCSPF Technical Secretariat is to oversee the day-to-day management of the Fund and prepare information and analysis for decision-making processes of the Steering Committee. The DCPSF TS provides technical and substantive support to the Steering Committee and streamlines the preparation, decision-making and evaluation processes related to the DCPSF-financed activities. During the reporting period, the DCPSF TS organized two Technical meetings and two Steering Committee meetings. At the technical meetings, attendees reviewed the achievements of the Small Grants Programme Manager II (SGPM) project, which ended in February; finalized the ToR for the DCPSF Evaluation; reviewed the options matrix for selecting new DCPSF partners; clarified information presented in the DCPSF reports; and discussed organogram and DCPSF TS budget details. The Steering Committee meetings focused on: reviewing and approving the DCPSF Annual and Bi-Annual Reports; review and approval of the funding allocation for new projects in 2017; resource mobilization; and endorsing the annual work plan and budget for the DCPSF TS. The Steering Committee also discussed the structure and scheduling of Steering Committee meetings, with plans to more formally review the Steering Committee ToR in 2017.
Staff recruitment The Gender and Peacebuilding Specialist (national staff position) was recruited and began working in November. After her initial orientation to the Fund and visits to all the field offices, she has developed a priority plan for implementation of the DCPSF Gender Strategy. The DCPSF Programme Specialist Peacebuilding (international staff position) staff member left her post in September. To cover for this staffing gap, as well as to fill in for the extended leave of the Communications and Reporting Analyst, a UNDP staff member from another UNDP Sudan project was seconded to DCPSF to cover the high priority tasks for these two positions. The Steering Committee approved two staffing changes at the December 2016 meeting. The Programme Specialist-Peacebuilding (international staff) will now be based in Khartoum rather than in El Fasher; and the Monitoring and Reporting Officer position (national staff member) will be eliminated in 2017.
40
Field visits with donors The DCPSF TS facilitated three donor visits in 2016:
In August, a delegation from the British Embassy, including the British
Ambassador, visited DCPSF projects and government officials in South
Darfur.
A joint visit to DCPSF projects and UNDP Livelihoods projects in West and
Central Darfur was arranged for the Swiss Embassy in September.
A Swedish delegation from Headquarters was taken “deep field” to South
Darfur in December.
DCPSF TS also supported visits of USAID and DFID while in the field by linking them with DCPSF partners and other stakeholders. In addition to visiting the project field sites, DCPSF makes sure to include introductions to government officials, UNAMID, line ministries, and other stakeholders in each donor visit. There were challenges in the logistical preparations for these visits, particularly with obtaining proper clearances and permits for the visitors. In addition to the three visits which took place, two other visits were organized and planned (including arrival of a delegation from overseas) but were ultimately cancelled at the last minute because government travel permits were not issued.
Partnership and coordination Peacebuilding working groups The DCPSF TS Peacebuilding Specialist and M & E Analysts continued to support the Peacebuilding Working Groups (PBWG) formed in each state. The functioning of these groups is uneven across the different states and 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 of both DCPSF partners and other stakeholders. Topics include issues both specific to DCPSF and of wider interest. However, in some of the other states, where there is limited presence of DCPSF partners, the groups are still in the formation stage and require significant involvement of DCPSF staff. A total 17 Peacebuilding Working Group meetings were held in 2016.
41
Call for proposals The projects which were selected in the 2015 Call for Proposals started Implementation in 2016. During the first quarter of 2016, and before implementation, the DCPSF TS conducted thorough reviews of the work plans and budgets to ensure the final contracted proposals were complete and met DCSPF guidelines. The UNDP FMU concluded all of the contracts during 1st and 2nd quarter 2016 and partners then began the process to obtain technical agreements at the state level. In preparation for the 2017 Call for Proposals, the DCPSF TS initiated context analysis workshops in each Darfur State. These workshops were conducted in partnership with the Peace Centers in each state and were based on the UNDG Conflict and Development Analysis tool. The UNDP Peacebuilding Advisor facilitated a training for the facilitators of the workshops to ensure the same process would be used in each state.
Monitoring and evaluation Perception survey The Perception Survey measuring 2015 progress was conducted in the first quarter of 2016. (The results of the 2016 survey were outlined in the 2015 report). The survey reached 272 community members in eight localities. DCPSF Phase II Evaluation The Terms of Reference for the DCPSF Phase II Evaluation were reviewed and revised by the DCPSF TS and members of the Steering Committee. The evaluation was initially seen as a -evaluation changed to it being conducted at the end of Phase II, the ToR was changed to put more emphasis on the overall impact and strategy of the Fund and looking forward to 2018 and beyond. The contract modality was also changed from seeking individual consultants to commissioning the evaluation through an international firm. The procurement process for the evaluation began 3rd quarter and the evaluation of offers extended through the end of the year. The selected firm is expected to be contracted and begin work in March 2017. Field Monitoring DCPSF TS has M & E Analysts based in North Darfur, South Darfur (also covering East Darfur), and West Darfur (also covering Central Darfur). The role of the M & E Analysts goes beyond monitoring visits to partners. DCSPF M & E Analysts play important roles in capacity building for partners; conflict analysis; relationship building with government and other stakeholders; networking; review of partner reports; and facilitating the perception survey. The M & E Analysts, with support from DCPSF TS Khartoum staff conducted 26 (of 24 planned) monitoring visits in
42
2016. This does not include other partner interactions such as donor visits/preparations and visits to partner field offices. The M & E Analysts noted some trends in partner challenges and successes. As the DCPSF TS is putting increased emphasis on analyzing the cases handled by the CBRMs, partners are adapting by better analysis and reporting of cases. DCPSF TS has also increased emphasis on project-level baseline surveys, perception surveys, and evaluations. Again, with the support of the field staff, these activities are receiving more attention from our implementing partners. On the other hand, the M & E Analysts observe there are still challenges for partners in obtaining technical agreements, in some cases delaying the start of project implementation by 4-6 months. Some partners struggle with the DCPSF-required reporting templates. In addition, while many of the partners are well-experienced in project management, M & E Analysts report there are still technical gaps in the area of peacebuilding with some partners.
Challenges and lessons learned
Partners were asked to identify challenges encountered during implementation. The full complement of these issues are outlined in the Issues Log section of Annex 5. Key or new challenges identified by partners are outlined below. Bureaucratic delays As in past reports, partners mentioned delays in receiving funding in their accounts; as well as delays in securing technical agreements from relevant authorities to carry out their work. As one partner wrote
common with a number of International NGOs operating in North Darfur, the signing of the TA was significantly delayed at both HAC and at This challenge was not limited to North Darfur. In Central Darfur, one partner received comments from the Federal Humanitarian Aid Commission
was able to clarify the project was working to support the existing Ajaweed system and was then approved to proceed. Another partner ine ministry director generals, [it] took four months from first submission of the Technical Agreement to its final approval at the end of July 2016 - with amendments being repeatedly requested by HAC both at State and Federal level. This delay in receiving official approval for the project has had serious implications resulting in a
43
three month delay in the project implementation plan. In addition, and as detailed above, delays in approving HAC permission for the baseline survey and perception survey, which should have been among the first activities to be implemented, have also hampered project implementation. Insecurity Several DCPSF projects are operating in areas where communal clashes took place, and delayed programme activity in some cases. Four ers reported temporary interruptions due to communal clashes in project areas. Seasonal availability of people to participate in activities As was the case last year, several partners found it difficult to involve nomadic communities in activities since they are able to participate in project activities in fixed locations only on a seasonal basis. In addition, during the harvest season, farmers were less available, although this did not impede activities so much as require a change in schedules. To address this issue, IPs in the upcoming call for proposal round are encouraged to take seasonal movements into consideration when doing their programme planning. Peacebuilding is long term Again echoing concerns from last year, several partners reported it was difficult to track the slow change of a peacebuilding project takes place on the compressed schedule of one to two years. Most partners cannot track the functionality of CBRMs after project closure. Many partners build peace or youth centers or supplied them with equipment these can serve as physical locations where peacebuilding activities can continue, if there is community will. The Technical Secretariat has identified several challenges which are also outlined in the
roles and responsibilities in conducting their own perception surveys (and supporting their capacity to do so); and the need to improve the diversity of people surveyed in the DCPSF TS's perception survey (currently only four percent of respondents are nomads.)
44
DCPSF Financial Management The Role of the Administrative Agent The MPTF Office, as Administrative Agent for the DCPSF, is responsible for concluding a Memorandum of Understanding with Participating Organizations and Standard Administrative Agreements with contributors. It receives, administers and manages contributions, and disburses these funds to the Participating Organizations, with some functions delegated to the UNDP Sudan Country Office. The Administrative Agent prepares and submits annual consolidated financial reports, as well as regular financial statements, for transmission to contributors.
2016 Financial Summary Excerpt from Consolidated Annual Financial Report of the Administrative Agent
Sources and Uses of Funds As of 31 December 2016, ten contributors deposited US$ 79,582,287 in contributions and US$ 760,174 was earned in interest. The cumulative source of funds was US$ 80,342,461. Of this amount, US$ 64,787,789 has been net funded (transferred net of refunds) to five Participating Organizations24 of which US$58,718,942 has been reported as expenditures. The Administrative Agent fee has been charged at the approved rate of one percent on deposits and amounts to US$795,823. The Table below provides an overview of the overall sources, uses, and balance of the DCPSF as of 31 December 2016.
Annual 2015 20152020152015
Annual 2016 Cumulative Sources of Funds Contributions from donors 4,656,761 6,815,948 79,582,287
Fund Earned Interest and Investment Income 33,999 43,544 551,702
Interest Income received from Participating Organizations - 2,975 208,472
Refunds by Administrative Agent to Contributors - - -
Fund balance transferred to another MDTF - - -
Other Income - - -
Total: Sources of Funds 4,690,760 6,862,467 80,342,461
Use of Funds Transfers to Participating Organizations 5,278,481 6,298,688 67,635,889
Refunds received from Participating Organizations - (116,820) (2,848,100)
Net Funded Amount 5,278,481 6,181,867 64,787,789
Administrative Agent Fees 46,568 68,159 795,823
Direct Costs: (Steering Committee, Secretariat...etc.) 966,186 1,290,039 7,580,618
Bank Charges 293 275 1,848
Other Expenditures - - -
Total: Uses of Funds 6,291,528 7,540,341 73,166,077
Change in Fund cash balance with Administrative Agent (1,600,768) (677,874) 7,176,384 Opening Fund balance (1 January) 9,455,026 7,854,258 -
Closing Fund balance (31 December) 7,854,258 7,176,384 7,176,384 Net Funded Amount 5,278,481 6,181,867 64,787,789
24 Funds for INGOs and NNGOs are disbursed through UNDP, as Administrative Agent and Managing Agent for the Fund.
45
Participating Organizations' Expenditure 7,688,811 5,315,377 58,718,942
Balance of Funds with Participating Organizations 6,068,846
46
Partner Contributions
Since the inception of the Fund in 2007, the Darfur Community Peace and Stability Fund has been supported by ten contributors as listed in the table below. The table includes commitments made up to 31 December 2016 through signed Standard Administrative Agreements, and deposits made through 2016. It does not include commitments made to the Fund beyond 2016.
Contributors
Total Commitments
Prior Years as of 31-Dec-2015 Deposits
Current Year Jan-Dec-2016 Deposits
Total Deposits
DENMARK 942,076 942,076 - 942,076
DEPARTMENT FOR INT'L DEVELOPMENT (DFID)
18,320,793 18,320,793 - 18,320,793
GERMANY 3,103,750 3,103,750 - 3,103,750
ITALY 2,556,800 2,556,800 - 2,556,800
NETHERLANDS 20,000,000 20,000,000 - 20,000,000
NORWAY 10,007,409 8,395,317 1,612,092 10,007,409
SWEDISH INT'L DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION
12,773,024 10,598,904 2,174,120 12,773,024
SWITZERLAND 1,942,559 1,169,124 773,435 1,942,559
UNITED KINGDOM 2,741,941 999,375 1,742,566 2,741,941
USAID 7,193,935 6,680,200 513,735 7,193,935
Grand Total 79,582,287 72,766,339 6,815,948 79,582,287
47
Figure 9: Deposits by contributor, cumulative as of 31 December 2016
USAID, 9.0% GERMANY, 3.9%
NETHERLANDS, 25.1%
UK, 26.5%
DENMARK, 1.2%
SWITZERLAND, 2.4% NORWAY, 12.6%
ITALY, 3.2%
SIDA, 16.1%
1 In Figure 1 contributions of DFID and UK Government are shown combined.
48
Annex 1 Risk and issues log
RISK LOG
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
1 Description Type 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.
UN/GoS/Host communities (UNAMID-SC mandate)
June 16 Ongoing
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. -
closely with sub national partners to build their capacity to implement the
UN and GoS (Security Situation in Darfur)
Jan 2014 Decreasing
49
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
projects without constant supervision.
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 evidence to make informed decisions. Probability : High
-work closely with local HAC to expedite the process. -involve key local departments and officials in early project consultations and planning phase. -DCPSF TS to consider alternative ways of gathering data, such as using local institutions.
TS , DCPSF Partners and
Jan 2014 Increasing
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
-Continued close monitoring of conflict situation throughout Darfur. -TS will maintain communication with partners continuously
TS/Partners/Host Community
Jan 2014 Decreasing
50
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
approved and implementation started Probability: Medium
for mitigation measures. -Continue work with National NGOs -DCPSF TS to allow for flexibility in change of activities due to extenuating circumstances
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 Ongoing
6 Risk of INGOs or NNGOs being
Political Impact: Assistance for communities
-Continued close monitoring by TS.
DCPSF TS and Partners
Nov 2016 Ongoing
51
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
suspended from operating in Darfur.
might be delayed or cancelled. Assistance may not be provided through a neutral or impartial manner Probability: Medium
-Capacitating local partners to carry out project activities in such situations. -Partners develop and maintain close coordination with HAC and local officials
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
DCPSF TS and Partners
Jan-2014 Ongoing
52
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
8 Risk of project
activities having a negative environmental impact
Environmental Impact: Environmental degradation could reduce sustainability of activities -Impact: Reduction of natural resources could lead to conflict in/between communities. Probability: Medium
Partners will try to ensure procurement and delivery of items is done to reduce environmental impact as much as possible. New DCPSF Projects will submit environmental impact assessments, with follow up throughout the project.
DCPSF TS and Partners
Jan-2016 Ongoing
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.
Use of appropriate inputs e.g. drought resistant crop and pasture seeds used. Support for diversification of livelihoods and sources of income.
DCPSF Partners Jan-2016 Ongoing
53
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
Probability: Medium Support for early warning systems as appropriate.
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.
DCPSF TS and Partners
Jan-2016 Increasing
11 Risk of incorrect attribution or wrong cause-effect analysis of
Strategic Impact: Incorrect attribution of results could lead to
-Triangulation of information and results;
DCSPF TS and Partners
January 2016
Ongoing
54
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
peacebuilding interventions, due to complexity of measuring change in peace, social cohesion, and community perceptions.
inefficient use of resources and misidentification of programmed strategies. Probability: Medium
-Use of multiple quantitative and qualitative tools to measure impact -Continual process of assessment, definition, and revision of Fund indicators
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
DCPSF TS and Steering Committee to review and forecast Funds needed and received.
DCSPF TS and Steering Committee
Jan 2016 Ongoing
55
# Description Type
Impact and Probability
Measures Owner Date Identified
Status
in terms of programmatic versus operational costs. -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
Strategic planning includes understanding donor mandates and requirements.
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
56
DCPSF TS to consolidate best practices on staffing challenges to share with all partners
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 to hire independent consultants
DCPSF TS
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
Medium DCPSF Steering Committee to discuss ToR and procedures to better facilitate decision-making
Dec 2016 discussion at Steering
DCPSF TS
57
Coordinator, steering committee decisions are sometimes delayed
Committee Meeting
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 been contracted
High DCPSF TS to work closely with Procurement Unit to accelerate contracting with evaluation firm
Firm identified and contract offered February 2017
DCPSF TS
58
59
Annex 2 List of DCPSF projects active during 2016
Project State Start date End date 1 ADRA West Darfur 01/05/2016 31/07/2017 2 CARE International Switzerland CIS) East Darfur 01/03/2016 31/05/2018 3 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) /SOAR West Darfur 02/01/2015 30/09/2016 4 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) /Trust Central Darfur 15/03/2016 28/02/2018 5 Catholic Relief Services (CRS)/SGPM II South Darfur 01/04/2014 31/01/2016 6 Concern Worldwide West Darfur 01/01/2015 31/03/2016 7 Darfur Development and Reconstruction Agency (DDRA) East Darfur 01/06/2016 31/05/2017 8 Darfur organization for peace and development initiative (DPI) South Darfur 15/04/2016 14/10/2017 9 HelpAge international West Darfur 01/01/2015 15/06/2016 10 International Relief and Development (IRD) East Darfur 01/10/2014 31/01/2016 11 MC Scotland South Darfur 01/11/2014 31/05/2016 12 OXFAM North Darfur 01/04/2016 31/10/2017 13 Peace Bridge (PBA) North Darfur 15/04/2016 15/06/2017 14 Plan International Sudan North Darfur 01/03/2016 31/08/2017 15 Practical Action North Darfur 01/04/2016 31/03/2018 16 Rural Community Development Organization (RCDO) West Darfur 01/03/2016 31/08/2017 17 Sawa Sudan for Development and Humanitarian Aid (SSDHA) North Darfur 01/06/2015 31/08/2016 18 Sudanese Development Call Organization (NIDAA) South Darfur 01/05/2016 15/08/2017 19 Sustainable Action Group (SAG) North Darfur 01/07/2015 30/06/2016 20 Sustainable Action Group (SAG) - MELLIT North Darfur 01/03/2016 30/04/2017 21 UN Habitat South Darfur 01/12/2014 31/08/2016 22 United Methodist Committee on Relief (UMCOR) East Darfur 01/04/2014 31/01/2016 23 United Peace Organisation (UPO) South Darfur 20/04/2016 19/07/2017
60
24 Voluntary Network for Rural Helping and Development (VNRHD) North Darfur 01/02/2015 28/05/2016
25 Welthungerhilfe (former GAA) North Darfur 01/03/2016 28/02/2018 26 ZOA South Darfur 01/02/2015 31/12/2016
61
Annex 3 M & E Field Mission Log (2016)
Name of IP
Date of monitoring
Venue of visit Type of Visit
IRD 29-30 January
Assalaya locality, East Darfur Preparation for the donor visit
SAWA SUDAN
28-Mar Korma and Tawilla, North Darfur Monitoring Visit
VNHRD 24-31 March
Kalemendo, North Darfur Monitoring Visit
UMCOR 27 March-3 April
Ed Daein, El Huda, AbuJabra, Adila ( East Darfur State) Monitoring Visit
Concern 29-31 March
Kulbus, West Darfur Monitoring Visit
Helpage 18-19 April Krenik, West Darfur Monitoring Visit
ZOA 24-26 April Gereida town, Deto, and Umtearan villages (Gereida locality, South Darfur) Monitoring Visit
CRS 26-28 April Azoum, Central Darfur Monitoring Visit
MCS 09-May Abga Rajel east, Abga Rajel west, Kosho, Daba Nayira, Mayirno, Zalata (South Darfur) Monitoring Visit
UN-Habitat
11-May Takaro Village, Takaro Dam Beleil Locality (South Darfur) Monitoring Visit
62
VNHRD 22-25 May Kalemendo and Daressalam, North Darfur Monitoring Visit
DPI 18-20 June Beliel locality Inception Meeting
CRS 17-21 July Habila locality (West Darfur) Monitoring Visit
NIDAA 24-30 July Katila, Haraza, Khor-Shamam, Antakeana, Seasaban (South Darfur) Inception Meeting
RCDO 8-10 August Gornei, Birdagig and Tenjakei; Sirba locality (West Darfur) Monitoring visit
UN-Habitat & Mc-Scotland
18-21 August
Beliel Locality - South Darfur Preparation for the donor visit
ADRA 24-25 August
Umtagouk, Geraida & Mastariha-Kreinek locality (West Darfur) Monitoring visit
Practical Action
16-18 August
Kabkabiya Inception Meeting
SAG 03-Aug Mellit locality (West Darfur) Inception Meeting
SAWA SUDAN
4-7 September
village of Koma Gardait in Korma administrative unit and Khartoum Jadeed, Dali and Kunjara in Tawilla locality (North Darfur)
End of project visit
UPO 25-27 September
Al Radoum Locality , Girba, WadHajam, Umkherain, Al Shurab (South Darfur) Inception Meeting
CIS & DRRA
9-13 October
Umlabanaya and El Jalabi Ed Daein locality Monitoring Visit
63
ZOA 30 October - 3 November
villages of Ditto, Muara, Sagur and Gereida in Gereida locality Monitoring Visit
SAG 1-2 November
Villages of Al Sayah and Kose Kari in Mellit Locality, Monitoring Visit
WHH 30-Oct ð villages of: Kafoud, Abu Sakin, Um Sayala and Lamaina, in Rural El Fasher and Kutum Locality, Monitoring Visit
Oxfam America
13-15 December
villages of Saraf omra east and west, as well as Birka Saira were visited Monitoring Visit
Practical Action
20-22 December
villages of Margoub & Marlong were visited Monitoring Visit