ATTACHMENT_J_9__Reconciliation_for_Peace_TPM_Report___Wau.pdf

MESP THIRD PARTY MONITORING

REPORT FOR

RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE - WAU

October 2017

ATTCHMENT J.9: Reconciliation for Peace TPM Report _ Wau

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

FINDINGS: 3

CONCLUSIONS: 4

RECOMMENDATIONS: 4

INTRODUCTION 4

PURPOSE 4

BACKGROUND 5

METHODOLOGY 5

SCOPE 6

BACKGROUND 6

CONTEXT 6

PROFILE OF LOCAL RFP PARTNERS 7

PROFILE OF THE SURVEY POPULATION 7

SEX AND AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS 8

MARITAL AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS 8

EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS 8

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8

FINDINGS 8

EXTENT OF APP AWARENESS AMONG ICC MEMBERS 8

ROLES OF INER-CHURCH COMMITTEE IN IMPLEMENTING APP 9

CAPACITY BUILDING 10

CONCLUSIONS 10

RECOMMENDATIONS 11

LESSONS LEARNED FROM MEDIATION PROCESS 12

ANNET 1: TOOLS 13

GROUP MEETING INTERVIEW – INTER-CHURCH COMMITTEE (ICC) TOOL 13

ANNEX 2: PHOTO TABLE 23

ANNEX 3: MAP – KEY PLAYERS IN RECONCILIATION IN WAU 26

1 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Project Data Table

Program Name

Agreement Information

Office/Region/Country

Prime Managing Contractor

Sub-contracting Partners

Key Program Dates RfP Start and End Date: Oct 1, 2016 – Sep 30. 2017

Biringwa Baya Walla, Manager

Mike Salla, M&E Officer

Kiden Sarah, M&E Officer

RfP Mission Site Visits

Field Data Collection Dates

MSI (Management Systems International)

Wau County (Five residential blocks include: Malekia, Lokoloko, Hai Dinka, Nazarat and Hai Kosti.)

September 22 to September 27, 2017

South Sudan Council of Churches (SSCC)

Monitoring and Verification Provider

TPM Team Members

Reconcilation for Peace (RfP)

Cooperative Agreement # AID-668-A-16-00001

USAID/South Sudan Technical Office: Democracy and Governance – Juba, South Sudan

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) South Sudan

2 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

ACRONYMS

ADS Automated Directive Systems

APP Action Plan for Peace

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

CRCSS Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan

DG Democracy and Governance

FCA Finn Church Aid

ICC Inter-Church Committee

IFBC Inter-Faith Based Committee

IPs Implementing Partners

NCA Norwegian Church Aid

RfP Reconciliation for Peace

RCC Roman Catholic Church

SPLA Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Army

TPM Third Party Monitoring

UNMISS United Nations Mission in South Sudan

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VISTAS Viable Support to Transition and Stability

3 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The USAID/South Sudan Office of Democracy and Governance (DG) commissioned this third party monitoring and verification (TPM&V) exercise to monitor the Reconciliation for Peace (RfP) project in

Wau. Three issues were identified for consideration: Awareness of Inter-Church Committee (ICC) regarding Action Plan for Peace (APP); ICC roles in implementation of APP; and capacity building on the

APP pillars. In addition, the TPM Team monitored certain contextual indicators.

The RfP project successfully engaged opposing parties in Wau in community-based reconciliation. ICC members and Inter-Faith Base Committee (IFBC) in Wau played different roles in the reconciliation processes. To understand the reconciliation process in Wau county, the TPM Team conducted a household perception survey with twenty-two households in Wau. The Team also conducted 3 group interviews and 5 key informant interviews. The group interviews included members of ICC, IFBC, chiefs, and youth.

Based on the data collected, the Third-Party Monitoring (TPM) Team noted the following:

FINDINGS:

1. Inter-Church Committee (ICC) members are aware of three APP pillars: advocacy, reconciliation and establishing a neutral forum.

2. 17 out of 22 respondents interviewed believed the mediators are neutral because they are consistent in delivering peace messages; they were non-partisan and did not take sides; and they are looking for the truth.

3. 19 out of 22 respondents believed they now enjoy relative peace as result of the reconciliation process. However, there is fear that the situation may decline if both parties do not fully implement the terms agreed to in the reconciliation workshop.

4. Generally, respondents are satisfied with the reconciliation; however, a minority has doubts and expressed the desire to achieve sustainable peace.

5. In comparison, however, 10 out of 22 respondents interviewed believed the parties are not sincere because the only part of the reconciliation carried out so far is the security element.

6. On the other hand, only 13 (N=22) respondents in Wau know the terms of the reconciliation.

7. There is no clear distinction between ICC and IFBC in terms of facilitation of the reconciliation process in Wau.

8. According to interviews with the mediators, IFBC and ICC organized the workshops but played different roles with respect to management and funding.

9. The critical question of how IDPs would return to their homes in safety and with dignity was not addressed.

10. In the reconciliation process women did not participate directly. The mediators expressed the feeling that the situation in which mediation was conducted was not conducive to allow the participation of women.

11. Data from interview with ICC members in Wau revealed that ICC members were not fully prepared when they started the reconciliation process but benefited from capacity building training during project implementation.

4 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

12. According to both ICC and IFBC members in Wau, the success of the reconciliation was attributed to certain factors that can be strengthened in future activities.

CONCLUSIONS:

The TPM Team concluded that:

1. Reconciliation in Wau was successful.

2. Dissemination of the terms of the reconciliation agreements has not reached far and wide among the people affected.

3. If the question of how IDPs will return home is not addressed, it can undermine the reconciliation effort in the future.

4. Implementation of a deliberate capacity building plan within RfP for mediators would likely amplify its impacts on promoting reconciliation in Wau.

5. Dissemination of the terms of the reconciliation has not reached far and wide among the people affected.

6. Since factors underlying the success of the reconciliation process are known, RfP would benefit from their continued monitoring.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. All stakeholders to the reconciliation process should continue to monitor the identified success factors.

2. The responsible organizations should more broadly disseminate the terms of the reconciliation agreement throughout the areas affected.

3. To address the question of how IDPs would return home, members should lobby and advocate government, donor, and NGOs for services such as:

- Nonfood items to provide shelter

- Distribution of three-month startup food rations

- Open the schools and health centers that closed as result of the conflict

4. CRS through SSCC should plan for capacity building training for IFBC and ICC.

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE

The purpose of the TPM&V report is to provide data on the status of Reconciliation for Peace (RfP) activities/processes and outputs within the work plan to verify that they have been carried out. The report also verifies whether the RfP project is compliant with USAID requirements, particularly for

Gender and Branding & Marking. While the purpose is not to provide an impact level assessment, the

Team also draws attention to significant contextual and programmatic factors that may have a bearing on relevance, impact and sustainability. The report also provides data on agency compliance, and the context in which the project operates. Compliance has two aspects: 1) Gender and 2) Branding &

Marking. However, since the RfP has a waiver on Branding & Marking, this aspect of compliance was not

5 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

emphasized. The more significant compliance issues relate to Gender. The Team’s observations are integrated across the findings. Although environmental compliance is a significant concern to USAID generally, questions concerning environment are not included in the tools. However, some environmental issues have since been noted, such as those concerning the teak forests, which might be investigated through specialized study. The context is assessed only to the extent that contextual factors have a direct bearing on project activities and intended results. The TPM&V report also contains recommendations for consideration by USAID and CRS.

BACKGROUND

RfP in South Sudan is a nation-wide project with an emphasis in 4 states: Western Equatoria, Lakes, Jonglei, and Central Equatoria. Inter-Church Committee (ICC), a level of South Sudan Council of

Churches, implements the project. The project facilitates implementation of the South Sudan Council of

Churches (SSCC) Action Plan for Peace (APP). RfP is implemented by Catholic Relief Services (CRS), which works with Norwegian Church Aid (NCA), Finn Church Aid (FCA) and Christian Aid in supporting the APP initiative. Together these agencies provide technical and programmatic support to ensure a high level of quality of APP activities. The Action Plan for Peace (APP) has four pillars:

Advocacy, a Neutral Forum, Reconciliation, and Capacity Building.

The main goal of the project is to have a “more peaceful, prosperous, and reconciled South Sudan, sustainably built on inclusive citizen engagement at all levels, attention to past wrongs, and the implementation of a just and comprehensive peace accord.”

The project is guided by the following Theory of Change (TOC):

“If men, women and youth throughout the country participate in an inclusive peace and reconciliation process with broad grassroots engagement, if there is systematic promotion of best practices for transitional justice, and if civil society needs and voices are taken into account in peace negotiations and implementation process, then a just and sustainable peace and reconciliation can take root.”

This hypothesis serves as a framework for identifying critical pathways to stimulate citizen engagement that will lay reliable foundations for stability and peace. To realize this aim, CRS uses a peace building approach that will cover four pillars of APP.

Reconciliation for Peace was awarded in 2016 and will end in 2018. However, due to disruptions caused by violence in the country in 2016, the USAID Mission in South Sudan wanted to verify the status of the project’s implementation. Thus, USAID/South Sudan Democracy and Governance (DG) office requested a review of the process of reconciliation undertaken in Wau. This report was commissioned by the

USAID Program Office at the request of DG technical team.

METHODOLOGY

Prior to the field visit, Third Party Monitors (TPMs) reviewed the RfP monitoring and evaluation plan, work plan, and project reports. During the monitoring and verification exercise, TPMs interviewed members of ICC and the CRS staff. To get more in-depth views of people affected by the conflict in

Wau, a total of 22 households were selected through purposive sampling and in each household at least one person was interviewed. In addition, observations made were supported by photo evidence.

Primary data was collected using Fulcrum application software loaded on Galaxy J5Prime smartphones.

Table 1below shows data collection methods used.

6 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Table 1: Data Collection Method Used

Both qualitative and quantitative data analyses were applied. Microsoft Excel was used to aid quantitative data analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed using data reduction, display, drawing of conclusions, and verification. Data was condensed for the sake of manageability and transformed to make sense in terms of the issues being addressed.

SCOPE

In addition to profiles of people surveyed, this report looks into three technical focus areas of monitoring and verification:

- Awareness of APP among ICC members

- Roles of ICC in implementing APP and

- Provision of capacity for implementation of APP.

BACKGROUND

CONTEXT

Wau County is the administrative headquarters of the former Western Bahr el Ghazal State. Dominant ethnic groups include the Dinka, Luo, and a combination of tribes collectively known as the Fartit

(Balanda, Bongo, Falatta and Kresh, among others). These communities have functional administrative structures, including traditional and civil authorities. Boma councils and traditional chiefs make decisions regarding developmental initiatives, including mobilizing community members for common activities such as youth conferences, football, and traditional dances.

The region has been affected by war for decades, dating back to Sudan’s first civil war. During the SPLA

War, Wau was a garrison town of the Khartoum-based Sudanese Armed Forces, and was the scene of extensive fighting. Historically, the communities of Western Bahr el Ghazal have a tradition of peaceful coexistence despite the political differences inherited from the civil war. Disagreements, such as those between cattle keepers and agriculturalists over land uses were historically managed by customary law.

However, things began to fall apart when the former Governor Rizik Zakaria moved the administrative county from Wau to Bagari, some 45 kms away. This triggered widespread protests, particularly from the Fartit community in and around Wau town. These protests were suppressed and there were allegations that the government had committed widespread abuses.

No.

Data Collection

Method Used

Total Conducted in Wau

1 Household survey 22

2 Group interview 1

3 Key informant 3

7 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Things deteriorated further in Wau due to continuing violence since 2013. Many Nuer living in Wau were afraid of being targeted and sought shelter in what would become Wau’s UNMISS Protection of

Civilian (PoC) site. The situation worsened in October 2015 when President Kiir declared 28 states. In

2016 Wau experienced more clashes, which displaced much of its Fartit population and led to widespread destruction in town.

More fighting broke out in Wau in 2017, resulting in population displacements and the creation of a new

PoC site south of the town. The Fartit have historically opposed the SPLA; they voted against independence during the referendum out of fear they would be punished by an SPLA-led government.

The Luo (Jur) also live in the region, and have closer relations with the Dinka. However, that relationship has soured recently due to inter-communal cattle raiding and associated violence between the two ethnic groups. Cattle raids and subsequent retaliatory attacks occur primarily between Luo and

Dinka communities across Wau’s border with Tonj.

In February 2013, UNMIS Civil Affairs facilitated a youth conference for peaceful co-existence throughout the Greater Bahr el-Ghazal region. From December 2016 to February 2017, peace conferences between Luo agricultural farmers and neighboring Dinka Tonj cattle keepers were held. In

November 2017, Community Empowerment Organization (CEPO) sponsored an inter-communal peace conference to restore peace and confidence among the communities in Wau. It is in this context that the RfP Project has engaged in conflict mitigation activities in the greater Wau area through the church structures.

PROFILE OF LOCAL RFP PARTNERS

ICC is made up of members of churches officially registered with SSCC. Currently, there are 7 member

SSCC churches, including: African Inland Church (AIC), Episcopal Church of South Sudan (ECSS), Roman Catholic Church (RCC), Presbyterian Church of South Sudan, Sudan Interior Church, Sudan

Pentecostal Church, and South Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church.

According to the ICC chair, ICC in Wau was part of mobilization team during the reconciliation process. In addition, ICC organized several public prayers for reconciliation, including peace sermons at churches. (Photo #1, TPM Team interviews ICC Chair and one ICC member.)

The Inter Faith-based Committee (IFBC) includes members of ICC but also goes beyond to incorporate other faiths, such as the Muslim community. While ICC are the focal point for organization of reconciliation activities, IFBC members provided support. This includes extending the peace messages to non-Christian communities. Through IFBC, the Team was told that the reconciliation efforts could reach

90% of the population.

PROFILE OF THE SURVEY POPULATION

To understand the reconciliation process in Wau, people affected by the armed conflict were asked about their views, opinions, and awareness of the reconciliation processes among Fartit, Dinka, Luo and

SPLA. The survey was carried out in five residential blocks: Malekia, Lokoloko, Hai Dinka, Nazarat and

Hai Kosti.

8 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

SEX AND AGE OF THE RESPONDENTS

Twenty two (22) adults in Wau county were interviewed. 60% (n=22) of the respondents were aged 45 and above while the remaining 40% of the respondents were aged 25 – 44 years old. 40% of the respondents were female.

MARITAL AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF THE RESPONDENTS

More than three quarters (18 of 22) of the respondents were married. The remaining 14% were either single, widowed, or separated. In addition, more than three quarters 88% of the respondents were either self-employed or employed for wages. Much of that work includes agriculture and small scale trade. A minority 12% of their respondents said they were out of work or retired.

EDUCATION LEVEL OF THE RESPONDENTS

More than a half 67% (n=22) of the respondents had basic or general education (primary, secondary or vocational certificate). Slightly less than a quarter 21% of the respondents never had any formal education. 12% of the respondents hold university degrees.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

FINDINGS

EXTENT OF APP AWARENESS AMONG ICC MEMBERS

1. Inter-Church Committee (ICC) members are aware of three APP pillars: advocacy, reconciliation and neutral forum. All the 22 community members surveyed reported that they are aware of the reconciliation process and acknowledged Church as mediator.

2. 17 out of 22 respondents interviewed believed mediators are neutral because they are consistent in preaching peace messages; they were non-partisan and did not take sides;

and they are looking for the truth. 4 respondents were unsure whether or not the mediators are neutral. One respondent believed that mediators are not neutral.

3. 19 out of 22 respondents interviewed believed they now enjoy relative peace as result of the reconciliation. However, there is fear that the situation may decline if both parties do not fully implement the terms agreed to in the reconciliation workshop. When asked if the parties to the conflict are honest in implementing terms of reconciliation, 12 (N=22) respondents believed parties are honest because they realize that all parties need peace. The twelve respondents seemed to converge on the idea that there is relative peace because the behavior of soldiers have improved while parties continue to dialogue. Further, 19 (N=22) respondents believed they now enjoy dividends of the reconciliation in Wau. Although there is fear of uncertainty, respondents reported that different tribes can now talk to each other and a number of families have moved out of

Protection of Civilians (POC) back to their homes because Wau is now relatively more peaceful.

4. Generally, respondents are satisfied with the reconciliation; however, a minority reserves doubts and express additional desires for sustainable peace. With regard to satisfaction of the respondents with results of the reconciliation, seven (N=22) respondents said they are satisfied with the result of the reconciliation. Five (N=22) respondents said they are somehow satisfied and only four (N=22) said they are very much satisfied. From third party

9 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

monitors (TPM) observation point of view, Wau town, especially at day time, people could move freely and the market is lively with people busy selling and buying. Additionally, civilians expressed greater need for peace; people want to go home and live in peace. The main concerns raised include:

- Many children are out of school while school performance of children in town has dropped.

- Many families are badly affected as a result of economic crisis in the country; the conflict has made sufferings worse.

- Soldiers should be separated from civilians. In addition, civil population should be disarmed to remove guns from unauthorized people who are in possession of illegal guns.

- Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) should provide food and non-food items to the affected families.

- Many families have lost sources of livelihood thus, they need for support.

- The Church should continue to support peace and reconciliation messages to the conflicting parties.

5. 10 out of 22 respondents interviewed believed parties are not honest because the only term implemented in the reconciliation is security. Accordingly, the respondents stated that this is not what people want because, “cattle keepers still move with guns, women are raped at night, and looting is rampant.”

6. Only 13 (N=22) respondents know the terms of reconciliation in Wau. This is perhaps not surprising as terms of reconciliation refers more technically to the particulars of the agreement.

More general awareness that a reconciliation has taken place, and even that it has been successful, would not necessarily require knowledge of the details of the agreement.

ROLES OF INNER-CHURCH COMMITTEE IN IMPLEMENTING APP

7. There is no clear distinction between ICC and IFBC in terms of facilitation of reconciliation process in Wau. The TPM Team observed that ICC chairman in Wau is also

Inter-Faith Based Committee (IFBC) chairperson. However, these two different religious institutional structures and personnel worked together to facilitate reconciliation between SPLA, Fartit, and Luo in Wau. To help achieve success these clergy leaders involved chiefs and youth groups. Both the state and national government approved the church reconciliation initiative in

Wau.

8. According to the mediators, IFBC and ICC organized workshops but played different roles with respect to management and funding. NCA and CRS funded the first two workshops while Equatoria regional ICC funded the third workshop.

- During the first workshop, parties to the conflict resolved to maintain security and restrict movement of the army in Wau.

- The resolution from the second workshop discussed the question, “How would IDPs come back home?”

- The third workshop in July was intended to explain the meaning of peace and to engage the parties to the conflict in dialogue and reconciliation activities. Thus the roles of the ICC and the role of IFBC in reconciliation in Wau seem to overlap.

10 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

9. The critical question of how IDPs would return to their homes in safety and with dignity was not addressed. Most IDPs are staying in PoCs as temporary dwellings and desire to return to the places from which they were displaced; however, they face significant challenges.

While it was expected that these would be discussed and addressed through the reconciliation process, the findings indicate that this objective was not met.

10. Throughout the reconciliation process, women did not participate directly. The mediators expressed the feeling that the situation in which mediation was conducted was not conducive to allow participation of women. In Wau for instance, IFBC and ICC members interviewed reported that the first reconciliation workshop was called while the fighting was ongoing and tension was high, and women are particularly exposed to Gender-based Violence

(GBV) in such situations. Nevertheless, the mediators involved women in reconciliation activities such as trainings, workshops, and other inter-communal mediation where women play important roles in resolving conflicts. The environment was not conducive to women’s direct participation in the mediation because of the perceived risk of women being the targets of violence. However, the ICCs sought to ensure women’s participation in other ways as explained in the report.

CAPACITY BUILDING

11. Data from interviews with ICC members in Wau revealed that ICC members were not fully prepared when they started the reconciliation process but benefited from capacity building training during project implementation. To be effective, ICC members need mediation skills. As the chairman of ICC stated during a meeting with the TPM Team in Wau, “We started this process, though without proper skills, assuming that it is duty of every clergy to reconcile communities. Fortunately, the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) and

Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) intervened and started to build our capacity in issues of mediation and peace building.” In this example, the ICC chair was arguing that while reconciliation seemed obvious, training in peace building will better prepare members of the clergy and others to carry out the task. However, no specific peace and reconciliation capacity building actions were observed as a direct element of RfP. Photo #2 shows TPM Team talking to NCA and UNMISS in Wau.

12. According to both ICC and IFBC members in Wau, the success of the reconciliation was attributed to certain factors that can be strengthened in the future. These factors include:

- Community support, engaging all parties to the conflict in open dialogue

- Government support and agreement for the clergy to lead reconciliation process

- Support from the army and SPLA participation in the reconciliation workshops

- Involvement of UNMISS in logistics support and capacity building support (photo #3)

- UNMISS training of ICC members in mediation skills

- Funding support from the implementing partners.

All stakeholders agreed to disseminate reconciliation messages to the general public. Major channels for disseminating the peace and reconciliation messages are radio and community meetings and social gatherings.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings, the TPM Team concluded the following:

11 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Reconciliation in Wau was successful. There are observed dividends of the reconciliation process in Wau which should be sustained. Respondents reported the following dividends of reconciliation: improved security, freedom of movement, increased market activity, and reduction in incidents of violence. While these were not empirically verified, the Team observed that Wau Town during the time of their visit was peaceful and they were able to move freely without obstruction. This is in marked contrast to the recent history when Wau Town itself became a war-zone. Despite reservations expressed by some people, all respondents agreed there is relative peace in Wau town compared to before the reconciliation initiative.

1. Dissemination of terms of the reconciliation agreements has not reached far and wide among the people affected. If knowledge of the 3 reconciliation workshops reached everyone living in the five conflict-affected blocks in Wau, it would promote the sustainability of reconciliation.

Since the findings show that this was not achieved, it is important to actively disseminate the findings more proactively and broadly. Moreover, the modalities by which this dissemination can be done may either be straightforward in terms of distribution of paper text, or more creative, such as through the use of forum theatre.

2. If the question of how IDPs will return home is not addressed, it can undermine the reconciliation effort. The impacts of the displacement are both psycho-social and material. We included the following: “The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement call upon the international community and the host government to provide for protection and assistance of IDPs, including the voluntary return in safety and with dignity. Sustainability of return implies not only the absence of violence which would lead to further displacements, but also that basic services are provided to meet the most essential needs of returnees. In the case of RfP, respondents clearly expressed the need for such services if they are to make the voluntary decision to return. The challenge of return is multi-dimensional. To address them requires a multi-sectoral coordinated response that goes beyond the scope of RfP. RfP, however, can facilitate and contribute to a response through leadership, dialogue, and facilitation.”

3. Implementation of a capacity building program within RfP would amplify its impacts on promoting reconciliation in Wau and elsewhere. Since the benefits of capacity building were evidenced, albeit formally outside of RfP activities, the project has the opportunity to strengthen the reconciliation skills of the church members and leaders and expand to other areas.

4. Since factors underlying the success of the reconciliation process are known, RfP would benefit from continued monitoring, reporting, and the sharing of techniques and experiences. It is fortunate in this respect that mediators and beneficiaries alike are clear on what works and what does not; therefore, in the spirit of community participation and a community-driven and based program, RfP can continue to use monitoring as a basis for adaptive management and learning.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Considering the conclusions, the TPM team recommended:

1. All stakeholders to the reconciliation process should continue to monitor the identified success factors and reconciliation agreements in Wau.

2. The responsible organizations should disseminate the terms of reconciliation agreement far and wide in the areas affected through public gatherings, churches and mosques, media, and NGOs.

3. To address the question of how IDPs would return home, members should lobby and advocate for donors, government, and NGOs to increase services that support return, such as:

12 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

- Nonfood items to provide shelter

- Distribution of three-month startup food rations

- Reopen the schools and health centers that were closed as result of the conflict

4. CRS through SSCC should plan and conduct peace and reconciliation capacity building training for

IFBC and ICC.

SUCCESSES LESSONS LEARNED FROM MEDIATION PROCESS

In the process of mediation to reconcile parties in conflict both in Wau mediators reported the following lesson learned:

1. The perception of the neutrality of mediators by the parties to the reconciliation process is a key factor in ensuring the necessary levels of trust and confidence for success. In Wau, individuals tend to identify themselves along tribal lines. While there is a strong level of trust within these identity groups, trust begins to break down between them. This is made worse due to episodes of violence, such as occurred in 2012 with the administrative transfer of

Wau county headquarters to Bagari and subsequent protests/crackdowns; the 2013 conflict and rise of SPLA/IO including government counter-insurgency; the 2015 formation of 28 states; and the 2016 resumption of conflict. The mediators cannot be seen as taking sides given how sensitive and traumatic these events have been. All of these factors make trust building an essential part of mediation.

2. RFP mediation showed patience; reconciliation is a process that takes time. Trust building and understanding begin within groups. This meant that mediators had to establish separate dialogues with the Fartit, the Dinka (cattle keepers), the Luo, and the SPLA before bringing them together. Once a baseline of understanding was achieved, the dialogue among the key parties to conflict progressed through phases, and each may take time.

3. The mediators importantly tried to identify as much as possible the root causes of the conflict so as to genuinely address them during the reconciliation process. One of the first phases in dialogue is to allow parties in conflict to freely talk and air their grievances. This serves the function of relieving the parties of pent up frustration they may be holding within, but also identifying the real drivers of conflict. While exploration of the root causes of conflict were beyond the scope of the TPM Team’s data collection, it was nonetheless noted that the reconciliation process is attempting to achieve this standard of mediation. The church is well positioned to play this role because of the trust they enjoy in the community; however, that trust does not substitute for the technical skills required for effective mediation.

4. There is need to make peace among mediators first as mediators come from different churches and tribes – that is also a process and it required attention and time. Identity in

South Sudan is both subjective and objective. Subjectively, a mediator from the Dinka, Luo or Fartit communities, for example, may identify themselves as neutral. However, they may be perceived by others as having prejudices and preconceptions based on tribal stereotypes and assumptions about how an individual’s intent is considered as likely to resonate with tribal narratives. However, these perceptions are often worsened by trauma. In cases of violence, trauma may be cultural as well as inter-generational. Hence, in a situation of inter-ethnic conflict requiring ethnically identifiable mediators, trust building at the level of the mediation team itself is an indispensable step. Moreover, churches in South Sudan tend to be dominant in certain ethnic communities, meaning the same inter-tribal identity politics, and others, may apply also within the church. Yet the churches are meant to be the harbingers of reconciliation by way of their teachings. Hence, it is essential for a mediation team to build bridges across religious lines.

13 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

ANNET 1: TOOLS

GROUP MEETING INTERVIEW – INTER-CHURCH COMMITTEE (ICC) TOOL

S/N Data points Answer Type Means of Verification Data Source

Basic Data

State Dropdown M Observation

County Dropdown M Observation

Town Dropdown M Observation

Name of the ICC members present Text

Interview

GPS Integer Photo evidence

Question 1: Extend to which ICC member churches are aware of Action Plan for Peace (APP)?

1 Are you aware of SSCC APP? Yes/No Interview ICC members

2 If yes what are the pillars of the APP Dropdown Menu:

1. Advocacy,

2. Reconciliation,

3. Neutral forum, and

4. capacity building

Interview ICC members

Question 2: What are the roles of ICC member in implementing APP?

3 What is your role in implementing APP? Yes/No interview ICC members

14 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

4 In which of the following APP pillars have participated?

a. Advocacy,

b. Reconciliation,

c. Neutral forum,

d. Capacity building,

e. Others specify

Dropdown Menu:

1. Advocacy,

2. Reconciliation,

3. Neutral forum, and

4. capacity building,

5. Others specify

Interviews/observation ICC members

5 When did this specific activity happen? Date Interviews ICC members

6 What roles did you as ICC/your church play in implementing APP?

Dropdown Menu:

1. Facilitator,

2. team leader,

3. member in the team,

4. others specify

Interviews/observation ICC members

Question 3: To what extend do SCC coordinate APP activities with ICCs?

7 Have you (members of ICC) ever coordinated APP activities with SSCC Secretariat on APP?

Yes/No Interviews/observation ICC members

8 If yes, when was the last time this happened? Date Interview ICC members

9 What was specific APP pillar coordinated? Dropdown Menu:

1. Advocacy,

2. Reconciliation,

3. Neutral forum,

4. Capacity building, and

5. Others specify

Interview ICC members

Question 4: Has SCC provided capacity for implementation of APP?

15 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

10 Did you as members of ICC aquire any training to enable you implement APP?

Yes/No Interview ICC members

11 If yes, what training was provided? Date Interview ICC members

12 and who provided the training? Dropdown menu:

1. SSCC,

2. CRS,

3. NCA, and

4. Others specify

Interview ICC members

13 If yes, what were the main topics covered? Text Interview ICC members

Thank you

16 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE IN SOUTH SUDAN PROJECT

Interview Survey – Mediators’ Questionnaire in Wau

Name: _________________________________________________________________

Tittle: _________________________________________________________________

*Verify about the existence of either IFBC or ICC in Wau

1. Are you a member of Inter-Faith Based Committee/Inter Church Committee?

Yes No

2. If yes, did you take part in mediation between the SPLA and the Fertit communities in?

3. If no, who mediated the peace process between the SPLA and the Fertit community?

4. If yes, what was your role in the mediation process

Chief Mediator

Facilitator

Member of mediating team

Member of team recording reconciliation proceedings

5. What roles did both the Inter faith Based Committee (IFBC) and the Inter Church

Committee (ICC) play in the mediations between the SPLA and Fertit community?

(Specify roles of each)

6. Who funded the mediations between the SPLA and Fertit community?

7. What structures facilitated peace negotiations between SPLA and Fertit community?

Multiple choices

Consultations with community members

Use of illustrative diagram for the process for easy understanding of the conflicting parties

Use of religious leaders to preach peace messages

17 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Appropriate psycho-social support to the affected community

Others specify? _______________________________________________

8. Were there other institution that participated in the peace negotiations apart from the

IFBC/ICC?

If Yes, which institutions? ____________________________________________

What roles did they play in the peace negotiation between the SPLA and Fertit community?

9. If yes, what was your role in the mediation process

Chief Mediator

Facilitator

Member of mediating team

Member of team recording reconciliation proceedings

Others Specify

10. How was the reconciliation process mediated?

At what point did IFBC/ICC intervene in the peace mediation between the SPLA and

Fertit community?

Before the conflict

During the conflict

After the conflict

11. In which year did the peace mediation begin and how long did it take before reaching a peace deal?

12. Who funded the peace and reconciliation process? (triangulate with question 6)

a. CRS

18 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

b. SSCC

c. Others Specify

13. Did the IFBC/ICC conduct per-session meetings with both the SPLA and Fertit

14. If no meetings were conducted with both the SPLA and Fertit on the peace process explain why?

15. What was the response of the Fertit community members and the government/SPLA officials towards the peace mediation initiative led by IFBC/ICC to end the conflict between the SPLA and Fertit community?

Positive

Negative

Mixed feeling

16. Has the peace and reconciliation mediation between the SPLA and Fertit community yielded any positive results?

17. What positive outcome was realized as a result of the peace and reconciliation efforts between the SPLA and Fertit community?

18. In your opinion, what factors contributed to the success of the peace reconciliation process between the SPLA and Fertit community?

Availability of funds

Availability of human resource

Fertit Community support

Government support

Others specify?

19. Do you know who is in charge of disseminating peace and reconciliation message to the public?

19 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

20. Who is in charge of disseminating peace and reconciliation message to the public?

IFBC

ICC

State government, Parties in conflict, and

Others Specify

21. What methods does the Inter-Faith Based Committee or the Inter Church Committee

(IFBC/ICC) use to disseminate peace and reconciliation message to the public?

Radio

TV

Social Media

Social Gathering

22. What lessons did you learn from the peace mediation process that can be replicated in other similar peace mediations?

23. Were there any challenges faced during the peace reconciliation process between SPLA and

Fertit community?

24. List the challenges that affected the peace reconciliation process between the SPLA and Fertit

25. How were the challenges addressed?

26. Considering political and social support for the peace and reconciliation mediation, which of the following categories supports peace and reconciliation?

20 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

National government

State government

Community

27. What is the monitoring mechanism in place to monitor implementation of peace and reconciliation in this state?

28. How justice (prosecution for crimes done) is handled in the peace and reconciliation process?

29. How are you satisfied with the peace and reconciliation process in general?

d. Very much satisfied

e. Satisfied

f. Somehow satisfied

g. Disappointed

30. Explain why chose the answer you just chose?

31. Explain how IFBC/ICC members organized/structured themselves to lead peace mediation process at the grass roots level?

32. Are the IFBC/ICC members trained on peace mediation procedures?

33. If yes, who trained the IFBC/ICC members?

CRC,

SSCC,

Others specify

21 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

34. Outline topics included in the training on peace and reconciliation process/conflict resolution?

35. Do you have sustainability plan for peace mediation/ conflict resolution at the community level?

36. Explain how you intend to sustain peace mediation/conflict resolution initiatives in your

37. Which churches are the members of the Inter-Faith Based Committee (IFBC)?

Catholic Church, Episcopal Church of Sudan and South Sudan, African Inland Church, Sudan Pentecostal Church, South Sudan Presbyterian Evangelical Church

Presbyterian Church of South Sudan

Sudan Interior Church

Others specify

38. Which other non-church actors are members of the IFBC

39. Is Inter-Faith Based Committee (IFBC) the only institution with the experience and comparative advantage to mediate peace in the area?

40. If yes, explain why?

Demographic Data

1. State:

22 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Western Bahr El-Ghazel, Western Equatoria

2. County:

Wau

Yambio

3. Age: What is your age?

18-24 years old

25-34 years old

35-44 years old

45-54 years old

55 +

4. Education: What is the highest level of education you have completed?

Primary leaving Certificate

Secondary Leaving Certificate

Vocational Training Certificate

Bachelor’s degree

Master’s degree

Professional degree

Doctorate degree

5. Marital Status: What is your marital status?

Single, never married

Married

Widowed

Separated

Divorced

6. Employment Status: Are you currently?

Employed for wages

Self-employed

Out of work and looking for work

Out of work but not currently looking for work

A student

Military

Retired

Unable to work

23 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

ANNEX 2: PHOTO TABLE

Photo #1: TPM Team meeting with ICC chair in Wau.

24 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Photo #2: Interview with UNMISS and

NCA partners in Wau

25 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

Photo #3: UNMISS staff facilitating training session in

Wau.

26 RECONCILIATION FOR PEACE WAU – TPM REPORT, OCT 2017 USAID.GOV

ANNEX 3: MAP – KEY PLAYERS IN RECONCILIATION IN WAU