accountability, equity, inclusion and conflict sensitivity

2

Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity Workshop Report

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................. 3

1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 4

2. Aim and Objectives ........................................................................................ 4

3. Venue and Participants .................................................................................. 5

4. Methodology .................................................................................................. 5

5. Content and Proceedings............................................................................... 5

5.1. Day 1 ............................................................................................................................ 5

5.2. Day 2 ............................................................................................................................ 9

5.3. Day 3 .......................................................................................................................... 10

6. Participant Evaluations ................................................................................ 12

7. Annexes ....................................................................................................... 13

Annex 1 – Agenda ............................................................................................................. 13

Annex 2 – Fix My Car Role Play ....................................................................................... 15

Annex 3 – Conflict Sensitivity Case Study: Health in Post-Conflict Tajikistan ................... 16

This report has been developed with technical assistance from the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), an organisation dedicated to ensuring greater accountability to communities and people affected by crises and/or poverty.

http://www.hapinternational.org/

3


List of Acronyms

3MDG Three Millennium Development Goal Fund

AEI&CS Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity

CBO Community-based Organisation

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DNH Do No Harm

FB 3MDG Fund Board

FMO 3MDG Fund Management Office

HAP Humanitarian Accountability Partnership

INGO International Non-Governmental Organisation

IPs 3MDG Implementing Partners

LNGO Local Non-Governmental Organisation

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MoH Ministry of Health

UNOPS United Nations Office for Project Services

4


1. Introduction The Three Millennium Development Goal Fund (3MDG) supports the provision of health services in Myanmar and contributes towards the country’s efforts to achieve the three health-related Millennium Development Goals. These goals include reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and combating HIV, tuberculosis and malaria. 3MDG also provides support to the Ministry of Health in order to contribute towards the development of a more effective and responsive health system. 3MDG is managed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). Recognizing the need, opportunities and benefits of focusing attention on Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity (AEI&CS) in the context of the health sector in Myanmar, 3MDG developed an AEI Strategic Framework titled “Fostering Accountability, Equity and Inclusion in 3MDG: From Principle to Practice” in September 2013. In order to support the operationalisation of this framework, 3MDG contracted the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), an organisation dedicated to ensuring greater accountability to communities and people affected by crises and/or poverty, in March 2014. HAP is working with 3MDG, its Implementing Partners (IPs) and other key stakeholders to raise awareness on the importance of AEI&CS, develop organizational AEI&CS standards, build AEI&CS-related systems and capacities, and assist with the development and implementation of AEI&CS policies and practices in the health sector in Myanmar. 3MDG and HAP held the first of a series of capacity development and awareness raising workshop for 3MDG's IPs in Yangon in July 2014. This report summarises the outcomes of the workshop.

2. Aim and Objectives The goal of the workshop was to introduce the key concepts of AEI&CS to 3MDG's IPs so that they could apply and promote them in their organisations. The specific objectives were as follows:

1. To validate the approach to promoting accountability, equity and inclusion (AEI) and conflict sensitivity (CS), and to receive input into the AEI&CS draft guide;

2. To provide participants with the knowledge and skills to use and train others on the use of the AEI and CS guide;

3. To assist 3MDG implementing partners in the initial drafting (or revision) of their self-assessment plans and in the identification of potential priority areas for their improvement plans;

4. To facilitate a peer learning group amongst participants; and

5. To generate feedback on HAP's work plan for the rest of this year.

http://www.3mdg.org/

https://www.unops.org/



5


3. Venue and Participants The workshop was held at the UNOPS office in Yangon. A total of 60 participants (27 women, 33 men) attended the workshop. Participants came from a total of 19 organisations:

3MDG

Asian Harm Reduction Network (AHRN)

Burnet Institute

International Organisation for Migration (IOM)

International Rescue Committee

Marie Stopes International

Médecins du Monde (MDM)

Medical Action Myanmar (MAM)

Merlin

Myanmar Anti-Narcotics Association (MANA)

Myanmar Health Assistant Association (MHAA)

Myanmar Medical Action (MMA)

Myanmar Red Cross Society (MRCS)

Population Services International (PSI)

Relief International (RI)

Save The Children

Substance Abuse Research Association (SARA)

The Union

World Concern

Most participants came from Yangon; some participants however came from Ayeyarwady Region, Chin State, Magway Region and Mandalay Region.

4. Methodology The workshop included a wide variety of methods, including presentations, participatory exercises, case studies, group discussions, role plays and films. A participatory and action-oriented approach was used throughout the three days with a view of encouraging open experience sharing, learning, and development of practical and context-specific plans both for the IPs and the HAP team. Within the main parameters of the workshop, an open space technology was used for some of the group work sessions to allow participants to choose the topics that most interested them and to drive the direction of related discussions. The workshop was carried out mainly in English, with translation into Myanmar language as needed.

5. Content and Proceedings

5.1. Day 1 Welcoming Note, Introductions and Agenda The 3MDG team welcomed the participants and highlighted the importance of accountability, equity, inclusion and conflict sensitivity in improving maternal, newborn and child health and in reducing the communicable disease burden (HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria) in Myanmar. A team building exercise called "Organisation Bingo" was then carried out in order to provide an opportunity for participants to get to know each other and to start building a picture of where different organisations were in terms of AEI&CS. Participants were requested to ask the questions included in the table below to their peers and to get as many answers as possible within a given timeframe. Tables competed against each other with the winning group identified based on the information that they collected in a given time.

6


No. Questions Answers (for all participants)

1 How many organisations have appointed AEI&CS focal points?

18 organisations (out of 18)

2 How many organisations have a conflict sensitivity procedure in place?

8 organisations have established conflict sensitivity procedures in place; 2 organisations are currently developing one

3 How many organisations have a gender policy? 11 organisations

4 How many organizations engage patients and communities in their health work?

13 organisations

After the team building exercise, the overall workshop objectives and agenda were presented to the participants and housekeeping arrangements were discussed briefly. Due to their high numbers, participants were then split into two groups: the AEI&CS focal points and M&E staff in one group, and the programme and management staff in another group. The division of groups was based on the nature of the specific roles and responsibilities of participants to best enable them to discuss common challenges and opportunities in implementing AEI&CS related activities. Both groups worked separately during the first day and a half of the workshop, but followed the exact same agenda. The two groups reunited in the afternoon of the second day of the workshop.

Participant Expectations Participants were asked to provide their expectations so that facilitators could adjust the content of the workshop accordingly. Common expectations identified were:

To learn about AEI&CS concepts;

To understand how to strengthen AEI&CS practices at both organisation and project level;

To learn about practical AEI&CS tools that can be used with different stakeholders;

To seek technical advice for setting up community feedback mechanisms;

To know the components of AEI&CS in terms of developing budget; and

To learn about an AEI work plan for HAP and IPs.

Introduction to Accountability A role play called "Fix my car" was used to introduce the concept of accountability to participants. In the role play, Moe goes to a mechanic called Naing Naing (the only one in the area where she lives) to have her car repaired. Naing Naing and Moe agree that Naing Naing will have a look at the car and call Moe to tell her his 'diagnosis' and how much it would cost to repair the car before repairing it. A few days later Moe passes by the repair shop and learns that her car has been repaired, but to a much higher price than she was willing to pay for. A discussion ensues. See Annex 3 for the detailed role play. Participants were asked to watch the role play for five minutes and then reflect on the concept of trust, responsibility and accountability using these questions:

How does Moe (the customer) feel?

How does Naing Naing (the mechanic) feel?

What would you do to get better outcomes?

What does accountability mean to you? After some group discussion, a video on accountability and the Good Enough Guide produced by the Emergency Capacity Building (ECB) Project was presented to participants. The video introduced the key components of accountability and provided examples of how staff at different levels and from different organisations applied accountability practices in their day-to-day work.

http://www.ecbproject.org/video-library/video-library/1-ecb-project-accountability--good-enough-guide---whole-film/english-with-subtitles

7


Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity (AEI&CS) in the health sector: main concepts and linkages This session started with an introduction to the key concepts related to accountability, equity, inclusion and conflict sensitivity, the linkages between these concepts, and some of the benefits of their application in the health sector. Focus on Accountability, Equity and Inclusion – Group A The facilitators presented real-life case studies to introduce the 2010 HAP Standard. The 2010 HAP Standard is a practical and measurable tool that helps organisations design, implement, assess, improve and recognise accountable humanitarian and development programmes. It includes the following six benchmarks:

No. HAP benchmark

1 Establishing and delivering on commitments

2 Staff competency

3 Sharing information

4 Participation

5 Handling complaints

6 Learning and continual improvement

Real-life case studies were presented to illustrate each one of the benchmarks. Participants were asked to reflect and discuss on how the application of the benchmarks could improve programme delivery in the health sector. It was found that few participants were aware of the HAP Standard, mostly due to the fact that the Standard initially originated from humanitarian programmes (it now applies to both humanitarian and development programmes) and that most participants were coming from the health sector and worked almost exclusively in development programmes. The facilitators then introduced practical accountability tools for each one of the standards. The tools included checklists, guides, videos, flowcharts, and examples of different accountability practices from several organisations. These tools were shared electronically with all participants at the end of the workshop. Focus on Conflict Sensitivity – Group B The session on conflict sensitivity started with a presentation on the relationships between health and conflict. The facilitator then asked participants to share where they observed conflict. Responses ranged from conflicts with one self, at home with family, at work, gender conflict to ethnic and armed conflicts in different areas of Myanmar. A formal definition of conflict was then introduced, and the facilitator highlighted that conflict in itself was not the problem, but that violent conflict was. The facilitator then explained the importance of conflict sensitivity for aid programmes in highlighting that both humanitarian and development programmes were not neutral as many might assume, but that they could also worsen conflicts. Designed and implemented sensitively, however, humanitarian and development programmes can avoid harm and help mitigate conflict. In order to better understand the linkages between health programmes and conflict, participants were asked to work in groups and identify the potential impacts of conflict on health and the potential impacts of health programmes on conflict as shown in the table below:

http://www.hapinternational.org/what-we-do/hap-standard.aspx

8


Impacts identified by participants

Impacts of conflict on health

Increased morbidity and mortality

Restricted access to health services

Restricted access to/shortage of drugs and health products

Mental health issues

Malnutrition

Feeling of uncertainty/no future

Gender inequalities

Gender-based violence

Lack of security

Malnutrition due to unequal distributions of food in IDP camps

Impacts of health programmes on conflict

Health can be a connector between parties who are fighting

Inequity in health care services (e.g. Rakhine)

Inadequate information sharing and transparency about health programmes

Poor resource management in the health sector

Discrimination

Health programmes not always based on communities' needs

Some communities want to test positive to tuberculosis (TB) in order to receive services from humanitarian organizations. (This was observed in a TB programme in Rakhine)

The participants then discussed about the fact that conflict sometimes had positive impacts such as:

Increased access to health services access in some situations

New technologies and medicine advancement (wound management and improved plastic surgery techniques for example).

Opportunities to change policies.

The facilitator subsequently presented the key concepts of conflict sensitivity. Participants then worked in groups to analyse a fictional case study of health programs in post-conflict Tajikistan (see Annex 4 for detailed case study). Groups were asked to answer the following questions:

What are the sources of conflict or tensions among people in Khatlon Province? What are the root and aggravating causes?

Who are the stakeholders?

What are the connectors and dividers?

What are the impacts of programmes that have been/are implemented by NGOs?

What suggestions, if any, do you have for other ways NGOs could design their programs in order to improve its impact on the conflict?

Overview of the draft Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity Guide At the time of the workshop, HAP was developing an Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity Guide intended to support 3MDG's IPs. The guide included sections on the key concepts of AEI&CS, how to develop an accountability framework, how to conduct an AEI&CS self-assessment, how to develop an AEI&CS improvement plan based on the results of the self-assessment and a toolkit on AEI&CS. The draft guide and its content were briefly presented by the facilitator and the self-assessment tools on AEI&CS were shared with the participants at the end of the session. Doing so provided the participants with the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the tools before the next day where they would use them to start drafting organisation-specific self-assessment plans.

9


5.2. Day 2

Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity (AEI&CS) in the health sector: main concepts and linkages As previously mentioned, the participants were divided into two groups which worked separately during the first day and a half of the workshop. During the first day, both groups participated in the session titled "Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity (AEI&CS) in the health sector: main concepts and linkages". Group A focused on accountability, equity and inclusion, while Group B focused on conflict sensitivity. For this session on Day 2, Group A focused on conflict sensitivity and Group B focused on accountability, equity and inclusion. Please see the details of these sessions in the section covering the activities of Day 1.

Review and feedback on draft AEI & CS self-assessment tools Coming back from lunch, participants were reunited into one group and were asked to sit with the colleagues of their organisations. Three self-assessment tools from the draft Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity Guide were shared:

Tool 1: Policy and system checklist;

Tool 2: Self-Assessment workbook; Tool 7: Conflict sensitivity.

Participants reviewed the questionnaires included in the tools and provided feedback on them in plenary. Several participants commented on Tool 1 (Policy and system checklist) and highlighted that they were not familiar with all the policies of their organisations and that they had little influence over them. Some participants also asked if AEI&CS self-assessments were mandatory, to which facilitators replied that they were a requirement of 3MDG. Tool 2 (Self-assessment workbook) was felt as too complicated and was suggested to be simplified. Tool 7 (Conflict sensitivity) was perceived as being too general and not tailored enough for the Myanmar context (especially the M&E section of the tool).

Review of good AEI & CS practices, areas for improvement, and priority areas for improvement planning Once participants were familiar with the AEI&CS assessment tools, they were asked to work in groups with their colleagues and:

Identify their organisations' existing good AEI&CS practices and challenges;

Start drafting their organisation's AEI&CS assessment plans;

Prioritize the areas where they would focus their improvement efforts for the coming months. All organisations were then asked to prepare mini-workshops that they would lead the next day. Organisations could choose the topic(s) of their choice among the following four topics:

1. Highlights from the self-assessment: already existing good practice or challenges in your organisation; and/or

2. Highlights from the self-assessment plan – how you will go about it, who you will involve, issues to consider; and/or

3. Emerging priority areas for your improvement plan and how you will address these: and/or 4. Questions on which you would like feedback and support from other participants

A significant amount of time was allocated for the preparation of mini-workshops so that participants had sufficient time to be well-prepared.

10


5.3. Day 3

Participant-led Mini-Workshops While all organisations prepared mini-workshops, only 12 were invited to lead them due to time constraints. These organisations were randomly selected and led their mini-workshops in parallel in 3 different rooms (4 organisations per room). The remaining organisations were invited to learn from the presentations of their peers by exploring the topic(s) of their choice in the different mini-workshops. The selected 12 organisations along with the time-slots and facilitators are presented below:

Time Organisation Topic(s) presented/discussed

Team A

9:00am – 10:15am

Save the Children/Merlin

Existing good AEI&CS practices and challenges

Priority areas for improvement

Draft self-assessment work plan

Burnet Institute




10:45am – 12:00pm

Population Service International (PSI)



Draft improvement work plan

Marie Stopes International (MSI) Existing good AEI&CS practices and challenges


Team B

9:00am – 10:15am

Myanmar Anti-Narcotics Association (MANA)




Myanmar Health Assistant Association (MHAA)



10:45am – 12:00pm

Substance Abuse Research Association (SARA)




The Union




Team C

9:00am – 10:15am

Myanmar Medical Association (MMA) Existing good AEI&CS practices and challenges

World Concern




10:45am – 12:00pm

International Organisation for Migration (IOM)




Relief International (RI)



Questions for participants/HAP

11


Feedback and reflections on participant-led mini-workshops After lunch, this short session gave the opportunity to participants to discuss what they learned during the mini-workshops. Participants highlighted how interesting it was for them to learn about the AEI&CS practices of other organisations. Some participants highlighted that they would appreciate 3MDG/HAP to discuss with their Senior Management Teams (SMTs) about the rationale and importance of carrying out AEI&CS self-assessments. Questions also arose about the scope of the AEI&CS self-assessments: the 3MDG project or the entire organisation? Finally, the need to receive technical support from HAP while conducting the self-assessments was also expressed.

Feedback on AEI&CS tools used during the workshop Feedback on the self-assessment tools was provided using an H-Assessment method, in order to identify the most useful tools and the tools that require improvement. Two key issues were raised: the tools should be translated into Myanmar language and should be more user-friendly (in particular, simpler vocabulary should be used). Details are included in the table below.

Useful Suggestions for

improvement Not useful

Tool 1 - Policy and system checklist

The questions are easy to understand and user-friendly.

The tool can assess and reflect the practices of organisations.

This is helpful to identify the gaps between organisations' commitments and practices.

Two columns such as 'Partly Developed' and 'Remark' should be included.

Some policies mentioned in Tool 1 are not in line with Myanmar context.

Tool 2 - Self-Assessment workbook

This helps to conduct self-assessment and to identify areas to improve.

A good approach to understand well on each benchmark.

The questions should be simplified.

The designs of the questionnaires are very complicated and difficult to respond.

Tool 3 - Conflict sensitivity

It helps to develop action plans for organizations at field or organizational level.

It is good to know about the tools relating to CS.

Tools to work in the area of religious conflicts should be tested and shared.

Translate the tool into Myanmar language.

The tool should be reviewed and revised to apply at field level.

Simplify questions.

Questions under M&E section should be modified; they are unclear and not in line with local context.

The questions are very technical and confusing.

It is better to include some questionnaires relating to armed conflicts and religious issues.

12


HAP plans for 2014 and Next Steps Jeremy Ross, HAP Project Manager, presented the HAP work plan for the rest of 2014, including brief information on conducting pilots which were likely to take place in Ayeyarwady Region and Chin State. This will be a four-day workshop where IPs’ project staff and their implementing partners will have a chance to learn how to facilitate a workshop and conduct self-assessments with support from the HAP Team. Dr. Ross also explained that a review and planning workshop with 3MDG, 3MDG's IPs and HAP would take place in October in order to review, reflect and learn about the pilots. Participants then discussed HAP's plans in groups and shared their feedback or asked questions in plenary. Several questions were asked by the participants and some of them related to what were 3MDG's exact requirements in terms of AEI&CS, and how would these relate to 3MDG's existing processes (reporting requirements and Comprehensive Township Health Plans (CTHP) process and meetings). Others related to HAP's role and scope in terms of AEI&CS technical assistance. Finally, participants requested support from HAP and 3MDG to discuss with their SMTs in order to increase their awareness on AEI&CS.

6. Participant Evaluations An evaluation form was circulated to participants to provide feedback and suggestions on specific aspects of the workshop. In general, the participants appreciated the balance between theory and practice. Almost all participants mentioned that they learned something new from the workshop. One of the objectives of the training was to equip participants with information that they could share with their colleagues; this was achieved well, with 36 participants out of 48 rating this as expected, better or much better than expected. Half of the participants however mentioned that the knowledge acquired during the workshop was hard to translate into specific practices and that they needed to gain more confidence in facilitating the development of an AEI&CS self-assessment plans. As aspects to be improved, some participants mentioned that the workshop should be facilitated in Myanmar language by using translation of relevant training documents. They also recommended to circulate the self-assessment tools in advance and to allocate more time for group discussions. Some participants also requested more energisers or games in between sessions. The details of participants' evaluations are presented below:

13


7. Annexes

Annex 1 – Agenda

Time Session

Day 1: Monday, July 28, 2014

9:00am – 10:20am Welcome

Workshop Objectives, Approach and Agenda

Introductions of participants

10:20am – 10:40am – Tea Break

10:40am – 11:00am Participant expectations

11:00am – 12:00pm Introduction to accountability: role play and video

12:00pm – 1:00pm – Lunch

1:00pm – 3:00pm

Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity (AEI&CS) in the health sector: main concepts and linkages

- Group A: Focus on AEI

- Group B: Focus CS

3:00pm – 3:20pm – Tea Break

3:20pm – 4:00pm AEI&CS in the health sector: main concepts and linkages - Continued

- Group A: Focus on AEI

- Group B: Focus CS

4:00pm – 4:45pm Overview of the draft Accountability, Equity, Inclusion and Conflict Sensitivity Guide

4:45pm – 5:00pm Summary of the day

Day 2: Wednesday, July 30, 2014

9:00am – 9:15am Recap of day 1

9:15am – 10:20am AEI&CS in the health sector: main concepts and linkages

- Group A: Focus on CS

- Group B: Focus AEI


10:40am – 12:00pm AEI&CS in the health sector: main concepts and linkages - Continued

- Group A: Focus on CS

- Group B: Focus AEI

12:00pm – 1:00pm - Lunch

1:00pm – 3:00pm Review and feedback on draft/ AEI & CS self-assessment tools


3:20pm – 4:45pm Review of AEI & CS practices, areas for improvement, and priority areas for improvement planning

4:45pm – 5:00pm Summary of the day

Day 3: Thursday, July 31, 2014

9:00am – 9:15am Recap of day 2

14


9:15am – 10:15am Participant-led mini-workshops Organisations run parallel sessions where they present and seek feedback from other participants on particular aspects of AEI&CS that interest them.


10:30am – 12:00pm Participant-led mini-workshops Organisations run parallel sessions where they present and seek feedback from other participants on particular aspects of AEI&CS that interest them.

12:00pm – 1:00pm - Lunch

1:00pm – 1:30pm Feedback and reflections on participant-led mini-workshops

1:30pm – 2:15pm Feedback on AEI&CS tools used during the workshop

2:15pm – 3:00pm HAP plans for 2014 and next steps


3:20pm – 4:00pm Evaluation and warp-up

15


Annex 2 – Fix My Car Role Play Purpose: Introduce the concept of accountability Story: Moe has been having some problems with her car. A couple of days ago, she noticed some strange noises and smoke coming out of the exhaust when driving it home from work and so took it to the local mechanic straightaway. There is only one mechanic in her local area. Moe received a message that the mechanic has asked her to the repair shop, so goes there on the way to work this morning... You will need 2 volunteers for this role play. Volunteers:

Choose the role of the mechanic or Moe and act out the role play.

Please be as creative and as dramatic as you like!

Moe: Hi there Naing Naing, how are you doing? Was repairing my car something simple like I predicted, like changing the fan belt? Mechanic: I'm glad you're back. I've fixed it! You're going to be so pleased with what I've done. It's almost like new! I've changed the fan belt, but then I saw a few other things that needed to be done... Your radiator needed a fix, I've put in a new clutch and brakes, and then the exhaust! I was going to paint it over, but thought I should ask you if you had a colour preference?! It drives like a dream now!! Moe: What?! I asked you to call me to let me know what work needed to be done before doing anything! I thought it was something simple. It does drive better but I asked you to give me a call when you knew what was wrong. I didn't pay much for the car, and if it was going to be too much work then I thought I would get rid of it!!! How much is it going to cost? Mechanic: I've got the bill. Here it is, close to 20 Lakhs. Moe: What?! I just can't afford that. I only paid 75 Lakhs for the car in the first place!!! I didn't ask for any of this. Mechanic: I could take out all the new things, and put the old ones back it… but you'd still have to pay me for the service!!! Time is money! That's 50%!

16


Annex 3 – Conflict Sensitivity Case Study: Health in Post-Conflict Tajikistan

Background After the Soviet Union broke up, a leadership struggle occurred in the former Soviet Republic of Tajikistan

between communist factions and a coalition of anti‐communist and Islamic groups resulting in a bloody civil war from 1991 until the end of 1992. In villages, the politics were blurred so it seemed to be an ethnic conflict between

Kulyabi Tajiks, supporting communists, and Garmi Tajiks the opposition. Both are Tajik sub‐groups sharing the same religion, customs and language. The worst fighting was in Khatlon Province, bordering Afghanistan. The area was settled in the 1930s when tens of thousands of Garmis and Kulyabis were relocated as workers to new cotton state farms. Typically, entire villages were relocated so the region became a patchwork of monoethnic villages. But over the years some villages merged and, by the outbreak of the war, 25% of villages were ethnically mixed and, in towns, there was

much inter‐marriage. In the war, people were attacked and villages looted and burned by both sides. In 1992, helped by the Russians, Kulyabi forces routed the Garmi. The victorious Kulyabi militias went on a rampage destroying Garmi houses and villages. Many men were killed, families fled and over 20,000 homes destroyed. In Garmi villages, often only the mosque was left. Though war ended in 1992, armed groups continued raids from Afghanistan or controlled mountain areas in Tajikistan. 25,000 Russian troops remained preventing the conflict

recurring again but armed groups (sometimes inter‐ethnic) continue to loot villages and steal relief supplies. Tajikistan was the poorest of the Soviet Republics with its economy based on cotton production (also cotton

milling, seed production and garment making). The single‐sector specialization meant Tajikistan, depended heavily on trade with basic foodstuffs imported since the 1930s. The war prevented cotton production worsening the bad economic situation and the destruction of factories, equipment and irrigation canals needed for cotton production, coupled with the fleeing of non‐Tajik technicians and managers who left Tajikistan facing serious food shortages. Cotton farming used to happen in large state farms employing most people. Each farm included

villages without regard for their ethnicity. Thus, Kulyabi and Garmi worked side‐by‐side, men in management and canal maintenance and women planting, cultivation and harvesting. Schools, clinics and all social services were shared. As the war came to an end, fields lay fallow waiting planting of cotton on which most depended for survival. The network of irrigation canals was disrupted, undermining any potential cotton crop and water access in villages as well. Each household in Khatlon continues to own a small private plot on which they have always grown vegetables for household consumption and local sale.

NGO Response By 1994, an INGO developed a large program in Khatlon Province having identified four main problems: a shortage of food with associated malnutrition, a lack of safe water and healthcare facilities, and many damaged or destroyed homes. Although food security was less than optimal in Kulyabi villages, malnutrition was mainly found in the destroyed villages.

The response was to set up Food for Work village‐based brigades to rebuild houses, provide safe water (shallow wells) and build health posts for primary health care services. Priority was given to most damaged villages and

anyone ‐ men and women could join a brigade. The NGO "contracted" brigades to repair houses traditionally using local mud bricks, only providing roofing materials. Food from one person’s work was sufficient for 80% of an average family's caloric requirements. The initial success encouraged returnees who had fled. In some cases, local people took "reconciliation initiatives", e.g. a woman of one district government knew her Garmi neighbours were returning. She prepared food and invited returnees and Kulyabi neighbours to dinner. They ate together in what she hoped was a reconciling way. In another village, when Garmi families returned, Kulyabi residents "went to meet them with bread and salt," a traditional welcoming. Many believed "people don't want war, but policy people make it" and noted women’s special role. As one said, "Women are different. They can forget and forgive but man is a little bit animal. His blood is hot." Others noted women could "train their children better not to hate" or "get my husband a teacher to meet with 'their' teachers to see how both groups can teach better attitudes in school"; and "women must lead us". NGO staff felt this was an important first step but also wanted to find other ways in and outside of

their project to promote inter‐group linkages and reconciliation. So……..

17


Case Study Questions

1. Conflict analysis: What do you identify as sources of conflict or tensions among people in Khatlon

Province? Can you identify root and aggravating causes?

2. Stakeholders: Identify who are the major Stakeholders (and potential spoilers) in this situation.

3. Connectors and dividers: What do you identify as things that connect and divide people across warring parties in Khatlon Province?

4. Understanding program impacts: Identify the potential areas of impact of the NGO program on the tensions and on the connectors?

5. Improving program conflict sensitivity: What suggestions, if any, do you have for other ways that the NGO could design its program (and additional supplementary activities) to improve its impact on the conflict?

accountability, equity, inclusion and conflict sensitivity

Documents