1.Do No Harm Report: Kindu April 26-27

1.Do No Harm Report: Kindu April 26-27

• Project – Community Driven Reconstruction Project, Maniema DRC “Tuungane”.
• Trainer – Paul-André Wilton, CIUK Conflict Team.

Summary:

The DNH training took place on April 26-27. We managed to fit about 12 hours into 1.5 days, but ideally we would have had more time. Time was pressured both because of the office closing at 1400 on Friday, but also because the Tuungane staff are behind on their projects and this had to be balanced against my being there. If there is any criticism of the training set up it would be that the venue (the main office) was not appropriate, and being in the office meant many participants were pulled away and missed sessions or indeed the whole second day. Of 15 starters, 10 finished (although one left shortly before the end due to illness). This disruption was picked up in the training evaluation as the primary complaint by participants, along with the absence of any lunch, making the day 1 afternoon quite a challenge.

Feedback on the content was very positive, and there was appreciation for the support of CARE UK coming down to Kindu. There was also an appreciation that this intervention comes early on in Tuungane II, and so can still have an influence in the project’s roll out, despite the highly ordered process for applying the CDR approach. IRC had delivered a DNH training at the beginning of Tuungane I in 2008, which two of the current staff had attended. The staff were not aware of any new initiative for DNH trainings in this second phase of the project.

To fit the content into 1.5 days, the focus of every exercise was on Tuungane. The advantage of this approach was that we repeatedly went back to the same examples to tease out more complexity and nuance. Sessions built on each other and by the end the presentations were very practical and focused on problems that had been generated throughout the course of the training. The principle weakness was that certain concepts remained hazy, especially the focus on intercommunity tension rather than on the relationship between CARE and the community. Equally, there was some confusion on whether the transfer of resources was the source of the tension, or whether it was simply increasing the existing tension. While I corrected as we went along, not every component was fully understood and embedded and so we should return to these concepts in any follow up activity to ensure they are not being mis-taught in subsequent trainings.

Some innovation in this training included the use of the RAFT idea for messages (Respect, Accountability, Fairness and Transparency – or in French TERRe), and using the project cycle diagram for DNH as a complement to the framework for discussing future use. Teaching IEMs remains the weakest area of the course based on feedback, and in future I would like to link IEMS to particular values and attitudes identified as dividers, to be more concrete.

There were several ideas for follow up. These included:

• A reflection workshop in six months to consider any developments in the application of DNH, share lessons and try to determine patterns.
• A training of trainers so that the tool could be shared with colleagues, partners and communities;
• Continued support via email from CIUK conflict team to answer subsequent questions, #Accompany

Staff completing the evaluation will be given certificates signed and stamped by the country director.

Training Findings:

Key Dividers and Connectors Identified across four regions of Maniema (first exercise):

Options tested for reducing Tensions and Increasing Connectors:

Division: Attitude of selfishness/ greed

Mode of aid programme reinforcing division – theft of project funds by members of the VDC, combined with project procedures obliging all work to cease in case of theft, leading to increase in tension between community members and the committee and between committee members. This is additionally serious in areas where multiple villages have been grouped into one ‘community’, meaning suspicion may already be quite high between members and groups.

Options:

a)Encourage the community to denounce the committee to put them under more pressure (likely outcome increase in tension by reinforcing divides between those who support certain members and who oppose them)

b)Dissolve the committee, hold a general assembly and elect a new committee (increase connectedness around desire to see the work continue, transparency, and a desire for some kind of action against those responsible)

c)Community reimburse the money lost, clarifying and obliging a collective responsibility for the loss of the money (potential increase in tension between those who have to pay for the mistakes of others and reject the collective responsibility and those who accept it).

d)Whole community pays in order to keep the work going, but borrows the money from their diaspora networks which they can pay back over a longer period of time. (prevents rise in tension caused by the sudden withdrawl of the project according to CARE protocols – reinforces group collective identity (Lega people))

e)Justice pursued against the suspected guilty party (example given of VDC president), and money reclaimed, leading to a restart of the project. (tensions remain high because of the halt in work until the money in returned which can take a long time. In practice, the justice system can be easily slowed by the accused paying police and judges not to proceed with the case – several examples currently ongoing where CARE property has been stolen but a year later no further action has been taken because of suspected collusion between the authorities and the accused.).

f)Preventative – VDC members are paid a stipend to manage the funds, and the collective responsibility of the whole community is reiterated in advance so that more attention is paid on the security controls surrounding the village funds. (de-crease in tension around selfishness, as the temptation for acting on self-interest and stealing is balanced by the income being received, increase in cohesion as common interest reinforced).

Undermining Connector/Increasing tension:Actions contradict shared value of segregation of men and women, and the strict norms surrounding voice given to women (particularly in muslim areas); Increase in divider: violence against women in the home.

Mode of aid interaction: Legitimisation of women as decision makers in the public sphere.

Options: Open for discussion. On the one hand it was felt that involving women was a way of decreasing a structural divide (segregation of the sexes), and following the rights based approach of CARE was the correct thing to do. However it was acknowledged that solutions had to be found to prevent this conflict resulting in increased violence. Examples were given of changing attitudes to women over time (“they make decisions as good as a man would have”), and indeed examples of women leaders being able to successfully argue for services that would benefit other women which men would have not done (“how many men have died because of bad roads, and how many women have died because of no clinic?” – argument used by female committee member to secure votes for a maternity clinic instead of more road investment). Due to time constraints this discussion could not be pursued further which was a pity.

Decreasing Tension/Reinforcing Connectors:Shared value: Education of children

Mode of aid interaction: Resource transfer/distribution/ Legitimisation - Approval of a school building project by the VDC, and the creation of a mixed management group to look after the resource in the future. Tension lowered as a space to discuss matters of common concern to all villages in the community created for the first time, reducing the tendency of villages to act independently in their own selfish interest.)

Opportunity: This element is already built into existing process for Tuungane II, but the need remains to be aware of further modifications possible. Suggestions include:

a)Find a neutral space to reduce tension created by competition between communities for location of new resources (decrease in competition, reinforce value of equity)

b)Rotate the responsibility for managing the resource between different communities, rather than having one delegate from each community. In practice, one delegate per community has led to a decrease in accountability, as the delegate does not report back to their community frequently or in depth. The idea is that if the management is rotated, the other communities will follow more closely the decisions of management group (possible increase in tension – value of suspicion?, but increase in connectiveness if the villages are more engaged.)

Reinforcing Connectors: Shared interest in receiving services from the state:

Reduce tensions: Competition between VDCs and existing village leaders.

Mode of aid interaction: Resource transfer/distribution/ legitimisation/ joint ownership of common resources

Opportunity (already taken):

1. Reinforcing the value espoused by other common spaces such as church associations (in mono-religious areas), of collective interest.
2. Additionally, reinforcing the connection between state and community of a shared interest in the delivery of a public good, by creating the physical space where technical advisors from the state can meet with appropriate and empowered members of the community.
3. The inclusion of village elders as advisors to the VDCs (an evolution from Tuungane I) means there is less competition between different village structures.

List of final participants:

1. Bonny’l Lukama

1. KEENDJA ANZYLUNI Patient

1. MWEZE ZIHINDULA Pascal

1. Michel KAMANA

1. MULEKELUA UFILABYAYE Regine

1. Faustin Kambale

1. MUKWEGE SADIKI Michel

1. Michaél BWANAMOYA KASIMU

1. Didier OPONDO LONGAYO OT’AHASHE

1. KALALA TSHILOBO ADOLPHE

1. Freddy KABALA MBAYI

1. Honorine BITANGOLO BANTIKOKO