Annex 1 Partnership for Recovery and Resilience Framework (PfRR).pdf

Annex 1:

PARTNERSHIP FOR RESILIENCE AND RECOVERY

Framework

The Partnership

The Partnership for Recovery and Resilience (the Partnership or PfRR) is an inclusive group of donors, UN Agencies and NGOs who are committed to promoting local ownership and working together to reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of people, communities and institutions in South Sudan on their way to achieving the Sustainable Development

Goals.

The genesis of the Partnership was a series of discussions, led by the UN and USAID with others in the donor community in 2017 and early 2018, on whether it was possible to develop a new way of doing business to better help communities cope with the multiple shocks they face. These discussions brought together those providing humanitarian as well as development assistance and considered how best to combine meeting emergency basic needs with building resilience for the future.

Resilience in the South Sudan context is defined as the ability to withstand a wide range of shocks including political upheavals, national and local level conflict, displacement, food insecurity, disease outbreaks, drought, other natural disasters and adverse events, all of which can increase vulnerability. This broad definition implies that interventions across a range of sectors are needed to enhance communities’ coping strategies.

The most critical pre-requisite of Partnership engagement is local commitment and ownership through joint plans for shared outcomes. Once community aspirations are articulated, Partners can then make interventions responsive to local priorities.

The Partnership Communiqué was published in March 2018 to record the outcome of a meeting of representatives of 25 organisations (UN, donors, and NGOs). Drawing on their collective experience, the Communiqué identified six commitments to focus efforts.

Commitments

The Partnership is open to all who are willing to subscribe to the overarching commitment:

1. To stop the trend of increasing vulnerability in South Sudan and share the following five commitments:

2. Work together across humanitarian and development efforts to meet basic needs and protect coping strategies.

3. Improve coordination, collaboration and strategic integration.

4. Advance comprehensive frameworks and partnerships in selected geographic areas.

5. Scale up delivery of integrated efforts in Yambio and other geographic areas, and

6. Enhance mutual accountability and learning.

The New Way of Working

This Partnership represents a new way of working and requires a shift in policy and approach for all partners.

Key elements of the approach include:

Recognising that Resilience is a broad concept, defined in South Sudan as the ability to withstand a wide range of shocks including, but not limited to, political upheavals, national and local level conflict, displacement, food insecurity, disease outbreaks, drought, other natural disasters and adverse events that can increase vulnerability, interventions across the following four Pillars will support responsive action:

o Re-establish access to basic services o Restore productive capacities o Rebuild trust in people and institutions o Nurture and broaden effective partnerships

Recognising the importance of local stakeholders in setting the agenda for action and developing, supporting and working closely with inclusive partnerships at the local level.

Basing interventions on good data and analysis of the needs of communities in each specific context and location, such as the resilience profiles.

Collaborating and co-ordinating with other organisations to fill gaps in support, converge programmes and get the most benefit for communities from all efforts.

Adopting a conflict sensitive approach to programming.

Joint monitoring and evaluation using a common framework.

The Work of the Partnership

To enable the achievement of reduced vulnerability, help build resilience and support the new ways of working, the Partnership members will work on a number of workstreams.

These workstreams are interlinked and mutually dependent but cover distinct activities.

Not all partners will wish or be able to engage with all the workstreams or focus their efforts in the areas initially selected as locations for the Area Based Programming activities.

Similarly, not all will use joint funding mechanisms or formal joint programming. The

Partnership includes those who are willing to adapt their programmes, projects and interventions to align with the approach advocated by the Partnership, wherever they are working; to use common monitoring tools and frameworks to the extent possible; and to contribute to and apply the collective learning on what works.

The approach allows for flexibility, reflecting the different contexts that partners are working in. The steering committee will also explore how the approach can be adapted to a range of programme types and funding streams as necessary.

The Partnership is a multi-year engagement.

The Workstreams

The four main workstreams are:

A. Area Based Programming

B. Advocacy

C. Monitoring and Evaluation, Data Gathering

D. Knowledge Management, Learning and Sharing

Other workstreams may be added in due course, as the work of the Partnership progresses.

A. Area Based Programming

Several areas in South Sudan have been selected for support by the PfRR. Known as

Partnership Areas (PAs), these locations will be encouraged and supported to develop local partnership committees and priority action plans; that are community driven, provided with detailed data (resilience profiles) and technical assistance to develop their plans and act as pilots for the new way of working proposed by the Partnership. NGOs, UN Agencies and donors working in these areas will be encouraged to collaborate and coordinate programming behind the local action plans and new partners and resourcing sought to fill any gaps.

A detailed theory of change and operational plan are being prepared to support this workstream, including detail on the building blocks of Area Based Programming.

B. Advocacy

The PfRR will undertake various types of advocacy activities to support its objectives. These include:

High Level Visits, as part of the building blocks, to support the Area Based

Programming workstream, with preparation in advance and as follow up to ensure partners are willing to support programming in that area.

Encouraging local commitment and the development of inclusive partnerships, including local authorities, civil society, the private sector, NGOs and other implementing agencies.

Discussions within the Partnership constituencies to ensure all members understand the key elements of the approach and making use of existing networks.

Encouraging new support for the Partnership among donors and other potential partners.

Advocacy with other geographical locations in South Sudan to learn from the experience of pilots such as Yambio.

Advocacy with the central government / authorities.

C. Monitoring and Evaluation, Data Gathering

This workstream will draw on the considerable expertise focused in South Sudan and elsewhere on how to monitor progress in reducing vulnerability and resilience. It will aim to produce indicators and monitoring tools that partners can draw on, to enable aggregation of results for a wide range of programming.

As part of its remit, this workstream will also propose a set of process indicators to monitor the partnership level theory of change based on scientific data.

D. Knowledge Management, Learning and Sharing

A database will be established to enable easy access to key documents, data, research findings, tools and learning.

As a new way of doing business, it is essential that there is learning across the Partnership activities and that all partners are willing to share both what works and what did not achieve the hoped-for results. This will help to build the evidence for better programming in recovery and resilience and improve decision making.

A key product of this workstream will be the regular learning events, such as that held in

November 2018, but other ways of sharing experiences and lessons will be developed.

These can include building on existing resilience networks such as that established by the

NGO Forum.

This workstream will apply the shared information and lessons learned to scale up successful approaches. The data/evidence produced under this workstream will help distil information that will inform future activities. Lesson learned from the monitoring and evaluation and data gathering will help to influence resilience practice in similar contexts.

Criteria for Engagement

A list of criteria was used to select the initial Partnership Areas. These have been reviewed and the following four points are recommended for use in future:

Commitment among local partners to organize themselves for engagement;

Existing footprint and inclusive engagement by partners among local authorities and civil society;

Potential to leverage resources for impact;

Local ownership and commitment to peace and recovery.

All will be applied through a conflict sensitivity lens including consideration of geographic spread of the Partnership’s engagement.

The capacity of the Partnership and its members, the availability of resources, and security in the areas will limit the number of Partnership Areas that can be fully supported.

Monitoring Progress

The Partnership is not responsible for monitoring the implementation of individual projects and programmes. These will continue to report to their funding sources and to the local partnership committees against agreed outputs and targets.

However, all partners are encouraged to use indicators from a common framework for monitoring, especially at outcome and impact level where possible. These will be developed by the M&E workstream to enable read across on achievement of reduced vulnerability and increased resilience.

The Partnership will also develop and agree on a set of process indicators to monitor the

Theory of Change for the Partnership approach. These indicators, together with the measurement of resilience related outcomes and impact, will be used to determine if the

Partnership approach has added value in the delivery of increased resilience.

Theory of Change

The Theory of Change for the PfRR aims to show the added value of the Partnership’s new way of working. Detailed illustration is provided in Annex 1.

If recovery and resilience projects are area-based and designed to support three key priorities including re-establishing basic services; restoring productive capacities and re-building trust in people and institutions;

and if local ownership is prioritized and community aspirations are reflected in and guide the joint-work of cooperating partners;

and if there is a collective action to raise awareness to reduce vulnerabilities, and advocate for additional investment in resilience, and prioritize evidence-based programming through M&E and promote learning among partners;

then recovery and resilience initiatives will deliver more effective results in reducing vulnerabilities and building self-reliance toward development.

The above is promoted and supported by the PfRR through its 5 Workstreams.

Governance

The work and activities of the Partnership will be guided and overseen by a multi-agency

Steering Committee. Detailed terms of reference for the Steering Committee have been developed (see Annex 1). The Steering Committee will review a proposed action plan (see

Annex 2) for the Partnership and its workstreams and ensure that overall progress is reviewed. To support the advocacy work, the Steering Committee will develop a Brochure explaining what the Partnership is, how it operates and what it hopes to achieve.

If helpful to deliver their objectives, the individual workstreams can be supported by a network, working groups or technical committees of interested members and relevant experts.

Each individual project or programme aligned to the PfRR will have its own governance arrangements. They will also link into and co-ordinate with the local partnership committees where they are operating.

Annexes

1. Theory of change Illustration

2. Yambio joint work plan (example)

Annex 1: Theory of Change Illustration

The graphic representation of the theory of change shows the three levels of engagement that the Partnership supports.

The central part in black shows the project interventions at the local level delivering outcomes in three of the pillars of the Partnership.

The elements in blue show how the new ways of working that the Partnership endorses, help to reinforce local ownership and nurture effective partnerships (the fourth pillar). Local commitment is an important selection criteria and the local action plans guide the work of agencies and the focus of project interventions. This effort falls under the Area Based Programming workstream.

Finally, the role of the other workstreams - advocacy, data gathering, M&E and lesson learning - in reinforcing the work on the ground, providing the basis for improved interventions and encouraging replication is shown in red.

The above points illustrate the added value of the Partnership in moving South

Sudan towards self-reliance and a transition to development.

Annex 2:

Partnership for Recovery and Resilience

YAMBIO JOINT WORK PLAN (2019-2020)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FIGURES

TABLES

ANNEXES

ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW OF THE JOINT WORK PLAN

PARTICIPATION 15

WORK PLAN STRUCTURE 16

WORK PLAN PROCESS 17

WORK PLAN CONTENT 17

UNDERSTANDING THE RESILIENCE PROFILES 17

UNDERSTANDING THE RESULTS FRAMEWORK 18

UNDERSTANDING THE INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE FOR RESILIENCE (IA4R) 19

THE PILLAR PLANS

PILLAR ONE: TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS AND PEOPLE 20

RESILIENCE PROFILES 20

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK 24

INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE 24

PILLAR TWO: RE-ESTABLISHING ACCESS TO BASIC SERVICES 26

RESILIENCE PROFILES 26

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK 30

INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE 33

PILLAR THREE: RESTORING PRODUCTIVE CAPACITIES 34

RESILIENCE PROFILES 34

LOGICAL FRAMEWORK 39

INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE 39

PILLAR FOUR: NURTURING PARTNERSHIP 40

STRUCTURES OF COOPERATION 41

PROCESSES OF COOPERATION 41

ACTIVITY CALENDAR FOR COOPERATION 42

INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECTURE OF PARTNERSHIP 43

OPERATIONALIZING THE WORK PLAN

COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICE DELIVERY OPERATIONAL MODEL 44

ACTIVATING THE CONVERGENCE POINTS 45

THE MONITORING & EVALUATION FRAMEWORK 46

CONCLUSION

LESSONS LEARNED 46

NEXT STEPS 49

SUMMATIVE RECOMMENDATION 49

FIGURES

Figure 1 Participation in the JWP

Figure 2 Participation in by Gender

Figure 3 Facilitation Model

Figure 4 From Ideas to Activities

Figure 5 Results Framework

Figure 6 Institutional Architecture and Household and Communal Assets

Figure 7 Major Institutions Affecting the People

Figure 81Examples of Social Risk by Community Group

Figure 9 Top 3 Causes of Conflict

Figure 10 Effects of Conflict on Households

Figure 11 Effects of Conflict on Households by Gender

Figure 12 Most Effective Conflict Resolution Mechanism

Figure 13 Cooperation around Communal Assets

Figure 14 Education

Figure 15 Distance to School

Figure 16 Ownership of the Schools

Figure 17 Education Excerpts

Figure 18 Water Sources

Figure 19 Perception of Government Service

Figure 20 Food Security

Figure 21 Status of Social Capital and Assets

Figure 22 Environmental Problems

Figure 23 Main Livelihood Challenges / Markets: Access and Coverage

Figure 24 Institutional Architecture and Household and Community Assets

Figure 25 Community-based Service Delivery

Figure 26 Convergence Tool

Figure 27 The Four Pillars

Figure 28 The Theory of Change

Figure 29 The Six Commitments

TABLES

Table 1 Functions of the Traditional Leaders

Table 2 Logical Framework for Pillar One

Table 3 Pillar One Institutions

Table 4 Institutional Perspectives for Pillar One

Table 5 Logical Framework for Pillar Two

Table 6 Pillar Two Institutions

Table 7 Institutional Architecture for Pillar Two

Table 8 Logical Framework for Pillar Three

Table 9 Pillar Three Institutions for

Table 10 Institutional Perspectives for Pillar Three

Table 11 Activity Calendar for Cooperation

Table 12 Institutional Perspectives for Pillar Four

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: Background to the PfRR

ANNEX 2: Activities and Intervention Areas per Pillar

ANNEX 3: Glossary of Partnership Terms (Towards a Shared Understanding)

ANNEX 4: Proposed Agenda for Future Joint Work Planning

ANNEX 5: Institutional Architecture for Resilience (IA4R) Tool

ANNEX 6: See JWP Participants List

ACRONYMS

CPA Candidate Partnership Areas

CDC Community Development Committee

C4C Champions for Change

CSO Civil Society Organization

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

FBO Faith-based Organization

DAI Development Alternatives Inc.

FG Focus Group

IA4R Institutional Architecture for Resilience

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Agency

INGOs International NGOs

JWP Joint Work Plan/Planning

KI Key Informant

MSI Management Systems International

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NNGO National NGO

RIMA Resilience Index Measurement and Analysis

RP Resilience Profiles

USAID United States Agency for International Development

UN United Nations

PfRR Partnership for Recovery and Resistance

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

WFP World Food Program

WV World Vision

PA Partnership Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Partnership for Recovery and Resilience (PFRR) Joint Work Plan (JWP) enables the local and international entities in Yambio to cooperate and enhance their resilience programming. It details the evidence, outcomes, monitoring tools and management mechanisms determined through an ongoing participatory process with UN agencies, International Non-Governmental Organizations

(INGOs), National NGOs (NNGOs), and the Yambio community leadership.

Yambio had been one of South Sudan’s most peaceful and productive areas up until 2015, when it became embroiled in the civil war. According to key informants (KIs) and focus groups (FGs), families were broken up by the war, as young men took to the forest to join the militias that had mobilized against the government. Subsequently, parents and siblings were scared and clustered within

Yambio town. They were unable to cultivate their fields, as their sons who had joined the militias became a threat to their families’ security.1

In response to the shock of conflict, the Yambio community, faith-based organizations (FBOs), and members of traditional and political leadership came together to mobilize. Delegations of elders embarked on several missions to engage the militias, and encourage them to exchange dialogue with the government. This eventually led to an agreement that significantly reduced conflict and insecurity in the area, including the demobilization of armed youth and reintegration of child combatants.

The level of vulnerability in Yambio increased due to conflict and the inability to sustain agriculture.

The humanitarian community remained engaged, however, access to services remained a challenge.

Due to peace-building efforts led by the local peace initiative in the region, Yambio emerged as one of the seven Candidate Partnership Areas (CPAs) to launch the Partnership. In addition, local leaders continued their commitment to create an enabling environment for greater investments in recovery.

The United Nations (UN) developed a Joint Resilience Program, while the Yambio community began to organize community development committees (CDCs), a technical working group and a steering committee. From March 18-22 2019, after two weeks of preparatory work, more than 90 individuals representing 53 partner organizations developed a JWP to enhance the Partnership in Yambio. This was achieved by co-locating operations in targeted bomas; coordinating planning, information sharing and activities in those areas; and collaborating on the ground. This document seeks to be an operational tool to reflect the people, ideas, resources and efforts around the community-identified priorities.

OVERVIEW OF THE JOINT WORK PLAN

Participation

As depicted in the graphs below, participation in the JWP exceeded the expected number by a factor of 3. The total participants registered included 95 individuals, representing 53 different agencies.

The high turn out by local government officials reflects the seriousness with which the local community is engaged in this process. Moreover, the Governor reinforced that they were not participating in their official government capacities, but as fellow community members.

1 This history was thoroughly narrated by the Bishop of Yambio at the PfRR Learning and Accountability Event in Juba.

In the future, it is important to improve gender balances and ensure equal representation of both genders in the process. In addition, more proactive measures should be taken to ensure the participation of women at the technical levels in Government, UN and NGOs. One positive observation is that throughout the workshop, participants maintained a keen awareness of gender dynamics, indicating that it had been well incorporated in the training material.

Figure 1 Participation in the JWP Figure 2 Participation By Gender

Work Plan Structure

The JWP follows a logical framework, and includes the following relevant columns: result (goal, pillar, outcome, outputs); indicators; benchmarks; responsibility; relevant institutions; assumptions;

risks; mitigation measures; gaps; and convergence points. In this document, the results, indicators, and benchmarks columns are included. However, more detailed log frames are available.

Convergence points are also discussed in the chapter titled – Operationalizing Convergence.

The JWP was framed around the following themes and questions:

1. Shared understanding: Do partners have a shared understanding of the basic concepts framing the Partnership?

2. Greater impact: What are the results that would produce the greatest impact in reducing vulnerability and building resilience in Yambio?

3. Inventory of partners’ activities: Do we understand what partners are currently doing in

Yambio, where their activities are located, how long they will be active, and what assets they have available?

4. Convergence in practice – Can we layer, sequence and cluster our activities in Yambio for greater impact through strategic integration?

5. Co-location – Can we identify sub-county level geographic targets to converge our efforts for greater impact?

6. Coordination – Can we prioritize the most critical activities needed to strengthen the

Partnership in Yambio, commit to firm dates, and allocate core responsibilities and resources?

7. Collaboration and adaptation – Can we propose any financing and/or compliance adjustments to our donors to make strategic integration and high impact programming more viable in

Yambio?

Total

Female, Male, Female Male

Total

Dialogue

Open space

Future search

Whole person

Idea

Idea

Idea

Idea Activity

8. Building consensus – What should the Partnership do in order to ensure consensus among partners on the consolidated work plan and the Partnership layering strategy for Yambio?

9. Socialization of tools – Are we familiar with the key documents and tools that relate to the

Partnership?

Work Plan Process

Based on these themes and questions, the agenda of the workshop was divided, and a mix of working groups and plenary discussions were utilized to ensure optimal participation. Each discussion group contained approximately 5-7 individuals. Within each group, participants identified a moderator, note taker and presenter. Following this activity, the small groups would later merge into larger groups, where they would consolidate their analysis and conclusions, and present to the plenary. Each session was followed by instructional material that allowed for subsequent sessions to incorporate new learning, and apply it to the refinement of the logical framework.

Figure 3 Facilitation Model

3 facilitators from DAI Africa Lead directed the process under the guidance of the co-leads and pillar leads

(UNDP, FAO and World Vision). Pillar leads organized the community on the ground and sensitized the partners.

As depicted in Figure 3, open space was used to maximize participation and enable participants to think outside of the box by framing a question, and allowing small discussion groups to brainstorm and organize their presentations.

The Whole Person strategy was used to sustain engagements, and unlock creativity using a mix of physical movement, creative exercises, and active listening techniques. In addition, the Future Search strategy was used to arrive at agreements using a logical process and group work.

The methodology is designed to help participants nurture ideas through dialogue and execute desired results. This process should continue beyond formulation of this JWP to form a basic organizational process at the heart of the

Partnership. By putting ideas of community members at the heart of the enterprise, the new business model puts the community’s concerns first.

Figure 4 From Ideas to Activities

Work Plan Content

Resilience Profiles

Resilience Profiles (RPs) consist of assembled and visualized data. These profiles served as a basis for grounding results in evidence. The significance of the RPs is that they provide a common evidence base for establishing standards across the CPAs. The information contained in them derive from household surveys, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KII). The categories of information were based on 13 chapters, and covered themes submitted by the partners at the Juba level. While these 13 chapters informed the design of the data collection tools, the findings are presented based on the four pillars. In the work plan, a relevant analysis of findings per pillar helps to establish the context for the Results Framework and its indicators.

Program Results Framework

The JWP must be expressed through strategic phases, and reflected in the Four Pillars and 11-Point

Agenda. In addition, the JWP translates its activities into the IR level based on highest priorities for the next year. It also provides the tool and proposes a mechanism for the next phase of work planning, which must take place at the boma level. The Results Framework presents the 16 results that were determined by the participants in response to the questions presented at the beginning of the workshop.

Figure 5 Results Framework

Institutional Architecture for Resilience (IA4R)

In the absence of an effective institutional and policy framework at a national level for agriculture, the community-level partners aimed to adapt the Institutional Architecture Assessment (IAA)2 approach to the sub-national level (County, Payam and Boma) to focus on community institutions, and to establish a resilience framework that also accounts for household and community resilience.

Renamed the Institutional Assessment for Resilience (IA4R), the exercise demonstrates that in addition to the institutions that support social cohesion (Pillar One), institutions also relate to service delivery (Pillar Two), productive capacities (Pillar Three) and nurturing partnerships (Pillar Four).

Community institutions include the players, rules and practices that are the mechanisms to co-create these results and ultimately sustain them. For these community institutions to be relied upon for service delivery implies a transitional approach that includes capacity building. The community first approach links household and communal assets to the Institutional Architecture for Resilience (IA4R) tool through the three core coping capacities as shown in the figure below.

Figure 6: Institutional Architecture, Households and Communal Assets

The IA4R tool casts the four pillars of the PfRR against the three coping capacities to frame a self-assessment of institutions relevant to the resilience agenda. This tool was embedded in the JWP exercise to enable partners to plan a phased transition from direct service provision by technical agencies to greater reliance on community-based delivery mechanisms. Important capacities identified during the exercise must be built over time, including early warning systems, and the capacity to foresee and avert crises before they strike. Each institutional element was scored on the basis of the attention required to achieve the specific pillar objective, and expressed in percentage terms. The attention required was categorized as red, yellow or green, with the corresponding definitions shown below (the IA4R Tool is in Annex I).

(Red) - Institutions require significant attention to ensure the pillar objective is achieved.

2 The Institutional Architecture Assessment (IAA) was designed to examine the capacities fundamental to policy development and implementation and to align with the commitments and principles of the African

Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). Since 2013, the USAID

Bureau of Food Security, USAID Missions, local policymakers and other key stakeholders have carried out in-depth IAAs in countries such as Ethiopia, Tanzania, Malawi, Ghana, Senegal, Kenya and regionally for the East

African Community (EAC). IAAs are now a core component of the approach to agricultural transformation in these countries as they bring together national policy makers, key stakeholders, and development partners to collectively analyze a country’s institutional capacity to undertake agriculture and food security policy and to create action plans for change.

(Yellow) - The conditions required to achieve the pillar objective are partially achieved, but additional attention is required.

(Green) - The pillar objective, from an institutional perspective, is realized to a sufficient degree, and additional attention to this area is not required at this time.

Each participant scored only the specific pillar objective to which they belonged, except for pillar four (4) that was scored by all of the participants given its crosscutting nature.

THE PILLAR PLANS

For each of the first three pillars, the resilience profile evidence is presented, followed by the results framework and the institutional architecture. For Pillar Four, more information is included with respect to the strategic cooperation framework by which the Partnership in Yambio will operationalize coordination.

Pillar One: Trust in Institutions and People

Resilience Profiles

In Yambio, community members identify themselves in ethnic and religious terms. This means that traditional institutions emerge as central to community-level processes, and understanding cultural dynamics is important in approaching the community’s institutional architecture.

The family represents the primary institution that administers household assets. The Partnership is working to help these households to increase their access to and influence over these assets.

Institutions that cut across traditional administration, local government, civil society and private sectors have emerged to also assist this process. However, parental absenteeism remains a significant challenge, with 1/3 of father and 1/4 of mothers not present in many households.

Figure 7 Major Institutions Affecting People

The findings indicate significant community trust in traditional institutions, with the chiefs playing core governance functions across the CPAs. This indicates that traditional institutions are well-established, and reflect the community’s organizational logic. Understanding these institutions and how they adapt to the shock of independence, civil war and the impacts of modernity is a key challenge for the Partnership and its capacity building agenda.

Across households in Yambio, youth comprise of more than 70% of the population. Traditional institutions organize youth as a pool of labor and a fighting force in times of war. The chiefs are still responsible for guiding these youth, however, relations between age-sets must be strengthened through the institutions that govern them.

As indicated below in Figure 8, social issues such as gender-based violence are a serious concern for families and households.

Figure 8 Examples of Social Risks by Community Groups

According to community members in Yambio, the top three causes of conflict include tribalism, unemployment, and lack of rule of law. These issues will have to be addressed in order to achieve and maintain community-level resilience.

Figure 9 Top 3 Causes of Conflict

Environmental degradation is undermining livelihoods and fueling conflict. This is because unemployed youth remain unable to secure income from agriculture, and are vulnerable to recruitment into violence against each other and the state. The graphic below illustrates the impacts of conflict at the household level, with displacement, death and loss of household assets as the most prevalent shocks. At a community level, the impacts of conflict include civil war, death and loss of social status.

Figure 10 Effects of Conflict on Households

As depicted in Figure 11, women cite land and forests as sources of resource-based conflicts, whereas men perceive oil and water as sources of resource-based conflicts. In Yambio, women and men tend to view important issues of resilience differently, and these differences may have policy and program implications. In this case, women associate conflict more closely with the productive assets locally, whereas men lean towards national-level issues.

Figure 11 Effects of Conflict on Households by Gender

The response depicted in Figure 12 indicates that traditional leaders have significant influence over community members, and this ultimately underpins the success of PFRR. These results may determine how future PFRR development interventions are decided. A case in point is the question on the most effective conflict resolution mechanism, which elicited the following responses:

Figure 12 Most Effective Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

According to the responses obtained from the Yambio Resilience Profiles, the most effective conflict resolution mechanism (Figure 12) is dialogue mediated by traditional leaders (60%). A more detailed analysis on the role of traditional leaders is outlined in the table below.

Table 1 Functions of Traditional Leaders

Functions Percentage (%)

Settling disputes 95

Settling land disputes 85

Keeping law and order 55

Protecting subjects 28

Humanitarian coordination 28

Public relations 25 Traditional Leaders in the Yambio Community play a large role in settling disputes, particularly land disputes and, to a lesser extent, maintaining law and order. In all cases, dialogue is perceived as the key modality of conflict resolution and a core resilience capacity by men and women. It supports the bonds, bridges and links of the social contract, including with the development cooperation.

When asked where social capital tends to be strongest, land scored last, followed by forests and water, fishing and agriculture, and finally markets, where both men and women see a high degree of cooperation among communities and the government.

Figure 13 Cooperation around Community Assets

The results on the institution of traditional leaders have a bearing on the performance of the PFRR, and therefore must be accounted for during the identification of intervention areas, processes and implementation.

Logical Framework

The Strategy for Pillar One focuses on the following: strengthening institutions that sustain social cohesion; sustaining the capacity for dialogue to resolve conflicts; building specific capacities for intra-communal, inter-communal, and state-society peace-building; and empowering women in decision-making processes. Based on the evidence, the JWP proposes baselines and targets as described in the table below.

Table 2 Logical Framework for Pillar One

KEY RESULTS Baseline levels % % increase targeted

Indicators

Pillar 1: Rebuild Trust in

Institutions and

People

Intermediate

Result 1.1

People's confidence and trust in local and traditional governance institutions that sustain peaceful social co-existence in

Gbudue state increase by 10% by

(60% for traditional

Authority)( 50% for local government) (38% for

Paramount chiefs)

10% of each

% of respondents who cite various institutions as relevant in their daily lives

Intermediate

Result 1.2

Maintain the effectiveness of peace and conflict resolution mechanisms for peace and social cohesion

90% (Dialogue) Maintain

• Baseline (90% of dialogue)

• Indicator for peace- IGAD CTYSAM-

# of violations on the peace agreement.

• Number of incidents of intercommunal conflicts

Intermediate

Result 1.3

Increased intra- inter and state society cooperation on peace by 5% in 2019

0.147, -0.24, 0.147 5% increase

Social capital scores for inter-communal (bonding), inter-communal

(bridging) and state-society (linking)

Intermediate

Result 1.4

Increased participation of women in community decision making to 25% by end 2019

17% 25% increase percentage of women respondents who report having been seriously involved in decision making

Institutional Architecture

The perceived critical institutions as identified by Pillar One members are shown in the table below.

Table 3 Pillar One Institutions

Pillar One Institutions

Traditional Leaders

CSO (women groups, CBOs, youth groups)

Network for Civil Society Organizations (NeCSOs).

Faith based organizations

Government institutions (Local Government, Physical Infrastructure, Agriculture & Co-op)

Judiciary and Law enforcement agencies

The institutional perspectives for Pillar One objective on re-building trust in people and institutions are shown in the table below.

Table 4 Institutional Perspectives for Pillar One

Score(%)

Absorptive Capacity Red Yellow Green

Institutions are present 16.7 66.7 16.7

Institutional roles are clearly defined 27.8 44.4 27.8

Institutions have Human resources 50 38.9 11.1

Institutions have clearly defined roles 27.8 55.6 16.7

Institutions have access to resources 50 38.9 11.1

Institutions have social bonding capital 16.7 44.4 38.9

Adaptive Capacity

Institutions are shock aware 33.3 27.8 38.9

Institutional know early warning signs and stages of shocks

38.9 50 22.2

Institutions have emergency response plans

38.9 38.9 22.2

Institutions have access to resources for emergency plans

50 33.3 16.7

Institutions have social bonding and linking capital

11.1 55.6 16.7

Transformative Capacity

Institutions’ stakeholders participate in preparedness and response planning

33.3 38.9 27.8

Institutions employ evidence-based approaches

5.6 72.2 22.2

Institutions action ready 22.2 44.4 33.3

Institutions employ a cooperative approach

22.2 27.8 50

Institutions have a and use resilience feedback loops

27.8 61.1 11.1

Institutions are inclusive 22.2 66.7 11.1

Institutions have social bonding and linking 11.1 38.9 50

Score(%) capital

The results indicate that all institutional aspects in Pillar One require further attention except for cooperative approaches, and social bonding and linking capital. The aspects that require urgent attention are human resource, and access to resources with respect to emergency plans.

Pillar Two: Re-Establishing Access to Basic Services

Compared with the other 7 CPAs, Yambio contains the highest rates of literacy and household members that have been to school. Still, the discrepancy between male and female literacy and education rates is significant. Overall, low literacy and education rates in the CPAs are associated with communities where a larger percentage of households live more than 5 km from a primary school or where no secondary school exists. Although many community members identified cultural barriers as the predominant reason not to attend school, it is evident that school distance has a major impact on this matter. Qualitative responses (below), including from females and youth, reveal more diverse experiences.

Figure 14 Education

A significant number of primary school and secondary school children live beyond 5 kms from school and the lack of adequate transport infrastructure make it difficult to access educational institutions.

Many girls suffer due to this distance, given the fact that they often collect water that is also located at a further distance.

Figure 15 Distance to School

Overwhelmingly, the school systems in Yambio are owned and managed by the local government and the private sector. In certain situations, young females have taken incredible initiative to pay for school, and many work to save up before courses begin.

“If you know that your mother is not able to get money to pay your school fees, then you have to know how to make business in order to pay your school fees.”

When parents can pay school costs, qualitative data indicated that mothers’ incomes cover school fees. Safety, cultural barriers and young motherhood further inhibit girls’ access to education. Most young mothers postponed studies due to child-rearing, though many expressed desires to return.

The level of capacities in the absence of resources to pay teachers, and the reliance on volunteer work, is notable and can be built upon.

Figure 16 Ownership of the Schools

Several respondents indicated the significance of language in education, and the need for Arabic or

English language skills have shifted over time. Now, many are attuned to the value of learning

English due to NGO employment opportunities, and requested that language courses are taught earlier in school. FBOs and peace committees requested that schools to teach more vocational skills to help sustain students’ livelihoods following graduation. Comments indicated the commonality of children migrating to Kenya and Uganda for education, but for some this was wrought with tension, since sending children away for education is often exclusively possible for wealthy households.

Responses from focus group participants (i.e. youth, females, local leaders, FBOs, CBOs, peace committees, teachers etc.), revealed a growing need for education. Nonetheless, safety barriers and the lack of will and resources to put teachers on the ground persist. Cultural, social and economic hindrances continue, including limited education facilities and teachers. Youth, especially female youth, look to education for opportunities and meaning. Community leaders and organizations note that schools provide leadership and direction for youth—potentially keeping them out of conflict.

Due to financial barriers to education, organizations could consider facilitating non-cash-based options to pay for school fees in situations where exchange of goods or trade services may be appropriate.

Figure 17 Education Excerpts

Relative to other CPAs, Yambio households have experienced “average” health care services.

Roughly half of households indicated that healthcare services were not timely nor were families provided sufficient information. Focus group discussions highlighted general discouragement with health services, noting the following challenges: long distances to hospitals; absence of drugs in pharmacies; and limited amount of doctors due to low pay or no facilities. In addition to formal services, respondents cited less community investment in caring for the sick and disabled as a challenge. They also reported that NGO assistance is regularly requested, and called for support on trauma awareness and reconciliation.

While multiple water sources may be available in each community, most households depend on one or two primary sources. Hand pumps, boreholes and dug wells provide the predominant water sources in Yambio, and open running water serves roughly 12% of households. Most households travel less than one hour to the available water sources.

Figure 18 Water Sources

Many respondents cited concern for community management to protect separate boreholes for humans and livestock, and called for NGO and government support to bring boreholes to rural communities. Yambio community members complained of “getting diseases” from water, and mentioned using chlorine to treat water.

The seven CPAs generally have a poor view of government services, and Yambio is no exception.

Respondents complained about poor job creation, corruption, infrastructure and price regulation.

During focus group discussions on government services, respondents complained of lack of trust and accountability, oil and resource conflicts, unqualified appointed administrators, and unequitable distribution of basic services. One Yambio peace committee believes that timely government pay would reduce night crime. This is because civil servants who are forced to go without pay often “use their guns to get food and money for school.” Many participants cited inflation and price volatility, the need to reach distant rural communities with services, and the paucity of schools, hospitals, and law and order as challenges. These responses also reflect a general decline in infrastructure, including road and market access.

Figure 19 Perception about Public Services

Conflict has serious implications on education. Due to conflict, schools and roads are closed or become too dangerous. Focus groups discussions indicate that dropout rates soar as school fees increase. A teacher in Yambio said “During times of peace, about 600 to 700 pupils were in school, but now only 200 pupils are here and the girls are very few… parents are unable to pay fees to sustain them in the school.”

Respondents stated that private schools are too expensive, yet within government schools, resources and teacher shortages affect educational quality. In addition, school resources and textbooks are often stolen. “You can go to school in the morning and spend the whole day there and no teacher, unless you go to private schools,” said one girl. Teacher salaries are low, and teachers often go unpaid for months or flee due to conflict. Comments were particularly sympathetic toward female teachers, who suffer disproportionately.

Logical Framework

Table 5 Logical Framework for Pillar Two

KEY RESULTS Baseline levels %

% increase targeted

Indicators

Intermediate Result 2.1

25% of the population in the 7 geographical areas, per year, have access to sustainable, quality, equitable and comprehensive health services.

TBD 25%

Number of blood bank established;

80% of immunization coverage for children and adults against Hepatitis B/C and Yellow Fever;

Reduction of maternal and infant mortality rate by 25%;

Community based surveillance system established and operational in 20 bomas;

Reduction of EPI drop out rates from 25% to 5%

Number of emergency operational centers for outbreak management established;

Number of health workers trained and certified;

Number of health facilities constructed

Intermediate Result 2.2

20% increase in the number of school going children (boys & girls), per year, have access to quality, basic, and inclusive education in the 7 GAs (payams)

TBD 70%

Seven complete primary schools constructed in the geographical areas by 2019;

Learning and teaching school materials supplied to all primary schools in Gbudue State;

500 primary school teachers and 18 education managers are trained on pedagogical skills, supervision and inspection by 2019;

30 primary school teachers and 6 inspectors trained on special needs education;

KEY RESULTS Baseline levels %

% increase targeted

Indicators

Intermediate Result 2.3

700 out of school youth, school drop-outs, per year, have access to quality and inclusive vocational skills and ALPs, in the 7 GAs (payams)

TBD 2000 pers Construction of permanent full primary schools’ (up to primary

8) learning spaces in seven geographical areas;

Provision of learning and teaching materials in schools in the 7 geographical areas;

Training of teachers and education managers in the 7 geographical areas;

Training of teachers for inclusive education in the 7 geographical areas. Transport means for supervision and inspection.

Provision of Hygiene kits to matured girls in primary schools;

Raising awareness on the importance of girls’ education;

Provision of adult education, so as to encourage parents to send all children to school, including girls.

Establishment of WASH facilities in schools, so as to provide safe learning spaces to girls;

Constructing Community Girls’ Schools closer to communities, so as to reduce distance to schools for young girls.

Employ qualified teachers in primary schools in the 7 geographical areas;

Improve teachers’ salaries or give incentives to teachers of primary schools in the 7 geographical areas.

Intermediate Result 2.4

100% of children associated with armed groups are demobilized, capacitated and integrated in the community by 2020

TBD 100%

% of children associated with armed group who are demobilized, capacitated and integrated into the community

KEY RESULTS Baseline levels %

% increase targeted

Indicators

Intermediate Result 2.5

Increased access to basic safe drinking water by 30%, sanitation by 20% and improved hygiene and sanitation behavior change by 25%, in the GAs by 2020.

(pending baseline....)

TBD 30%

90,000 people (46,000 male;

44,000 female) have access to safe, sustainable drinking water in selected geographical areas (Ref. NBS population projection 2019)

60,000 (31,000 male; 29 female) have access to basic sanitation in selected geographical areas.

75,000 individuals (39,000 male;

36,000 female) practice the appropriate behavior in the 3 critical hygiene behaviors (hand washing after visiting latrine, before eating food, after cleaning baby’s bottom, before breastfeeding, and before preparing food)

TBD 20% % of households that have access to safe sanitation by 2020

TBD 25% % of households that demonstrate improved hygiene and sanitation behavior change

Intermediate Result 2.6

50% of returnees (IDPs and refugees) have access to food and non-food packages to ensure sustainable integration by 2020

TBD 145,278

Number of people assisted

Quantity of food items and NFIs distributed

Number of people trained and able to apply skills acquired

Intermediate Result 2.7

200 women groups (30 per group) in 7 geographical areas have access to established and functional "women empowerment" centers established by 2020

TBD 200 groups Number of SGBV survivors access psychosocial and critical health services through women empowerment centers, SPU, and CMSGBV

Number of radio talk shows conducted on prevention of SGBV, community protection mechanism and economic recovery initiatives.

Functional SGBV referral pathways in place

Number of awareness materials produced (posters, t-shirts)

Number of boys and men mobilized and sensitized on SGBV prevention

Tracking and monitoring system…