inclusive natural resource management (inrm) program...practices, bringing key actors together to...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Inclusive Natural Resource Management (INRM) Program
Mercy Corps - Myanmar
2015 Final Evaluation
2
Causal Design partners with international development clients to provide rigorous independent program evaluation, expand cultures of evidence within organizations, and join them in efforts to relieve human suffering and end poverty.
720 Village Center Dr. Colorado Springs, CO 80919, USA Tel: +1 (720) 260 4837 Fax: +1 (719) 218 9096 Email: [email protected]
3
Acronyms AYO Ar Yone Oo CMM Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation CSO Civil Society Organization FGD Focus Group Discussion GAD General Administration Department IBN Interest Based Negotiation INRM Inclusive Natural Resource Management Program KII Key Informant Interview KMSS Karuna Myanmar Social Services SLRD Settlement and Land Records Department USAID United States Agency for International Development
4
Table of Contents Executive Summary ______________________________ 4
Introduction ____________________________________ 9
Methodology ____________________________________ 13
Key Findings ____________________________________ 18
1. Contextual Update __________________________________ 18
2. Constructive Engagement _____________________________ 22
3. Dispute Resolution __________________________________ 26
4. Community Impact _________________________________ 33
Key Recommendations __________________________ 38
Conclusions ___________________________________ 42
Appendix:
Appendix A: INRM Program Logical Framework ______________ 43
Appendix B: Qualitative Tools ____________________________ 44
B.1-Key Informant Interview Guide – Government ____________ 44
B.2-Key Informant Interview Guide – Civil Society ____________ 47
B.3-Community Focus Group Discussion Guide _______________ 51
Appendix C: INRM Program Work Plan _____________________ 54
Appendix D: Bibliography ______________________________ 62
5
Executive Summary Funded by USAID’s Office of Conflict Management & Mitigation, Mercy Corps' Inclusive Natural Resource Management (INRM) Program strengthened basic communication, collaboration, conflict management, and negotiation skills of key government and civil leaders who are working across lines of existing division to resolve natural resource based conflict in their communities. Findings captured an increased willingness among these key leaders to engage one another as a partner, rather than an opponent, a noticeable shift from confrontation to collaboration. In effect, the INRM Program supported the broader transition and decentralization process in Myanmar by: strengthening township level actors’ negotiation skills in order to address community concerns related to development and natural resources; promoting “constructive engagement” between civil society and local government actors; and resolving natural resource based conflict. Focused at the subnational level, key program activities included: negotiation training, including interest-based negotiation (IBN) for local government and civil society leaders, monitoring of alternative dispute resolution processes, land law education, and the implementation of natural resource projects that created opportunities for multi-stakeholder engagement, while addressing community concerns related to natural resources. Program activities were implemented in partnership with local organizations, Ar Yone Oo (AYO) in Chin State and Karuna Myanmar Social Services (KMSS) in Shan State. The program was implemented in Tonzang and Tedim Townships in northern Chin State and Taunggyi, Kalaw, and Hopone Townships in southern Shan State.
Methodology The final evaluation measured program performance and compared it to its original intent, capturing progress made relative to objectives and targets. The evaluation also measured changes in constructive engagement and dispute resolution activity among participants. A mixed-methods approach was utilized that leveraged existing quantitative data, previously collected by Mercy Corps, and qualitative tools developed and administered by Causal Design.
Key Findings
1. Conflict Context A. Conflict Awareness
The INRM Program helped to converge natural resource conflict awareness among civil society/community and government actors as they report similar levels of conflict awareness. A comprehensive analysis of data collected across multiple evaluation tools indicated that 72% government, 77% civil society, and 67% community acknowledged conflict in their communities at end line, compared to 59% government, 84% civil society, and 92% community at baseline line, demonstrating a convergence of perspectives among varying actors across the life of the program. At baseline, government leaders appeared to be largely unaware of or unwilling to
6
acknowledge natural resource and economic development related issues in contrast to concerns expressed by community and civil society representatives. This change in leaders’ perspectives suggests the program successfully improved conflict awareness among government participants, building a strong foundation for collaborative action. Additionally, data suggests improved government awareness and/or willingness to acknowledge community natural resource related needs and concerns from baseline to end line.
B. Conflict Frequency The INRM Program helped to reduce the frequency of reported natural resource conflict among civil society and community participants. According to the leader survey for example, 62% of government and 55% of civil society leaders reported a general “decrease” in conflict at end line, compared to 40% government and 19% civil society leaders at baseline, indicating a general decrease in the frequency of reported tension and/or conflict experienced by participants over the life of the program. C. Sense of Agency Findings suggest civil society/community’s sense of agency on natural resource related issues has improved. At baseline for example, 72% of civil society/community reported having little (33%) to no (39%) influence, compared to, 56% reported having little (56%) to no (0%) influence at end line. 2. Constructive Engagement The INRM Program took advantage of a pivotal time in Myanmar’s history with a heightened demand by civil society and communities for good governance and inclusive natural resource management. In responses to civil society and community concerns, the INRM Program helped to increase communication and collaboration between government and civil society leaders and improve the effectiveness of dispute resolution practices, bringing key actors together to address and solve natural resource related conflict, where previously only weak or no relationships had existed. A. Communication & Collaboration The INRM Program helped to close the gap that exists between government, civil society and community representatives by strengthening opportunities for communication and collaboration. Now government and civil society leaders are more willing to view one another as a partner, rather than an opponent, and utilize constructive means of engagement, rather than aggression and confrontation, to solve issues together. When asked, ”how often do you work with other actors?”, 68% government and 61% civil society leaders reported “half” to “all” of the cases, compared to 50% government and 39% civil society at baseline, indicating leaders are working together on a more frequent basis.
7
B. Quality of Communication & Collaboration Negotiation training participants emphasized that communication with leaders improved as a result of the program. “I now understand that I should give more space, in terms of decision making and negotiation, to civil society and that this will make my job easier in the end,” cited one government leader. When asked if interaction with leaders in other sectors (government/civil society) changed in the past two years in key informant interviews, 92% of government and 85% of civil society participants reported an “increase.” Government and civil society leaders also reported increased efficiency at utilizing informal networks as a result of training, an unintended benefit of the program. For example, some civil society leaders reported thinking more creatively about the conflict management process and how to maneuver professional channels in order to gain access to influential government representatives. Natural resource projects also provided an opportunity for government and civil society to work together. Leaders jointly implemented seven natural resource projects over the life of the program and collaborated on many more. Natural resource projects also supported the broader transition and decentralization process in Myanmar by building the capacity of leaders to address local natural resource concerns. 3. Dispute Resolution A. Negotiation Training
Mercy Corps’ negotiation training improved leaders’ skills to address and resolve conflict in a more participatory and systematic manner. Negotiation training combined classroom and experiential learning to train 138 government and civil society leaders in Shan and Chin States over the life of the program. As a result, leaders reported distinct changes in their negotiation style, including a shift in their conflict management approach from what was often described as “hard line” or “traditional,” and typically characterized as “aggressive” or full of “emotion,” to a non-confrontational and participatory approach. Leaders now possess adequate negotiation skills to objectively analyze party interests and resolve conflict in collaboration with others. B. Negotiation Confidence & Expertise Negotiation training participants, particularly government leaders, are more confident in their negotiating ability and report high levels of negotiation expertise. End line findings captured a notable increase in leaders that reported “more expertise” from baseline (9% government/14% civil society) to end line (41% government/ 19% civil society), indicating a substantial improvement in negotiation expertise in both leader groups, particularly government representatives.
8
C. Dispute Resolution Leaders who participated in the Mercy Corps negotiation-training program are actively addressing and resolving conflict in their communities. At end line, for example, 76% of government and 87% of civil society leaders reported active involvement in conflict resolution activities, indicating leaders that participated in the program are well positioned to address and resolve conflict and are actively doing so in their respective communities. Leaders who participated in the negotiation-training program report they are more effective at resolving disputes. When asked how often the application of the IBN methodology resulted a conflict resolution in the leader survey, 70% government and 81% of civil society reported “more than half” or “all” of the cases, compared to 61% government and 57% civil society at baseline, suggesting negotiation training provided leaders with practical tools to effectively address and resolve conflict.
Conclusion Future programming can build on the successes of the INRM Program in a number of ways, including:
Future programs should develop strategies that leverage existing leaders or “champions” to drive institutional change in their respective organizations and/or greater community;
The establishment of a negotiation/mediation network to support dispute resolution activities at a greater scale, particularly for land related issues;
The development of natural resource boards that focus on land and/or water related disputes in an accountable and transparent manner;
Future good governance and peacebuilding programs may consider partnerships with government departments as service providers to secure government buy-in; and
More rigorous M&E systems that accurately measure causality from baseline to end line and utilize a participatory approach to monitor program performance.
9
Introduction Funded by USAID’s Office of Conflict Management & Mitigation, Mercy Corps' Inclusive Natural Resource Management (INRM) Program1 is two-year pilot project launched in May 2013 that strengthened the capacity of local government, civil society and community leaders to prevent and resolve natural resource-based conflict. Focused at the subnational level, the program supported the broader transition and decentralization process by building the capacity of township level government actors to address community concerns related to development and natural resources, while also building the capacity of civil society to constructively engage with government. Key program activities included: negotiation training, including IBN training for local government and civil society leaders, monitoring of alternative dispute resolution processes, land law education, and the implementation of natural resource projects that created opportunities for multi-stakeholder engagement, while addressing community concerns related to natural resources. Implemented in partnership with two local organizations, Ar Yone Oo (AYO) in Chin State and Karuna Myanmar Social Services (KMSS) in Shan State, the program also had a strong emphasis on capacity building of local peace-building organizations. The program was implemented in Tonzang and Tedim Townships in northern Chin State and Taunggyi, Kalaw, and Hopone Townships in southern Shan State.
Program Description Mercy Corps and its local partners implemented a range of activities designed to support Myanmar’s democratic opening and sustainably reduce natural resource related conflict via three interrelated objectives: 1) Strengthen the ability of key leaders to work across lines of division to resolve
natural resource disputes
The INRM Program improved awareness and strengthened the capacity of civil society and government leaders to address natural resource related tension and resolve disputes through conflict management and dispute resolution training through classroom based and experiential learning. Key activities included: seminars, workshops and training to strengthen government leaders’ understanding of conflict such as, IBN training, land law education, exchanges, forums, and seminars. Capacity building of civil society and community based actors also helped to foster inclusive and participatory decision-making about natural resources at the community level.
2) Strengthen the capacity of local organizations to implement natural resource projects
that support negotiated agreements
1 Funded by USAID’s Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation (CMM). USAID Cooperative Agreement No. AID-486-A-13-00003. The formal program name is Supporting Peace through Natural Resource Management in Burma’s Ethnic Regions (PNRM).
10
Local partnership strengthening efforts enhanced the skills of Mercy Corps’ local partners to manage natural resource projects. Natural resource projects supported civil society and community based local initiatives that address natural resource challenges and also helped to promote collaboration among local government, civil society, and community actors. Additionally, local and national-level dialogue forums related to peace and natural resources were conducted to strengthen linkages and support negotiated agreements among key actors. Key activities included: technical and operational training; meetings and forums; and, the implementation of projects, including land and watershed protection activities, nurseries, community forests, land law training, and village tract mapping. 3) Strengthen the ability of local government to implement initiatives that address
natural resource tensions This objective enhanced government engagement and capacity through natural resource projects and events that were implemented by or in collaboration with government departments, including the General Administration Department, the Settlement and Land Record Department, the Forest Department, and the Department of Agriculture. Key activities included: government meetings; national land use policy and land law related forums; exchanges, general coordination meetings; and natural resource projects, including law land education and village tract mapping. Given the changing environment of conflict environments and the experimental nature of this program, the INRM Program was redesigned six months after implementation, compressing the already limited program timeline. Modifications were made to Objective 3 and included a shift away from economic relationships to a government capacity building focus.
11
Graph 1:INRM Program Outcome Map
Support Burma’s democratic opening
by addressing the underlying causes of long-standing ethnic conflicts in southern Shan and Chin States
Strengthen the ability of key leaders to work
across lines of division to resolve natural resource disputes that are fueling tensions.
Strengthen the capacity of local organizations to
implement natural resource projects that
support negotiated agreements Strengthen the ability
of local government to implement initiatives that address natural
resource tensions
Conflict Context in Shan & Chin States
Since 2011 Myanmar experienced an increase in domestic and foreign investment as actors competed over natural resources, including land, water, and forests. These investments have influenced natural resource competition and overall tension/conflict in resource wealthy states, including Shan and Chin States. Land is the most reported source of tension/conflict as communities face land grabs, or land acquisitions typically by domestic and transnational companies, governments, and individuals, establishing economic development projects.
Some civil society and communities groups are more outspoken about the consequences they face while others remain unresponsive or unaware. End line findings suggest communities in Shan State are particularly susceptible to land grabs due to high-level government and private sector investments in the extractive industry. In contrast, land grabs and development investments are less common in Chin State and the majority of participants reported inter-community related issues such as, environmental degradation and/or land boundary issues.
12
Evaluation Purpose The final evaluation measured program performance and compared it to its original intent, specifically capturing progress that had been made relative to objectives and targets outlined in the program’s logical framework. Additionally, the evaluation captured significant changes experienced by participants as a result of the program, including perceived changes in natural resource related capacity, constructive engagement, and dispute resolution skills. Findings will be used to inform future good governance and peacebuilding programs. Key learning questions explored during the evaluation included:
How did the INRM Program build the capacity of program participants to deal with natural resource related conflict?
To what extent did the INRM Program change the way key leaders (and community) constructively engage with one another?
To what extent did participants change the way they address and resolve conflict as a result of the program?
Specific themes explored through the learning questions included changes in:
Natural resource management, use and rights awareness: Economic development projects and natural resource conflict has significant social, economic and environmental consequences for communities. Program activities informed participants of the current national level policies and practice and how these might impact their natural resource management and use. Activities empowered individuals to make informed natural resource based decisions in their respective communities.
Natural resource based conflict awareness: At project baseline, a significant portion of government leaders reported low levels of natural resource-based conflict in their communities. Program activities addressed the limited awareness of or knowledge about resource-based conflicts among leaders.
Negotiation training and dispute resolution practice: This component explored how program leaders are addressing and resolving conflicts in their area, with particular interest in the application, relevance, and outcome of the IBN approach.
Sense of legitimacy; confidence: This included soft skills development among program participants and the extent to which changes in their sense of professional legitimacy and confidence enabled them to better address and resolve conflict.
Trust: This theme addressed actors’ perception of key leaders as effective, responsive, and trustworthy leaders who understand natural resource based needs and concerns of communities.
Communication and collaboration: Instances of communication and collaboration were identified as a measurement of the extent to which program activities brought leaders together across pre-existing lines of division.
13
Methodology The final evaluation utilized a mixed-methods approach leveraging existing quantitative data previously collected by Mercy Corps, and qualitative data to assess program performance and perceived changes. KIIs and FGDs discussions utilized a story telling approach to further explore change experienced by participants. The qualitative component final evaluation was conducted in Kalaymyo and Tedim townships in Chin State and Kalaw, Hopone and Taunggyi townships in Shan State. Data collection was not conducted in Hakha, Falam, and Tonzang townships in Chin State due to accessibility issues.
Sampling Mercy Corps, AYO, and KMSS preselected KII and FGD respondents based on their level of baseline and program participation. The evaluation strived to include individuals that participated in a wide range of program activities through the life of the program. However, the level of actor participation in the program varied greatly among respondents as a result of varying program activities targeted to different actors and time limitations. Government participants included staff and township administrators from the township-level General Administration Department, Forestry Department, Department of Agriculture and Irrigation, Settlement and Land Records Department, as well as Village Tract Administrators. Civil society participants included members and leaders of political groups and civil society organizations focused on environment, peace, and/or human rights related issues. Community FGDs included village members and leaders that participated in some element of natural resource training and/or community-based natural resource projects. Because the INRM program works with existing leaders, most of whom are men, only a small minority of respondents were women. The age of respondents ranged from between 19 and 70 years old.
Data Collection Mercy Corps administered the quantitative Leader Survey to government and civil society leaders that participated in IBN training and included predominantly closed-ended and categorical questions. The qualitative component, implemented by Causal Design, included three tools used to guide key informant and focus group discussions. The qualitative discussions included a combination of open and closed-ended questions relevant to each individual participant group and helped inform output and impact-level indicators, and change experienced by program participants. Qualitative tools were designed to ensure data point coverage and incorporate a story-telling participatory element giving respondents the opportunity to share and analyze personal accounts of change as a result of program participation. Story telling was used in combination with
14
other quantitative and qualitative methods of gathering data and was useful to render judgment about program performance and generate knowledge. Data collection organized by tool and state can be found in Table 2 below. The data collection tools can be found in Appendix B. Table 2: Data Collection by Tool
Chin Shan Total
1 Leader Survey- 19-item survey of government, civil society, and community leaders participating in IBN training. Key topics included conflict context and dispute resolution experience.
58 36 94
2 Key Informant Interviews- Government: 16-item interview guide for government representatives. Key topics included: project performance, key impacts, capacity building, constructive engagement, and dispute resolution.
4 8 12
3 Key Informant Interviews- Civil Society: 24-item interview guide for civil society leaders. Key topics included: project performance, key impacts, capacity building, constructive engagement, and dispute resolution.
5 7 13
4 Focus Group Discussions- discussion guide for civil government, civil society and community participants. Discussion points encouraged storytelling around changes in capacity building, constructive engagement, and dispute resolution.
9 4 13
Leader Survey – a total of 94 Leader Surveys were administered of key government and civil society leaders that participated in IBN training. The total end line respondents included 58 leaders from Chin State and 36 leaders from Shan State. Of these 94 respondents, 63 identified as government representatives (67%) and 31 identified as civil society, or non-governmental, representatives (33%). Key Informant Interviews – a total of 25 end line KIIs were conducted and included 12 government (48%) and 13 civil society representatives (52%). The total government informants included eight representatives from Shan State and four from Chin State. The total civil society informants included seven civil society representatives from Shan State and five from Chin State. Key informants were selected based on their availability to interview and degree of participation in the program, with particular emphasis on those that had participated in the IBN training. KIIs measured the change in program participants’ natural resource awareness and access, operational and technical capacity, and ability to work across lines of division to resolve natural resource conflict Focus Group Discussions – a total of 13 FGDs were conducted with small groups of approximately 2-4 program participants organized by participant type, including three
15
government (23%), seven civil society (54%), and three community discussions (23%). FGDs offered an opportunity to explore learning points in a semi-structured story-telling environment. Government and civil society FGDs explored the perceived changes in capacity building, constructive engagement with other actors, conflict management and dispute resolution. Community FGDs offered an opportunity to explore changes in community awareness around natural resource issues and conflict, capacity to implement locally driven initiatives, levels of interaction with and perception of leaders, and changes in natural resource related decision making. Table 3 below captures the qualitative data collection efforts disaggregated by location and tool. Table 3: Qualitative Data Collection by Tool and Township2
Township
KII-
Gov’t
FGD-Gov’t
KII-CS
FGD-
CS
FGD-
Comm
Total
Chin State 4 3 6 3 2 17 Kalaymyo 0 0 1 1 1 3
Tedim 4 3 5 2 1 14
Shan State 8 0 7 4 1 21
Kalaw 1 0 1 1 0 5
Hopone 3 0 0 0 0 4
Taunggyi 4 0 6 3 1 23
Total 12 3 13 7 3 38
Data Analysis
Qualitative data was collected from May 13-25, 2015 in Shan and Chin States. Following each day of data collection, data was reviewed, discussed, and then entered into an Excel database. The data was analyzed for patterns and trends and organized manually by emergent themes before being exported to STATA for further analysis. Tables and charts based on baseline and end line findings were then created in Excel.
Evaluation Team The qualitative survey team consisted of two Mercy Corps staff members/enumerators, one external research assistant/interpreter, and the Causal Design Evaluation Manager. Mercy Corps selected enumerators based on their M&E experience and familiarity with the INRM Program. Prior to data collection, qualitative tools were translated from English to Burmese and the enumerators were trained on how administer them. The enumerators were local and spoke fluent Burmese, enabling them to conduct interviews
2 End line data collection was conducted in Kalaymyo, Tonzang and Tedim Townships in Chin State and Taunggyi, Kalaw, and Hopone Townships in Shan State. As advised by The Mercy Corps Conflict Mitigation and Management Director, data was not collected in Falam, Hakha, and Tonzang townships in Chin State due to accessibility issues.
16
and discussions independently. The research assistant/interpreter provided translation support to the Causal Design Evaluation Manager throughout the data collection process. Mercy Corps’ local partners, AYO and KMSS, although not part of the survey team, played an important role in scheduling interviews and discussions with program participants with additional support provided by the enumerators.
Strengths
The methodology integrated quantitative and qualitative methods to measure multiple outcomes;
A non directive approach allowed for the emergence of unexpected information;
A participatory element, achieved through storytelling, enabled participants to guide the data collection process and share their personal (positive and negative) experiences; and
The process built staff capacity to analyze data and conceptualize program performance
Challenges Conducting data collection in remote regions of Myanmar posed some challenges, including: Cultural and Language Barriers
Translation amongst multiple languages (e.g., English, Myanmar, Chin dialects);
The enumerators did not speak English so interviews were conducted in Burmese;
Fieldwork was conducted in ethnic communities where some participants had a limited degree of Burmese language fluency, so there were some limitations to comprehension; and
Given the range of languages used, the general subject matter, and sensitivity of issues covered in the tools (including concepts such as confidence, technical and operational capacity, trust, relationship dynamics, impact, opportunities, and dispute resolution), responses may not have been translated with complete consistency. However, steps were taken to confirm comprehension through the interview process.
Access
The required travel time and logistical arrangements necessary to interview participants;
Given the remoteness of some program locations, end line data collection was limited to the main cities of Shan and Chin States; and
Difficulty accessing and scheduling interviews with program participants resulted in a small sample size, limiting qualitative end line data reliability
17
Limitations The end line evaluation faced some limitations, including: Design of the Evaluation
Non-random sampling emphasized experience of program participants who were able or motivated to engage in more activities;
Non-experimental methods do not allow us to identify cause-and-effect relationships therefore, the impact cannot be fully attributed to the INRM Program;
Consistency of questions from baseline to end line; The utility of the baseline assessment to inform final indicators was limited because a number of data points were not gathered or not applicable at baseline.
The potential for selection bias poses some threat to data validity; and
Evaluation participants were preselected by Mercy Corps and its local partners AYO and KMSS
Capacity of Enumerators While the methodology and tools were reviewed prior to fieldwork, the ability of enumerators to fully understand concepts and implement a story-based approach to capture significant change in the lives of program participants was limited. Thus, utilizing an adaptive management approach, case studies were used at times to better align with staff capacity, and cultural and language barriers.
Conflict Environment The type and degree of reported natural resource related tension/conflict varied greatly among Shan and Chin States, limiting the relevance of some end line evaluation questions designed for moderate to high level conflict environments.
18
Key Findings 1. Contextual Update
A. Natural Resource Conflict Awareness The INRM Program helped to converge perspectives of civil society, government, and community participants as they report similar levels of conflict awareness at end line. Government leaders at baseline appeared to be largely unaware of or unwilling to acknowledge natural resource and economic development related issues, in contrast to concerns expressed by community and civil society representatives. This convergence of perspectives builds the foundation for collaborative action in response to natural resource grievances.
During the life of the program, Mercy Corps conducted 40 events to increase understanding of and mitigate conflict attended by 901 government, civil society, and community representatives at the national, state and township levels.3 Twenty-eight (70%) of the events were attended by government representation. 4 Major events included: negotiation training, including IBN training; Land Law Education Training of Trainers (TOT), Farmer Forums and quarterly exchange meetings among leaders participating in the IBN training program.
3 INRM Output Tracker. Mercy Corps. April 20, 2015. 4 Ibid.
Key Findings:
Conflict Awareness: The INRM Program helped to converge natural resource conflict awareness among civil society/community and government actors as they report similar levels of conflict awareness at end line.
Conflict Frequency: The INRM Program’s comprehensive approached reduced the frequency of reported conflict among civil society and community participants.
Community and civil society’s reported improved sense of agency over natural resources.
19
B. Frequency of Conflict
While the INRM Program’s comprehensive approach helped to reduce the frequency of natural resource conflict reported by civil society and community actors, government actors reported an increase in conflict.5
When asked are there any conflicts or tensions over natural resources in this area for example, civil society and community representatives reported a decrease, while government reported an increase. These findings were drawn from a combination of quantitative and qualitative data tools, including the Leader Survey, KIIs, and FGDs and were disaggregated by actor to best capture reported change among group. Results from each actor were then combined to determine the total change in reported conflict across all program participants to assess to what degree the INRM Program met its highest level target-to reduce total reported natural resource based tension/conflict by 20%. Findings in Table 4 below include the percentage of reported conflict at baseline and end line for each participant group and the cumulative percentage change (+3% change) of reported conflict.6 Results indicate that at baseline, 59% government, 84% civil society, and 92% community reported conflict in their area, compared to 72% government, 77 % civil society, and 67% community at end line.7
While the INRM Program aimed to decrease the frequency of reported conflict among participants, the discrepancy in reported conflict may be due to disparate levels of participant conflict vulnerability and awareness. Civil society and community representatives for example, are generally more aware of tension and conflict and therefore report higher levels of conflict compared to government representatives. Further disaggregation (by actor and state) and calculation explanation can be found in the program’s logical framework located in the appendix. Table 4: Reported Level of Conflict by Participant8 Impact Indicator #1: % change in the number of people who report conflict over natural resources in their community.
Participant Baseline End line
% Change Frequency % Frequency %
Government 70 59% 54 72% 22%
Civil Society 74 84% 34 77% -8 %
Community 22 2% 2 67% -27 %
Total 166 72% 90 74% 3%
Secondary data explored the degree of reported tension/communities based on a five-
5 INRM Program Logical Framework. Causal Design. June 2015. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Data collected from three sources: INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- Endline. Causal Design. May 28, 2015. INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- Baseline. Causal Design. May 28, 2015.
20
point scale ranging from “decreased significantly” to “increased significantly.” According to the leader survey for example, 62% of government and 55% of civil society leaders reported a general “decrease” in conflict at baseline, compared to 40% government and 19% civil society at baseline, indicating most leaders experienced a general “decrease” in tension/conflict over the life of the program.9 Table 5 below includes the baseline and end line responses of government and civil society leaders based on the five-point scale.
Table 5: Leader Survey results on frequency of reported tension/conflict10
C. Natural Resource Control & Decision-Making End line findings suggest the civil society/community’s sense of agency over natural resources has improved. At baseline for example, community and civil society leaders revealed a low sense of agency, with both community and civil society leaders reporting limited influence over natural resource use and development projects in their area. When asked how much control and/or influence do you feel you have over the way natural resources are used in your area, 72% of civil society/community reported having little (33%) to no (39%) influence at baseline, compared to 56% having little and 0% having no influence at end line, based on a four-point scale ranging from “no control and/or influence” to “complete control and/or influence.”11 Table 6 below includes all baseline and end line responses from civil society/community groups.
9 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. 10 The question related to this data point is as follows: Over the last six months, has tension or conflict where you work and live (select applicable answer from five point scale)? Findings include: Gov. (Baseline/End line): Decreased significantly 19%/14%; Decreased 40%/62%; Stayed same 28%/22%; Increased 9%/2%; Increased significantly 4%/0%; CS: Decreased significantly 7%/19%; Decreased 19%/55%; Stayed same 55%/26%; Increased 14%/0%; Increased significantly 5%/0%. 11 INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- End line. Causal Design. May 28, 2015.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
% o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
Government - Baseline
Government - Endline
CSO - Baseline
CSO- Endline
21
Table 6: KII & FGD results on level of control/influence12
Additional findings were drawn from the combination of quantitative and qualitative data tools, including the Leader Survey and KIIs and FGDs with civil society, and community participants to obtain a more comprehensive and impact-oriented measurement of perception of control/influence, as outlined in Table 7 below. Data was disaggregated by participant type across all the tools to best capture reported change among each group. Findings include the percentage of reported satisfaction at baseline and end line for civil society and community respondents and also include the total percentage change in control/influence across the life of the program. At baseline for example, 62% of civil society and 58% of community actors reported a positive degree of control/influence, based on the four-point scale previously outlined, compared to 100% civil society and community positive responses at end line.13 Based on these figures, participants reported an increase (+64%) in control/influence over natural resources over the life of the program.14 The increase in community perception of control/influence may be attributed to program activities that helped to increase community participation, control, and influence over natural resource related decisions, including small grants that empowered civil society and community participants through the implementation of locally driven natural resource projects. Further disaggregation (by state) and a detailed explanation of the calculation is located in the program’s logical framework in the appendix.
12 Question for this data point is as follows: How much control and/or influence do you feel you have over the way natural resources are used in your area? Findings include: Gov/CS No control 39%/0%; A little control 33%/56%; A lot of control 20%/38%; Complete control 7%/6%). 13 Ibid. 14 INRM Program Logical Framework. Causal Design. June 2015.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
No control orinfluence
A little control orinfluence
A lot of control orinfluence
Complete controlor influence
Baseline
Endline
22
Table 7: Reported Levels of Control/Influence over Natural Resources by Participant15 Indicator 26: % change in community perceptions about their ability to influence natural resource decisions
Participant Baseline End line
% Change Frequency % Frequency %
Civil Society 28 62% 13 100% 61% Community 14 58% 3 100% 71%
Total 42 61% 16 100% 64% 2. Constructive Engagement
A. Communication & Collaboration The INRM Program took advantage of a pivotal time in Myanmar’s history as the country faces heightened demand by civil society and communities for good governance and inclusive natural resource management, The program successfully executed activities that brought key actors together to address and solve natural resource related conflict, where previously only weak or no relationships had existed. Now leaders report increased communication and collaboration, laying the foundation for participatory and decentralized natural resource management.
15 Data collected from two sources: Mercy Corps. May 2015. INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- Endline. Causal Design. May 28, 2015. INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- Baseline. Causal Design. May 28, 2015.
Summary Findings:
Mercy Corps’ INRM Program helped close the gap between government, civil society and community actors by creating opportunities for constructive engagement. Leaders now work together on natural resource based issues, laying a strong foundation for participatory and decentralized natural resource management.
Negotiation training strengthened government leaders’ capacity to govern in a participatory, inclusive, and responsive manner, and enhanced civil society leaders’ ability to engage and collaborate with government.
Negotiation training strengthened actor engagement by specifically encouraging them to: think strategically about the negotiation process; include other actors in a collaborative and timely manner; and plan for a mutually beneficial outcomes.
Leaders became particularly efficient at utilizing informal networks and maneuvering professional channels in an efficient manner in order to gain access to influential government representatives.
The program had a multiplier effect encouraging government and civil society collaboration on natural resource related activities outside of the scope of the INRM Program.
23
Findings suggest increased collaboration among leaders, who are now more willing to view other actors as a partner, rather than an opponent, and utilize constructive means of engagement rather than aggression and confrontation. When asked: How often do you work with other actors” based on a five point scale ranging from “all of the cases” to “none of the cases,” 68% government and 61% civil society leaders reported “all of the cases” and “more than half”, compared to 50% government and 39% civil society at baseline. 16 These findings suggest increased and frequent collaboration among key leaders, particularly government actors. Table 8 below includes baseline and end line responses of government and civil society leaders interviewed in the leader survey. Table 8: Leader Survey results on frequency of leader interaction17
16 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. 17 The question related to this data point is as follows: Do you work with other actors to resolve disputes? Findings include: Gov (Baseline/Endline): 2%/3% “none of cases”; 14%/6% “less than half”; 38%/27% “More than half of the cases”; 23%/43% “All of the cases”; 24%/21% “No answer” CS: 2%/0% “none of cases”; 19%/6% “less than half”; 33%/55% “More than half of the cases”; 24%/26% “All of the cases”; 21%/13% “No answer”
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
None of thecases
Less thanhalf of the
cases
More thanhalf of the
cases
All of thecases
No Answer
% o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
Government - Baseline
Government - Endline
CSO - Baseline
CSO- Endline
24
Secondary qualitative data gathered in KII’s with government and civil society actors reinforced the findings outlined above. For example, when asked if government and civil society participants experienced an “increase” or “decrease” in interaction with the other type of leader in the past two years, 92% of government and 85% of civil society reported an “increase.”18 Negotiation training participants in particular, emphasized that IBN training changed the way they interact with the other actors. “I now understand that I should give more space, in terms of decision making and negotiation, to CSOs and that this will make my job easier in the end,” cited one government leader.19 Findings were corroborated by direct observation that indicated negotiation training was particularly useful in encouraging leaders to: think strategically about the conflict
management process; consider what actors should be involved and when to involve them; and plan for an agreeable outcome. While outside the scope of the INRM Program, direct observation revealed that leaders became particularly efficient at utilizing informal networks as a result of training. Civil society leaders for example, reported that IBN training strengthened their ability to think more creatively about the conflict management process and taught them how to maneuver professional channels in an efficient manner to gain access to influential individuals, particularly government
leaders. B. Quality of Communication & Collaboration The quality of the relationship between government and civil society leaders surveyed was neutral or good, with minimal instances of overt negative perception of the opposite actor. The vast majority of government leaders interviewed in the leader survey described the relationship between government and civil society in their area as “good”, including 65% at baseline and 71% at end line, demonstrating a slight increase in government leaders’ perception.20 Civil society perception stayed consistent with 52% of civil society leaders who described their relationship with the government as “neutral” at both baseline and end line.21
18 INRM KII Database Chin & Shan May 2015- End line. Causal Design. May 28, 2015. 19 Government Key Informant Interview. May 2015. Shan State, Myanmar. 20 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. 21 Ibid.
“Now there is more understanding between government and CSO leaders. Before we were separate but now we meet together and talk. But there are still two types of government leaders-those that want change and those that don't want change. I see an increase in those that want to change.” –Civil Society Leader
25
Generally speaking, government leaders were positive about their professional relationship with civil society leaders, often describing it as “good” and “constructive.” While civil society leaders often cited examples of increased engagement with the government, they also expressed the continued need for further relationship development. Given the importance of multi-stakeholder bodies in sustainably resolving conflict, improving communication, coordination and collaboration between government, civil society, and communities is a long term and worthwhile investment in strengthening local resilience to conflict. C. Collective Natural Resource Projects Local government actors implemented seven natural resource projects, while government and civil society implemented an additional 29 jointly.22 Projects that were more conducive for government and civil society cooperation included those with a technical component in which government departments could offer a specialized service to beneficiaries such as, surveying, mapping, training, and construction. Examples of successful projects implemented in conjunction with government included: land law education training, village tract mapping, and water shed protection activities in partnership with Department of Agriculture and the Settlement and Land Records Department (SLRD). Additionally, discussions with civil society leaders revealed a multiplier effect of INRM Program activities in that government and civil society organizations collaborated on natural resource related activities outside of the scope of the INRM Program, including annual holidays and/or functions such as, International Mountain Day, Earth Day and National Shan Day, a significant change from a history of limited engagement.
Utilizing Networks to Reach Consensus U Soe Ngwe is an IBN participant and civil society leader based in Taungyyi, Shan State. He is also the Vice President of the Literacy and Cultural Agency for the Danu (DLCDA), a CSO focused on promoting education and culture among the Danu people of Shan State. U Soe Ngwe is often involved in negotiations involving community and private sector actors regarding mining and land related issues. Prior to the INRM Program, U Soe Ngwe claimed he was not aware of the various types of natural resource conflict, the importance of considering both sides, and the need to identify interests in order to find “a way forward.” “I used hardline and violent approaches to address conflict. I used emotion.” But now he understands the importance of managing his emotional aggression, remaining objective, and maintaining a balanced relationship dynamic. Not long after completing negotiation training, U Soe Ngwe was approached and asked to help negotiatie a conflict that erupted between the Chinese mining company G.P.S JV Co, Ltd and Ti Dan Kan community members , who were concerned about the environmental consequences of mining activity in their community.
22 INRM Output Tracker. Mercy Corps. April 20, 2015.
26
U Soe Ngwe referred to Mercy Corps training material and immediately considered who to approach. “I understood that if I just approached the government it wouldn't work and no resolution would be reached. So I looked for other channels to engage.” He decided to utilize a pre-existing government contact, an ethnic Danu senator in the regional parliament who, in turn introduced him to other union level representatives in the highest level of power. “Union level government has power over the regional level,” U Soe Ngwe explained. Negotiation training helped U Soe Ngwe sharpen his negotiation, communication and networking skills. He figured out who was essential to include in the negotiation and navigated his way to the ultimate decision-makers. Shortly thereafter, U Soe Ngwe arranged a meeting with the appropriate government representatives and he explained the conflict and consequences.. Together, U Soe Ngwe and the government acted as “referees,” attending meetings and identifying interests and approaches for the parties involved. On May 20, 2014 a meeting was held with the Ministry of Mining, Danu Literature and Culture and Development Association, Ti Da Kan Village Youth Association, village-level administrators, and G.P.S JV Co. Ltd.. U Soe Ngwe led the negotiation process, which culminated in a mutually beneficial outcome. The company trucks could only use the community road for another three months while they built an alternate route that ran outside of the village. Additionally, the agreed to repair any damage to the road. Additionally, G.P.S JV Co., Ltd agreed to provide electricity to the community and build a school in exchange for community support of mining operations. Three months later an alternate road was built and company mining trucks longer passed through the community. However, G.P.S JV Co. failed to provide electrictity to the community as agreed upon. “Perhaps it’s only empty promises,” U Soe Ngwe stated. “I learned a lot in the IBN training program. I have good intentions and I want to serve the public.” In the meantime, U Soe Ngwe continues to negotiate on behalf of Ti Da Kan village and G.P.S JV Co. Ltd., who has acknowledged breaking the terms of the agreement. 3. Dispute Resolution
Summary Findings:
Participants in negotiation training highlighted distinct changes in their negotiation skills, including improved capacity to address and resolve conflict in a more participatory and systematic manner.
Participants, particularly government leaders, reported increased confidence in their ability to solve problems.
Training helped to shift leaders’ negotiation approach, from what was often described as “hard line” or “traditional,” and typically characterized as “aggressive” or full of “emotion,” to a non-confrontational and participatory approach.
Findings suggest high levels of relevance and utility of the IBN approach to resolve conflicts.
27
A. Negotiation Training Based on Harvard University’s IBN methodology and adapted to Myanmar’s context, Mercy Corps’ approach combined classroom and experiential learning to train 138 government and civil society leaders in Shan and Chin States.23 As a result of this comprehensive training program, leaders reported distinct changes in their negotiation style, including improved professional capacity to address and resolve conflict in a more participatory and systematic manner, and increased confidence in their ability to solve problems.
Mercy Corps’ comprehensive negotiation training program included a two-day foundation training in IBN, followed by quarterly meetings for participating leaders to share dispute resolution experiences, learn additional negotiation skills, and network with other leaders. To help leaders put their negotiation and dispute resolution skills into practice, Mercy Corps provided ongoing support, including mentoring, peer exchange and networking, and small funds to support the development and implementation of negotiated agreements. In order to evaluate program impact, document learning, and enhance dispute resolution capacity, Mercy Corps worked with leaders to monitor dispute resolution processes and identify effective dispute resolution practices.
End line findings suggest that negotiation training shifted leaders’ negotiation approach from what was often described as “hard line” or “traditional,” and typically characterized as “aggressive” or full of “emotion,” to a non-confrontational and participatory approach. The IBN training for example, taught leaders seven principles of effective negotiation, emphasizing the importance of the negotiation process as much as the outcome of a negotiation. In key informant interviews, 100% of government and civil society leaders reported that “yes,” negotiation training was useful. 24 IBN leaders reported the most useful negotiation concepts to include: the identification of alternatives, including the Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement (BATNA), and the identification of party interests. It is important to note the program experienced a 33% and 27% drop out rate in Shan and Chin States respectively.25 The majority of drop outs, were often a result of work transfers of program participants according to Mercy Corps program documents.26
23 Close Out Meeting Presentation: INRM Program M&E Session. March 25, 2015. 24 INRM KII Database Chin & Shan May 2015- End line. Causal Design. May 28, 2015. 25 Close Out Meeting Presentation: INRM Program M&E Session. March 25, 2015. 26 Ibid.
“I feel there is direct correlation between Mercy Corps’ IBN training and my capacity to influence negotiations with two mining companies.” –civil society leader
28
B. Dispute Resolution Frequency End line Leader Survey data suggests that leaders who participated in the Mercy Corps negotiation-training program are actively addressing and resolving conflict in their communities following program completion. For example, 76% of government and 87% of civil society leaders report attempting to resolve tensions/conflicts in their communities at end line, indicating leaders are not only well positioned to identify local natural resource based concerns, but are also actively participating in negotiations.27 Leader Survey data indicated that leaders are regularly involved in resolving disputes, and to a certain degree, have increased their involvement since baseline. For example, 65% of civil society leaders at end line reported making one to three attempts to resolve conflict in the past six months, compared to 48% at baseline. While data indicates a decrease in government leaders that reported one to three attempts from baseline (56%) to end line (54%), government leaders demonstrated increased activity in more than seven dispute resolution attempts, suggesting that government leaders are now involved in dispute resolution activities with greater frequency.28 Table 9 below outlines the baseline and end line frequency of dispute resolution activity among government and civil society leaders Table 9: Leader Survey results on Dispute Resolution Attempts29
27 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. 28 Ibid. 29 The question related to this data point is as follows: How many times have you been involved in conflict resolution attempts in past six months? Findings include: Gov. (baseline/end line): 1-3 times 56%/54%; 4-6 times 14%/11%; 7-10 times 0%/7%; 13+ times 3%/6%; No answer 27%/22%; CS: 1-3 times 48%/65%; 4-6 times 7%/23%; 7-10 times 0%/3%; 13+ times 5%/0%; No answer 40%/10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 time 13 + times No answer
% o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
Government - Baseline
Government - Endline
CSO - Baseline
CSO- Endline
29
C. Reported Levels of Confidence Data suggests that leaders, particularly government, are more confident in their ability to negotiate since completing Mercy Corps’ negotiation training program, According to the end line Leader Survey, 86% government and 50% civil society leaders are “somewhat” or “more” confident when resolving conflict, based on a five-point scale ranging from “no confidence” to “a high level of confidence”, compared to 69% government and 50% of civil society leaders at baseline.30 Strong levels of confidence, particularly among government leaders, demonstrate the program was particularly successful in elevating government leaders’ confidence and comfort when negotiating. Table 10 below includes reported levels of confidence among leaders at baseline and end line based on Leader Survey data. Table 10: Leader Survey results on Confidence Levels 31
D. Reported Levels of Negotiation Expertise While reported levels of confidence is one way to estimate leaders’ negotiation skills and willingness to apply what they’ve learned, end line findings also gathered that leaders
30 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. 31 The question related to this data point is as follows: What is your current level of confidence when you resolve conflict? Findings include: Gov. (baseline/end line): No confidence 7%/0%; A little confident 16%5%; Somewhat confident 47%/33%; More confident 22%/52%; A high level of confidence 8%/10%; CS: No confidence 7%/7%; A little confident 24%/24%; Somewhat confident 36%/36%; More confident 14%/14%; A high level of confidence 19%/19%.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Noconfidence
A littleconfident
Somewhatconfident
Moreconfident
A high levelof
confidence
% o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
Government - Baseline
Government - Endline
CSO - Baseline
CSO- Endline
“After IBN training, my conflict management technique changed. I consider and identify interests of both parties and can reduce my emotions.”–Anonymous government IBN leader
30
reported a high level of negotiation expertise. According to the Leader Survey for example, 46% of government and 61% of civil society leaders report “some expertise” in negotiation at end line, compared to 45% of government and 33% of civil society leaders at baseline based on a five-point scale ranging from “no expertise” to “a high level of expertise.32 Furthermore, data captured a notable increase in leaders that reported “more expertise,” including 9% government and 14% civil society at baseline and 41% government and 19% civil society at end line, indicating a substantial improvement in higher levels of self-reported negotiation expertise among leaders.33 Table 11 below compares reported levels of negotiation expertise of respondents in the baseline and end line Leader Survey. Table 11: Leaders’ level of negotiation expertise34
E. Disputes Resolved At end line, leaders reported the IBN methodology was often useful in resolving conflict in their community. When asked how often the application of the IBN approach resulted in the resolution of a dispute, 70% of government and 81% of civil society reported “more than half” or “all” of the cases at end line, compared to 61% government and 57% civil society at baseline, indicating the IBN methodology is a relevant and useful negotiation approach for leaders beyond the classroom. 35 Table 12 below compares reported levels dispute resolution among leaders interviewed in the baseline and end line Leader Survey. 32 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015. 33 Ibid. 34 The question related to this data point is as follows: What is your current level of negotiation expertise? Findings include: No expertise: Gov 16%/2%; A little expertise 29%/8%; Some expertise 45%/46%; More expertise 9%/41%; High Level 1%/3%; CS: No expertise 14%/0%; A little expertise 21%/16%; Some expertise 33%/61%; More expertise 14%/19%; High-level 17%/3%. 35 INRM Leader Survey Dataset Chin & Shan- Baseline & End line. Mercy Corps. May 2015.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Noexpertise
A littleexpertise
Someexpertise
Moreexpertise
A high levelof expertise
% o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
Government - Baseline
Government - Endline
CSO - Baseline
CSO- Endline
31
Table 12: Leaders’ frequency of dispute resolution (% of respondents)36
Mercy Corps and its local partners implemented a dispute database to track dispute resolution activity among program leaders over the life of the program, including 68 total disputes (27 in Shan State and 41 in Chin State).37 The INRM Program did not, however, meet its overall program target to resolve 80 conflicts resolved over the life of the program. In light of the other data provided above that demonstrates the positive impact of negotiation training, the fact that the target of “number of disputes resolved” was not met raises questions about how best to define and categorize “conflict,” and the types of outcomes that are most likely, versus desired, in a peacebuilding and natural resource management program of this nature. Program leaders for example, may be involved in negotiations and dispute resolution that may not be accounted for in the database due to their intractable and/or confidential nature. It is also important to note that, Mercy Corps and its partners experienced some challenges tracking dispute data, including: confidentiality and sensitivity issues, organizational and language barriers, and common telecommunication challenges that inhibited their ability to adequately track disputes. Table 13 below includes all reported dispute resolution activities based on status (pending versus finalized) and program location (Shan versus Chin States).
36 The question related to this data point is as follows: How many dispute resolution attempts resulted in the dispute being resolved? Findings include: Findings include: Gov. (baseline/end line): None 4%/0%; Less than half 22%/11%; More than half 41%/56%; All 9%/13%; N/A 24%/21%; CS: None 19%/0%; Less than half 24%/26%; More than half 29%/39%; All 10%/23%; N/A 19%/13%. 37 Close Out Meeting Presentation: INRM Program M&E Session. March 25, 2015.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
None of thecases
Less thanhalf of the
cases
More thanhalf of the
cases
All of thecases
No Answer
% o
f r
es
po
nd
en
ts
Government - Baseline
Government - Endline
CSO - Baseline
CSO- Endline
32
Table 13: End Line Dispute Resolution Status by State38
Status Shan Chin Total Total (%)
Pending 7 26% 7 17% 14 21%
Finalized 20 74% 34 83% 54 79%
Total 27 40% 41 60% 68 100%
F. Types of Disputes Resolved Thirty-four or 50% of the total disputes resolved were natural resource related, while the other half consisted of criminal/social, economic, governance, religious, or politically related disputes.39 Of the natural resource related conflicts, 62% were land related, 23% water, 12% forest, and 3% mining, as illustrated in Table 14 below.40 Table 14: Resolved Natural Resource Disputes41
A comparison of data from baseline to end line and direct observation indicate Mercy Corps’ negotiation training program provided influential leaders with the tools to negotiate and resolve conflicts more effectively. Leaders now have the negotiation skills to address and resolve conflict in a more participatory and systematic manner, and increased confidence in their own professional ability to solve problems. Mercy Corps’ pilot program appears to
have positively shifted the way leaders address and resolve conflicts in their community. Given the short timeline of the INRM Program and that negotiation skills must be practiced and honed over the course of time, it is expected the utility and benefit of negotiation training will continue.
IBN Application for Land Issues Daw Toe and U Aung Mway and are neighbors in a small village called Phwe Hla in Shan state. When Daw Toe's parents passed away she decided to build a house on their land. At the same time, however, U Aung Mway purchased a piece of land and unknowingly a portion of
38 Ibid. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid.
12%
3%
62%
23%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Forest Mining Land Water
Natural Resource Dispute Type
33
Daw Toe's property, where she decided to plant bamboo. Unbeknownst to both of them, Aung Mway and Daw Toe owned a small portion of the same piece of land. Than Maung is a well-respected civil society leader, community negotiator and the President of PHECAD, an environmental CSO based in Phwe Hla. Given his experience in negotiating, Than Maung was asked to help U Aung Mway and Daw Toe reach an agreement. Than Maung applied the IBN techniques he learned in Mercy Corps training. First, he identified party interest, and then gathered evidence to identify the legal landowner, including requesting the SLRD to measure the disputed piece of land. Once he gathered all the evidence, he invited both disputants and presented the findings to them accordingly. He identified Daw Toe as the rightful owner. U Aung Mway was asked to compensate Daw Toe 1,000,000 kyats for the piece of land. U Aung Mway was unable to afford the land debt and asked to pay in bamboo crop instead. “Both parties were happy and both of their interests were addressed, either through land or money.” Than Maung stated. “Legal documents and land registration are essential. In this case, they provide evidence and helped to prove land ownership,” Than Maung explained.
4. Community Impact
The INRM Program strengthened the collective capacity of communities where natural resource projects were implemented. Twenty-one small grants were distributed to launch community-level initiatives, including land law training, as well as nursery, community forestry, and watershed/land management development projects.42 Small
42 INRM Output Tracker. Mercy Corps. April 20, 2015.
Summary Findings:
The INRM Program strengthened the collective capacity of communities where natural resource projects were implemented.
Communities reported an increase in exposure to and communication with government departments. Some communities reported interacting with the government for the first time as a result of program activities.
Community reported key program impacts to include: improved environmental awareness and understanding of the land registration process, which lead to improved land tenure for some rural farming households.
Civil society and community representatives reported a substantial increase in satisfaction with government’s response to local natural resources related concerns.
The program strengthened the capacity of Mercy Corps’ local partners, AYO and KMSS in Shan and Chin State, who are now better equipped to identify, raise and respond to local natural resource related issues as they arise.
34
grants were distributed to civil society and community groups through an open call and targeted grant process, enabling actors to design, manage and implement their own projects. Projects also provided an opportunity for government, civil society, and community actors to work with one another on a more frequent basis. A. Government Engagement Communities reported frequent engagement with civil society organizations and, to a lesser degree, with government departments as a result of program activities.
Government departments, including SLRD, the Forest Department, and Department of Agriculture implemented or collaborated on a variety of projects related to land law training, land surveying and mapping for land registration and watershed protection purposes, and community forests. Collaborative natural resource projects provided an opportunity for rural communities to interface with the government, albeit to a limited degree.
B. Land Registration Community-level land law training included national natural resource policy and land registration education, enabling communities to make informed decisions about their land management and use. When asked about the greatest impact of the Mercy Corps program, community FGDs reported improved environmental awareness and understanding of the land registration process, which in some circumstances, led to improved land tenure for some rural farming households.43 A lack of community-level monitoring, however, does not allow for a program-wide measurement of farming households that registered their land and obtained land ownership rights following land law training.
43 Community Focus Group Discussion. Thane Kone Village, Taungyyi Tsp., Shan State. May 17, 2015.
Communities reported improved environmental awareness and increased understanding of the land registration process were the greatest impacts of the INRM Program in focus group settings. According to community reports, 50-60% of Thane Kone farming households secured land tenure following Mercy Corps’ land law training.
“The frequency of government visits to our community has increased. This is a big change from the past when government officials never came to visit our village before,” cited one community informant.
35
Working for a Common Purpose
Kazaihta, a Chin-State based CSO, received a Mercy Corps grant to conduct trainings on watershed management and land law training to farming communities in Tedim Township area. In order to raise natural resource awareness and increase land registration among
farming communities, Kazaihta collaborated with government partners, including the SLRD and the Department of Agriculture to provide 100 trainings to 100 farming communities in Chin State. Furthermore, training helped to secure the successful registration of 1,053 farming households. "Many of these remote communities had never interacted with government officials before," said one focus group participant. As a joint initiative, this success story demonstrates the coming together of civil society and government leaders across previous lines of division for the good of farming communities. This partnership and activity is a key success of the INRM Program in Chin State.
C. Community Satisfaction Findings demonstrate the Mercy Corps’ INRM Program helped to improve the level of civil society and community satisfaction with government actors. Civil society and community representatives reported an increase in satisfaction (see Table 15) with government’s response to local concerns related to natural resources and development in their communities from baseline to end line. Findings were drawn from a combination of qualitative data tools, including KIIs and FGDs and include the percentage of reported satisfaction for civil society and community respondents, as well as a total percentage change (+107.24% change) for both groups. At baseline for example, 37% of civil society and 8% of community representatives reported a positive degree of satisfaction, based on a five-point scale ranging from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied,” in contrast to 54% civil society and 67% community at end line.44 The reported increase in positive satisfaction with the government may be due to increased collaboration among participants through INRM Program activities.
44 Ibid.
Chin State based community FGDs highlighted a concern about how to protect individual and community land rights under the current land law policy given their cultural practice of shifting agriculture. While many community members hope to secure land ownership for themselves and their family, the current national land law policy applies to “low land” or “permanent farms” found in other parts of the country, rather than farming households that practice shifting cultivation, commonly found in the highland regions of Chin State. On the one hand, “this means we have to change our cultivation practice to permanent farms so we can register our land to match national land policy,” revealed one community member. On the other hand, land registration “gives us more power and control” and mitigates the risk of land grabs. "We are confused as to what to do," reported one Chin-based village tract administrator.
36
Further disaggregated data (by state) and a detailed calculation explanation is located in the program’s logical framework in the appendix. Table 15: Level of Reported Civil Society/Community Satisfaction45
Indicator 34: % change in satisfaction with government response to local concerns related to natural resources and development
Participant Baseline End line
% Change Frequency % Frequency %
Civil Society 17 37% 7 54% 46%
Community 2 8% 2 67% 700 %
Total 19 27 % 9 56 % 107 %
The following bar chart includes a break down of all civil society and community responses when asked “how satisfied are you with the way the government has addressed/responded to conflicts and land grabs?” The majority of end line responses included positive levels of satisfaction. Additionally, tt is also worth noting the greatest increase from baseline (4%) to end line (23%) is in the “very satisfied,” or highest level of satisfaction category.46
45 Data collected from two sources: INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- Endline. Causal Design. May 28, 2015. INRM KII & FGD Database Chin & Shan May 2015- Baseline. Causal Design. May 28, 2015. 46 INRM Program Logical Framework. Causal Design. June 2015.
37
Table 16: Civil Society/Community Levels of Government Satisfaction47
D. Local Partner Strengthening
The INRM Program enhanced the technical and operational capacity of its program partners, KMSS and AYO, located in Shan and Chin States. Fifteen capacity building trainings were provided to its local partners during the life of the program, nearly double the initial target of eight trainings.48 AYO and KMSS received training in advanced negotiation skills, land law, financial management, procurement, gender and program management, and dispute tracking. To measure local partner capacity, Mercy Corp conducted periodic Conflict
Management Technical Capacity Assessments of their local partners’ in a number of key areas, including: constituencies, networks, and relationships; experience with conflict management programming; conflict assessment skills; IBN skills; facilitation and community mobilization skills; capacity building of others; relationships between conflict, natural resources, and economic development; and capacity in skills specific to the CMM program. Based on baseline findings from Mercy Corps’ Conflict Management Technical Capacity Assessment, AYO received a score of 20 points or 40% and KMSS received 9 points or 18%; while at end line AYO received a score of 44 points or 88% and KMSS 34 points or
47 The question related to this data point is as follows: How satisfied are you with the way the government has addressed/responded to conflicts and land grabs? Findings include (baseline/end line): Very dissatisfied 35%/31%; A little dissatisfied 15%/8%; Neither 13%/8%; A little satisfied 33%/31%; Very satisfied 4%/23%. 48 INRM Output Tracker. Mercy Corps. April 20, 2015.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Verydissatisfied
A littledissatisified
Neithersatisfied nordissatisified -
neutral
A little satisfied Very satisfied
Baseline
Endline
38
68% to result in a +49 point combined point increase or a cumulative +169% increase, revealing a substantial change in conflict management technical capacity among its local partners from program start to finish.49 Further information and a calculation explanation is located in the program’s logical framework in the appendix. A review of the local partner assessments discussed above and interviews with Mercy Corps’ senior and local partner staff indicate the need for further local partner capacity development in the following areas: government relations, facilitation, capacity building of others, conflict assessment and IBN skills, and monitoring and evaluation. Local partner capacity may be strengthened in these key areas with additional support, oversight, and training from Mercy Corps and/or external partners. Increased general capacity in these areas will serve to increase local partners’ ability to influence government participation, broker constructive relationships among key leaders in future programs, facilitate capacity building of others, and monitor program performance. In conclusion, Mercy Corps’ INRM Program strengthened the capacity of its local partners AYO and KMSS, who are now better equipped to identify, raise and respond to local natural resource related issues as they arise in their own communities. These actors have enhanced program management, facilitation, negotiation and dispute resolution skills and the accumulated experience to implement programs in the areas of natural resource management, conflict management and dispute resolution.
Key Recommendations The end line evaluation uncovered significant encouraging developments and identified barriers to achieving good governance and peace in Myanmar. Future programming can be enhanced by building on the successes of the program to: create systemic and institutional change among key institutions, secure high level government engagement, expand program impact, and strengthen M&E systems. Special emphasis should be placed on leveraging relationships and strengthening overall institutional change in government departments, including the GAD, SLRD, Forest Department, and Department of Agriculture. Institutional Change The INRM program successfully built the capacity of influential government and civil society leaders through negotiation training. Future programs should develop strategies that leverage existing leaders or “champions” to drive institutional change in their
49 Mercy Corps Conflict Management Technical Capacity Assessment included indices to evaluate capacity of its local partners and was completed by AYO and KMSS periodically.
39
respective organizations and/or greater community in the areas of conflict management and dispute resolution. Mercy Corps’ negotiation training targeted middle and senior township level government officials. However, during qualitative interviews a number of middle management government leaders reported that in order to participate in Mercy Corps’ training program, they had to obtain supervisor approval. Additionally, government leaders also reported the application of training, particularly IBN, is largely influenced by the institutional arrangement/policy-making structure in government departments and the support of supervisors and senior level officials, highlighting the importance of obtaining approval and participation of government officials at the highest level. Thus, strategies should promote institutional change and include the implementation of sustainable dispute management and resolution mechanisms that serve to promote responsiveness, transparency, and accountability and dispute resolution enforcement. Some mechanisms to consider include:
Working Groups: Establish informal conflict working groups in institutions that drive collective mobilization mechanism for “champions” and encourage professional development.
Formal Institutions: Establish offices or departments dedicated to conflict management and dispute resolution, particularly for land related issues (see Natural Resource Boards below). This may eventually include the establishment of a special institution, area or department that aligns with Myanmar’s institutional framework. Eventually this could include an office equivalent to the Union level Attorney General’s Office and one special court within the judiciary branch dedicated to solving land conflict.
Grants/Research Opportunities: Provide conflict negotiation and dispute resolution related grant and/or research opportunities to high performing employees to encourage continued learning of “champions.”
Mainstream Negotiation Training: Mainstream conflict management and negotiation training for government employees to promote institutionalization, standardization and professionalization of the dispute resolution in government departments. Some methods to mainstream training include: o Implement a civil service training program for government employees; o Develop a practicum/certification program that combines office and field
based work and includes field visits to conflict prone areas, dispute management, and exchanges with other leaders to ensure practical application;
o Replicate regional and national level negotiation trainings to coalesce a powerful collection of change agents and policy makers at a higher level of government;
40
o Establish a continued negotiation program for leaders that already received basic training in Mercy Corps’ INRM Program to expand negotiation knowledge and skills in their own organizations; and
o Incorporate a conflict management and negotiation element in employees’ regular performance assessments.
Mediation Network The establishment of a negotiation/mediation network to support negotiation and dispute resolution at a greater scale, particularly for land related issues. A network of mediators may provide mediation services to target clients and/or the general public. A network promotes continued learning and exchange among mediators, legitimizes and professionalizes the mediation field, and strengthens accessibility of services to a wider group. The negotiation-training program may be expanded at the community- level to support constructive community identification and response to natural resource conflict. Training may include negotiation-based/mediation courses conducted in communities with wider group of participants, including women and youth. Youth engagement will also help to support program growth and sustainability. Natural Resource Boards The development of natural resource boards that focus on land and/or water related disputes in an accountable and transparent manner. Natural resource boards could represent community interests, support the continuation of negotiation training at a greater scale, foster a stronger sense of unity among leaders and community actors beyond program completion, and serve as a mechanism for dispute resolution. Government Engagement The INRM Program faced some challenges in obtaining continued government engagement over the life of the program. Some challenges included: a significant drop out rate of government participants as s result of time constraints and/or disinterest (as noted in the Key Findings-Dispute Resolution); limited level of government engagement, particularly in the case of natural resource projects; and a number of work transfers of government participants during program participation. Future good governance and peacebuilding programs may consider partnerships with government departments as service providers to secure government buy-in. For example, end line findings identified natural resource projects with particularly strong government participation included those with a technical service component offered by various government departments, including land law education, village tract mapping and watershed management activities. Programs could expand upon these successful co-managed projects to expand impact and secure government participation future interventions.
41
Additional programs may also support local government’s decision-making by providing evidence about the cost-effectiveness of government participation. For example, there are positive implications for increased land registration, including property tax revenues, agricultural production, and national natural resource policy implementation. When government actors recognize the benefits of participations they may be more inclined to invest and even act as partner and/or direct service provider in activities in which they specialize. Alternatively, future programs may consider creative ways to be a service provider for the government such as, providing government’s policy analysis and development support and conflict management and negotiation training. Explicit and timely conversations with government departments may inform evidence-based policy-making and results-based budgeting that secures government participation on a greater scale as both a partner and beneficiary. Conflict Environment Future good governance and peacebuilding programs that have an emphasis on natural resource conflict should be implemented in conflict-prone areas with a high degree of development projects and natural resource related conflict. Programs should be concentrated in resource rich states of Central Myanmar, including Kachin and Shan States, where economic land grabs and development interests are prevalent. Adaptive Approach The INRM Program benefitted from the budgetary flexibility and support for programmatic revisions by the USAID Mission in Burma/Myanmar. It is important to note that future programs should incorporate an adaptive approach, rather than a one-size-fits-all methodology. Program activities should have the flexibility to be adapted to local needs and concerns at the village, township, state, and regional levels. Rather than duplication, adaptation fosters program relevance, effectiveness, efficiency to meet higher-level outcomes, and ensures sustainability following program completion. Monitoring & Evaluation Future programs should consider more rigorous M&E systems that accurately measure causality from baseline to end line and utilize a participatory approach to monitor program performance. This investment of donor resources is well worthwhile in order to determine the most effective approaches to achieving the desired program outcomes. Key M&E considerations to enhance program performance include:
Implement experimental or quasi-experimental methods that allow for statistically accurate measurement of cause-and-effect relationships and program impact. Future programs could align data sources and indicators from baseline to end line to ensure collection of high quality data. Ideally, these data sources would follow leaders from baseline to end line to capture individual and institutional change over the course of a program.
42
Utilize a participatory approach that incorporates program participants at the community-level to enhance program performance and impact. Community-level participants for example, can help to track and report dispute resolution attempts, conduct regular individual and institutional performance assessments, and capture significant change from other participants across the life of the program.
Increase M&E training of local partners, as well as program participants themselves, can strengthen program monitoring and performance, support emergence of locally relevant and unexpected information, capture causality, and strengthen community and organizational learning.
Allocate adequate budget and resources to enhance program performance and learning. The M&E budget must take into account the costs for key activities, including but not limited to: staff time (for all staff members involved in M&E activities); consultants and/or third party evaluations; staff travel/oversight; specialized services (technology, including tablets, databases, GIS etc.); and M&E training for local partners and program participants.
Conclusions Measurements used in the end line evaluation indicate that key leaders are working across previous lines of division to resolve conflicts in an inclusive, systematic, and responsive manner. While it will take time to achieve peace in Myanmar after decades of civil war, the program demonstrated key achievements in strengthening basic communication, collaboration, conflict management, and negotiation skills of influential individuals. Negotiation training in particular, was an individual skills development opportunity for leaders and created a relevant pathway for conflict management and mitigation. There is a general willingness among leaders to engage one another as a partner, rather than an opponent, in addressing and resolving natural resource based conflict. Previously, this unwillingness of government and civil society to work together on natural resource related issues presented an impasse to good governance. Thus, the fundamental shift from confrontation to collaboration among township level actors indicates strong program performance and establishes a basis for continued investment in good governance. The end line evaluation concludes that building on the successes of the INRM Program, will serve to strengthen Myanmar’s local governance and responsive and natural resource management framework. Future programs can utilize the supply of qualified “leaders” trained by Mercy Corps and its local partners and help to meet continued demand for participatory, inclusive, and responsive governance around natural resource issues. These “leaders” are now in a position to drive institutional change in their respective organizations and the greater community, contributing to the higher objective of peacebuilding and good governance in Myanmar.
43
Appendix A: INRM Program Logical Framework (see separate attachment)
44
Appendix B: Qualitative Tools
B.1-Key Informant Interview Guide – Government Chin State ☐ Shan State ☐ KII #: Inclusive Natural Resource Management Program Final Evaluation Key Informant Interview Guide - GOVERNMENT INRM Staff Name: Date: Informant Name: Organization: Position: Location (township, village): Type of actor: Check Government – State Government – Township Government – Local (e.g., village tract) Other: Introduction Thank the person for meeting with you. Introduce yourself as an evaluator of the Mercy Corps INRM Program and explain that you want to learn more about what worked and didn’t work in the program. Encourage honest feedback to improve future programming. Explain that all responses will be kept anonymous. Program Assessment: 1. Are there any conflicts or tensions over natural resources in this area? (I#1)
Yes No
2. What disputes or conflicts over natural resources do you see in this area? Who are
the actors involved? Probe for conflicts between individuals, between groups, and between community and government. Probe for conflicts over boundaries, land ownership, access to forest, land grabs, etc. Ask for specific examples, including location. (I#1)
3. In past two years, has natural resource based conflict, especially land grabs: (I #1):
Increased
45
Decreased Stayed the same
4. In general, how many people in your area faced any challenges in accessing or using natural resources- land, forest, and water? (I#2)
None A few people About half Most people Everyone
5. Have communities benefitted from development projects (especially private sector or government development projects) ongoing in your area? (I#2) ☐Yes ☐No
How?
6. How often do you work with community leaders or civil society groups to manage natural resources or address resource-related disputes? (I#6)
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
7. How vulnerable or at risk do you think community members in this area are to losing
access to land or other resources? Solicit examples. (I#11) Not vulnerable at all A little vulnerable Very vulnerable
8. Did you find the consensus building/negotiation training useful? (1#13)
Yes No I don’t know
How was it useful/not useful?
9. How has your dispute resolution style shifted as a result of the IBN training? (I#13)
10. Do you think there’s a risk that government plans for economic development in the
state could cause tensions between communities and government? (I#30) No Yes
46
I don’t know
11. What kind of impact do you anticipate communities might experience as a result of resource use and economic development? (I#30)
12. Has your level of interaction with community/civil society leaders increased,
decreased or stayed the same? (I#33) Increased Decreased Stayed the same
13. How did participation in INRM activities change the way you interact with civil society and communities? For IBN participants, probe how exactly IBN participation impacted their interaction with civil society leaders (I #33)
Learning Points: Capacity Building 14. How did the INRM Program build your capacity to deal with natural resource related
conflict? Can you give an example? Constructive Engagement 15. To what extent did the INRM program change the way key leaders constructively
engage one another? Tell me a story.
Dispute Resolution 16. How did program participation change the way you address and resolve conflict?
Can you share an example or story about a time you applied the IBN tools to manage/resolve a conflict?
47
B.2- Key Informant Interview Guide – Civil Society Chin State ☐ Shan State ☐ KII #: Inclusive Natural Resource Management Program Final Evaluation Key Informant Interview Guide – CIVIL SOCIETY INRM Staff Name: Date: Informant Name: Organization: Position: Location (township, village): Type of actor: Check all that apply
Business leader Civil society representative Community leader Youth leader Ethnic leader Political party leader
Other: Level of actor: □ State □ Township □ Local (e.g., village) Introduction Thank the person for meeting with you. Introduce yourself as an evaluator of the Mercy Corps INRM Program and explain that you want to learn more about what worked and didn’t work in the program. Encourage honest feedback to improve future programming. Explain that all responses will be kept anonymous. Program Assessment: 1. Are there any conflicts or tensions over natural resources in this area? (I#1)
Yes No
2. What disputes or conflicts over natural resources do you see in this area? Who are
the actors involved? Probe for conflicts between individuals, between groups, and between community and government. Probe for conflicts over boundaries, land ownership, access to forest, land grabs, etc. Ask for specific examples, including location. (I#1)
3. In past two years, has natural resource based conflict, especially land grabs: (I#1):
Increased
48
Decreased Stayed the same
4. In general, how many people in your area faced any challenges in accessing or using
natural resources-land, forest, and water? (I#2) None A few people About half Most people Everyone
5. Have communities benefitted from development projects (especially private sector or government development projects) ongoing in your area? (I#2)
Yes No
How?
6. How often do you work with government leaders to manage natural resources or
address resource-related disputes? (I#6) Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
7. How vulnerable or at risk do you think community members in this area are to losing
access to land or other resources? Solicit examples. (I#11) Not vulnerable at all A little vulnerable Very vulnerable
17. Did you find the consensus building/negotiation training useful? (1#13)
Yes No I don’t know
How was it useful/not useful?
18. How has your dispute resolution style shifted as a result of the IBN training? (I#13)
19. In general, do you feel government officials are effective leaders in addressing natural resource based conflict in your community? (I#15)
Yes No
49
20. What observations have you made in regards to the change of government leaders’ behavior and actions as a result of their participation in the program?
21. In general, does the government understand civil society needs and concerns related to natural resources? Probe for satisfaction with how the government has addressed community concerns. (I#25)
Yes No
22. In general, does the government understand civil society needs and concerns related
to economic development? Probe for satisfaction with how the government has addressed community concerns. (I#25)
Yes No
23. How much control or influence do you feel that you have over the way that natural
resources in your area are used? Probe for examples of how has community had influence over natural resource decisions. (I#26)
No control or influence A little control or influence A lot of control or influence Complete control or influence
24. How optimistic are you that your children will have a peaceful future? (I#28)
25. Do you think there’s a risk that government plans for economic development in the
state could cause tensions between communities and government? (I#30) No Yes I don’t know
26. What kind of impact, positive or negative, do you anticipate communities will
experience as a result of resource use and economic development? (1#30)
27. Has the level of interaction with government leaders increased, decreased or stayed the same? (I#33)
Increased Decreased Stayed the same
28. How did participation in INRM activities change the way you interact with
government actors? For IBN participants, probe how exactly IBN participation impacted their interaction with government leaders (I #33).
29. How satisfied are you with the way that the government has addressed or responded to resource-related conflicts and land grabs in this area? (I# 34)
Very dissatisfied
50
A little dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied – neutral A little satisfied Very satisfied
Learning Points: Capacity Building 30. How did the INRM Program build your capacity to deal with natural resource related
conflict? Can you give an example? Constructive Engagement 31. To what extent did the INRM program change the way key leaders constructively
engage one another? Tell me a story.
Dispute Resolution 32. How did program participation change the way you address and resolve conflict?
Can you share an example or story about a time you applied the IBN tools to manage/resolve a conflict?
51
B.3- Community Focus Group Discussion Guide Chin State ☐ Shan State ☐ FGD #: Inclusive Natural Resource Management Program Final Evaluation Community Profiling Focus Group Discussion Guide Date:
INRM Staff Name:
Location: Township
Cluster
Village(s)
Total # of Participants
Age Range of Participants
# of Men
# of Women
Type of Participant
Introduction Thank the participants for coming. Introduce yourself as an external evaluator of the Mercy Corps INRM program. Explain that you want to learn about their experience with the INRM program and what kind of impact it had on natural resource related tension in their community. Explain that you want to learn more about what worked and didn’t work in the program and encourage honest feedback to improve future programming. Explain that all responses will be kept anonymous. Program Assessment:
1. Are there any conflicts or tensions over natural resources in this area? (I#1)
Yes No
2. What disputes or conflicts over natural resources do you see in this area? Who are
the actors involved? Probe for conflicts between individuals, between groups, and between community and government. Probe for conflicts over boundaries, land ownership, access to forest, land grabs, etc. Ask for specific examples, including location. (I#1)
3. In past two years, has natural resource based conflict, especially land grabs: (#1):
Increased
52
Decreased Stayed the same
4. In general, how many people in your area continue to face challenges in accessing or
using natural resources- land, forest, and water? (#2) None A few people About half Most people Everyone
5. Have communities benefitted from development projects (especially private sector
or government development projects) ongoing in your area? (I#2) Yes No
6. In general, do you feel government officials are effective leaders in addressing
natural resource based conflict in your community? (I#15) Yes No
7. What observations have you made in regards to the change of government leaders’ behavior and actions as a result of their participation in the program? (1#15)
Yes No
How?
8. In general, does the government understand your needs and concerns related to
natural resources? Probe for satisfaction with how the government has addressed community concerns (I#25)
Yes No
9. In general, does the government understand your needs and concerns with regard to
economic development? Probe for satisfaction with how the government has addressed community concerns (I#25)
Yes No
10. How much control or influence do you feel that you have over the way that natural
resources in your area are used? Probe for examples of control or lack of control (I#26)
No control or influence A little control or influence A lot of control or influence
53
Complete control or influence
11. How optimistic are you that your children will have a peaceful future? (I#28)
12. Has the level of interaction with government leaders increased, decreased or stayed the same? (I#33)
Increased Decreased Stayed the same
13. How often does someone from the government visit your community? (I #33)
Never Rarely Sometimes Frequently Always
14. How has the frequency of government visits to your community changed over time? (I#33)
15. How satisfied are you with the way that the government has addressed or responded to resource-related conflicts and land grabs in this area? (I#34)
Very dissatisfied A little dissatisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied – neutral A little satisfied Very satisfied
16. In general, how would you describe the relationship between your community and
the government? Very bad Bad Neither good nor bad – neutral Good Very good
Community FGD Learning Points: 17. What was the greatest impact of the INRM program activities in your community? 18. How has community interaction with government and civil society leadership
changed? Tell me a story.
54
Appendix C: INRM Program Work Plan Causal Design is pleased to submit this draft evaluation work plan for the final evaluation of the Inclusive Natural Resource Management (INRM) Program in Shan and Chin States of Myanmar. The following document outlines the strategy that will be utilized and is presented in the following sections:
I. Overview II. Evaluation Questions III. Evaluation Methodology IV. Timeline
Overview Launched in May 2013, Mercy Corps' Inclusive Natural Resource Management (INRM) Program aimed to strengthen the capacity of local community, civil society, and government leaders to prevent and resolve natural resource-based conflict. The program was implemented in Taunggyi, Hopone, and Kalaw townships in Southern Shan State and Tedim and Tonzang townships in Northern Chin State. Focused at the subnational level, the program supported the broader transition and decentralization process by building the capacity of township level government actors to address community concerns related to development and natural resources, while also building the capacity of civil society to constructively engage with government. Key activities included: interest-based negotiation training for local leaders (government and civil society), monitoring of alternative dispute resolution processes, and the implementation of civil society and government-led projects that address resource-related tensions. Implemented in partnership with two local organizations, Ar Yone Oo (AYO) and Karuna Myanmar Social Services (KMSS), the program had a strong emphasis on capacity building of local peace-building organizations.
Evaluation Details A. Team Member Assignments
The Causal Design Evaluation Manager is responsible for managing the overall evaluation process, supported by a Washington D.C.-based team, which includes a Quantitative Analyst, Conflict Specialist and two Research Analysts. The Evaluation Manager will conduct the fieldwork component in Myanmar, including the collection of qualitative data through key informant and focus group interviews of project participants, with logistical and administrative support provided by Mercy Corps. Local Mercy Corps staff will provide data collection and translation support to the Evaluation Manager for all field-based evaluation activities. The Evaluation Manager and the Washington D.C.- based Causal Design team are responsible for quantitative and qualitative data analysis and report writing, including tables and annexes.
55
B. Evaluation Goal and Purpose The purpose of this final evaluation is to take stock of program implementation and compare it to its original intent, specifically capturing the progress that was been made relative to the program’s objectives and targets, as well as its aim to catalyze improvements in the way that communities, civil society, and government engage with each other, in order to lay the foundation for effective and participatory governance after multiple decades of conflict. It will utilize a strategic and participatory approach on work that has been completed and measure the effectiveness of the various program interventions. The evaluation report will inform concepts for further peace building and governance programming possibilities and include a set of strategic lessons learned. C. Report Preparation
The sections identified in the Client’s Terms of Reference will be included in the final evaluation report. A brief outline of the evaluation report can be found in Appendix D. A discussion of findings, organized thematically, will compose of the Key Findings section, and include a performance assessment of the INRM program based on data points outlined in the INRM log frame, as well as key evaluation learning points (see below).
Theory of Change The INRM Program supports Myanmar’s democratic opening by addressing underlying causes of long-standing ethnic conflict in Shan and Chin States through the following three objectives, (as outlined in the program’s logical framework): 4) Strengthen the ability of key leaders to work across lines of division to resolve
natural resource disputes
The INRM Program aimed to improve awareness and strengthen the capacity of civil society and government leaders to address natural resource related tension and resolve disputes. Training was key component and included the implementation of interest-based negotiation training to improve the skills and expertise of these negotiating representatives. Additionally, capacity building of community based and civil society organizations served to increase community participation and decision-making in natural resource related issues. To adequately assess progress made against this key objective, examples of dialogue between civil society and government and the various outcomes will be examined. Individual interviews and focus group discussions with civil society and government actors will capture the quantity and quality of trainings to foster stakeholder engagement to resolve natural resource related conflict.
5) Strengthen the capacity of local organizations to implement natural resource projects
that support negotiated agreements
56
Local partnership strengthening efforts were employed to enhance conflict management expertise and the general capacity of Mercy Corps’ partners. Additionally, joint natural resource related projects were implemented to support civil society and government cooperation, while other projects were more focused on addressing the causes of resource-related tension by increasing awareness about land rights and land registration. Other activities, including local and national dialogues were implemented to enhance dialogue and support negotiated agreements. The evaluation will capture program performance relative to this key objective, with particular focus on the effect of capacity building, constructive engagement and conflict management in projects and agreements. The evaluation tools serve to not only measure the quantity of such activities, but to also qualify their effect on program participants. 6) Strengthen the ability of local government to implement initiatives that address
natural resource tensions Capacity building, particularly in regards to constructive engagement skills among civil society and community representatives on natural resource related issues, was a program focal point. Initiatives implemented by civil society and government actors will be measured to explore frequency of leadership interaction, degree of communication and collaboration, and effect on natural resource tensions. The evaluation will examine program effectiveness in government capacity building efforts and it general effect on natural resource related conflict. Key informant interviews and focus group discussions will serve to measure the outcomes and overall performance of this objective.
Evaluation Framework The final evaluation will measure program performance in meeting its goal, objectives and output level targets set forth by Mercy Corps in the INRM logical framework. Furthermore, the evaluation will explore the extent to which the program influenced relations between civil society and government “leaders” engaged in natural resource management, supported their constructive engagement with one another, and led to reduced tension and dispute resolution. These learning points serve to guide program measurement and are embedded in the evaluation framework and tools.
Methodology
Sampling and Demographics The sample does not include a representative sample but rather, a pool of direct and indirect participants that were selected by Mercy Corps or its partners based on their participation or non-participation in various stages of the INRM Program. While randomized sampling was not employed, the evaluation strived to utilize a longitudinal
57
design to the greatest extent possible in order to include a number of respondents interviewed at project baseline. Indirect participants may include individuals that participated in the baseline only, while direct participants compose of individuals who participated in the baseline and program activities or just program activities. Respondents include government and civil society representatives or “leaders,” as well community members. Government participants include staff from the township-level General Administration Department (including township administrators), Forestry Department, Department of Agriculture and Irrigation, Settlement and Land Records Department, Planning Department, as well as Ward Administrators and Village Tract Administrators. Civil society participants include leaders of civil society organizations focused on environmental issues and/or peace and human rights, representatives from the township Development Support Committees, and village elders. Because the INRM program works with existing leaders, most of whom are men, a small minority of respondents are women. The age of respondents range from between 19 and 70 years old. Data collection efforts, broken down by leader participants, tool, and township, can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Data Collection by Township and Tool50
Township
KII- Gov’t
FGD-Gov’t
KII-CS
FGD- CS
FGD-Comm
Total
Chin State
4 3 6 3 2 17
Kalaymyo 0 0 1 1 1 3 Tedim 4 3 5 2 1 14 Shan State
8 0 7 4 1 21
Kalaw 1 0 1 1 0 5 Hopone 3 0 0 0 0 4 Taunggyi 4 0 6 3 1 23
Total 12 3 13 7 3 38
Mixed Methods Approach The final evaluation will utilize a mixed-methods approach leveraging existing quantitative data previously collected by Mercy Corps, qualitative interviews, in both key informant interview and focus group discussion format, and administrative documents to assess program performance. The qualitative component of the evaluation will include the administration of three surveys, each tailored for varying different audiences, including government, civil
50 The INRM Program was implemented in 5 townships, including Tonzang and Tedim Townships in Chin State and Taunggyi, Kalaw, and Hopone Townships in Shan State.
58
society, and community members. The surveys will be implemented in key informant interviews and focus group discussions of government and civil society leaders and focus group discussions with community members. The surveys include questions that inform the various data points found in the INRM’s Program log frame, encourage program learning, and support a participatory element through rapid participant storytelling. The rapid storytelling component gives respondents the opportunity to generate and analyze personal accounts of change. Story telling is most efficient when used in combination with other quantitative and qualitative methods of gathering, analyzing and reporting data but does not, however, provide comprehensive information about the impacts produced by an intervention. Storytelling is used to facilitate evaluator and implementer learning and program improvement, and findings can be useful to render judgment about program performance, facilitate improvement and generate knowledge.51
Data Collection Tools The end line evaluation includes three data collection tools, as discussed in more detail below. The data collection tools may be found in Annexes A-C. While questions on the Leader Survey are predominantly closed-ended and categorical, the key informant interviews and focus group discussions include open-ended and close-ended questions designed to collect exploratory and emergent information as well as data associated with output and impact indicators.
Leader Survey- a total of 94 Leader Surveys were administered of key government, civil society and community leaders that participated in the INRM Program’s negotiation training. The total respondents include 58 leaders from Chin State and 36 leaders from Shan State. Of these 94 respondents, 63 identified as government representatives (67%) and 31 identified as civil society, or non-governmental, representatives (33%). Government representatives include state, township and local staff. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs)- According to Table 1 included above, approximately 85 KIIs will be conducted with indirect and direct project participants. Key informants were selected to include individuals that participated in the baseline, as well as leaders that participated in the INRM’s leadership, conflict resolution and capacity building components in Objectives 1 and 2 and 3 of the INRM Program’s logical framework. KIIs aim to capture the ability of key leaders in Chin and Shan States to work across lines of division to resolve natural resources and will measure perceived changes in knowledge/awareness, perception, informal/formal mechanism and processes, decision-making, conflict resolution, and communication and collaboration.
51 Davies, R., Dart, J. Care International (2005). “The Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique: A Guide to its Use.” Retrieved from website: http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf.
59
Government informants include representatives from the General Administration Department, the Agriculture and Irrigation Department, the Settlement and Land Records Department, and the Forestry Department. Civil society informants will include members of civil society organizations focused on environmental issues and/or peace and human rights and community leaders. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs)- FGDs will be conducted with small groups of approximately 2-5 program participants and community members in Chin and Shan states as listed in Table 1. FGDs with program participants offer an opportunity to explore the learning points further in a semi-structured group setting. While, community FGDs will offer an opportunity to explore community perceptions of leadership in regards to natural resource management and resolution and the affects the INRM Program may have had in their respective communities as outlined in section C of the appendix.
Strengths and Weaknesses The final evaluation will integrate quantitative and qualitative methods to measure the multiple outcomes and better understand the INRM Program through the application of a mixed methods approach that includes a range of tools and techniques drawn from multiple disciplines. Methods will be utilized to offset different biases while capturing unintended and intended consequences and changes. The participatory element, achieved through storytelling, enables participants to guide the data collection process and share their personal (positive and negative) experience while, building staff capacity to analyze data and conceptualize program performance. Planning for an evaluation in a post-conflict context poses great challenges to implementation. These challenges may include: coordination between Mercy Corps, Causal Design and project partners and participants; language barriers; the unpredictability of political and economic factors unique to Myanmar; the consistency across samples in Chin and Shan States; and access to remote various project townships.
Constraints and Limitations This evaluation aims to observe the general effectiveness of the program from a performance and management perspective. The methodology allows us to summarize the result of a program as perceived by beneficiaries and other key stakeholders. Pre and post-program surveys have been conducted with leaders who participated in the IBN training component (Objective 1), and qualitative interviews capture the impressions of leaders and other community members. While the findings are valid, care should be taken in the interpretation of them. Non-experimental methods do not allow us to identify cause-and-effect relationships; therefore we cannot confidently estimate the true impact of the intervention. The INRM Program may have a range of positive and negative peace-building effects at a range of levels felt by a number of stakeholders at the individual, community and regional levels. Thus, depending on an individual’s vantage point and experience, individuals may provide different information. The sampling procedure will utilize a
60
longitudinal design, however, some respondents interviewed at project baseline did not become project beneficiaries, have dropped out of the program, or cannot be interviewed because of geographic limitations. Selection bias is a limitation of the final evaluation in that program participants or “leaders” at the government, civil society and community levels are inherently different from non-participants, by the very fact of their participation. Some evaluations compare program participants to non-participants in order to infer the effect of the program, however, a counterfactual, or control group, was not established at the project’s baseline. Thus, the evaluator’s ability to provide comparable analysis and accurate measure of project efficiency and impact is limited. It is anticipated, however, that direct observation, in combination with the application of quantitative and qualitative methods, will enable the evaluator to draw general conclusions regarding program effects at the micro and meso levels in project target zones. Ability to recall specific values, such as application and outcomes of training, instances of communication and collaboration and the outcomes of alternative dispute resolution methodologies are anticipated and could present a challenge for self-reported data. Efforts will be been taken to adjust for outlier values as well as potential instances for data entry error. The INRM program was redesigned shortly following initial program implementation. The final evaluation will take into account the program’s compressed timeline and adaptive management approach.
Timeline A field-based schedule was developed in consultation with Mercy Corps Myanmar and includes a daily breakdown of fieldwork only and reflects the working hours, site location and evaluation activity.
Field-Based Schedule
May 8-9- Travel Days
Monday May 11, 2015
09.00 – 17.00 Meet and greet; Review Plan Yangon
Tuesday May 12, 2015-Travel to Taungyyi, Shan State
Wednesday May 13, 2015-Shan State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Taungyyi, Shan State
Thursday May 14, 2015-Shan State
61
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Kalaw, Shan State
Friday May 15, 2015-Shan State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews Hopone and Taunggyi, Shan State
Saturday May 16, 2015-Shan State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Kalaw and Taunggyi Shan State
Sunday May 17, 2015-Shan State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Community FGD
Taunggyi and Myashungshwe Township, Shan State
Monday May 18, 2015-Travel to Kalay
Tuesday May 19, 2015-Travel from Kalay, Sagaing Region to Chin State
Wednesday May 20, 2015-Chin State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Tedim, Chin State
Thursday May 21, 2015-Chin State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Tedim, Chin State
Friday May 22, 2015-Chin State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Tedim, Chin State
Saturday May 23, 2015-Chin State
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Tedim, Chin State
Sunday May 24, 2015-Travel from Chin State to Kalay
Monday May 25 2015- Kalay, Sagaing Region
09.00 – 17.00 Key Informant Interviews and Focus Group Discussions
Kalay, Sagaing Region
Tuesday May 26 2015-Half Day Data Collection in Kalay; Travel to Yangon
Wednesday May 27, 2015-Yangon
09.00 – 17.00 Debrief with Mercy Corps and USAID
Yangon
62
May 28-29- Travel Days
Appendix D: Bibliography Peace building Asia Sentinel. (2012).“Restarting Burma”. Retrieved from website: www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4753&Itemid=214 Asian Development Bank (ADB). 2012. “Myanmar in Transition: Opportunities and Challenges,” ABD, Manila. August, pp. ix-46. www.adb.org/publications/myanmar-transition-opportunities-and-challenges Barnett, M., et al. "Peacebuilding: What is in a Name?" Global Governance. 13.1 (2007): 35-58. Retrieved from website: http://www.steps-for-peace.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/barnett-2007_peacebuilding_gg.pdf
Brinkerhoff, Derick W. "Rebuilding governance in failed states and post‐conflict
societies: core concepts and cross‐cutting themes." Public Administration and Development 25.1 (2005): 3-14. Retrieved from website: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.390.2714&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Bush, Kenneth. "A measure of peace: Peace and conflict impact assessment (PCIA) of development projects in conflict zones." The Peacebuilding and Reconstruction Program Initiative. Dostupné z:< http://www. idrc. org/uploads/user-S/10533919790A_ Measure_of_Peace. pdf (1998). Call, Charles T., and Susan E. Cook. "On democratization and peacebuilding." Global Governance 9 (2003): 233. Retrieved from website: http://www.watsoninstitute.org/pub/CallCookArticleFINAL.pdf. CMM toolkits and technical publications http://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/working-crises-and-conflict/technical-publications Fast, Larissa A., and Reina C. Neufeldt. "Envisioning Success: Building Blocks for Strategic and Comprehensive Peacebuilding Impact Evaluation." Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 2.2 (2005): 24-41. Hamber, Brandon, Elizabeth Gallagher, and Peter Ventevogel. "Narrowing the gap between psychosocial practice, peace building and wider social change: an introduction to the Special Section in this issue." Intervention 12.1 (2014): 7-15. Menkhaus, Ken. "Impact Assessment in Post-Conflict Peacebuilding."Interpeace, Geneva (2004).
63
Petrie. C., South, A. Civil Society Dialogue Network (2013) Mapping of Myanmar Peacebuilding Civil Society. Retrieved from website: http://www.burmalibrary.org/docs15/Mapping_Myanmar_Peacebuilding_Civil_Society-red.pdf “USAID Strategy on Democracy, Human Rights and Governance.” (2013). United States Agency for International Development. Retrieved from website: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID DRG_ final final 6-24 3 %281%29.pdf Natural Resource Management and Conflict in Burma Nichols, Sandra S., Paivi Lujala, and Carl Bruch. "When peacebuilding meets the plan: natural resource governance and post-conflict recovery." Whitehead J. Dipl. & Int'l Rel. 12 (2011): 11. Retrieved from website: http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/whith12&div=6&id=&page=. Talbott, K., Waugh, J. and Batson, D. (2012). Small Wars Journal. Sharing the Wealth: Burma’s Post-Military Rule and Natural Resource Governance. Retrieved from website: http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/sharing-the-wealth-burma’s-post-military-rule-and-natural-resource-governance. Alternative Dispute Resolution Brown, S., Cervenek, C., Fairman, D. “Alternative Dispute Resolution Guide.” USAID/Conflict Management Group. Retrieved from website: http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1868/200sbe.pdf. “Arbitration and Mediation in Asia-Pacific: Interviews with Medication and Arbitral Centers and Law Department Best Practices.” (2014). Association of Corporate Counsel. Most Significant Change Theory and Models Causemann, B., Gohl, E., Brenner, V., & Rithaa, M. NGO-IDEAs, (2010). “Measuring change in communities and groups.” Retrieved from website:http://www.dochas.ie/Shared/Files/4/NGO_Ideas_Tiny_tools-Handout[1].pdf Davies, R., Dart, J. Care International (2005). “The Most Significant Change (MSC) Technique: A Guide to its Use.” Retrieved from website: http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdfhttp://www.mande.co.uk/docs/MSCGuide.pdf “Most Significant Change. Better Evaluation.” Retrieved from website: http://betterevaluation.org/plan/approach/most_significant_change