village social dynamics survey: mgkd phase 2 pre...

June 2008

Village Focus Group Discussions: MGKD Phase 2 Pre‐implementation Report

Prepared by:

Jayne Grigorovich, PCC Intern

Siti Ruhanawati, PCC project Assistant/Gender Focal Point

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3

The MGKD Project 3

The Village Social Dynamics field survey 3

Report Structure and Survey Methodology 4

2. Social Interaction 6

Community Dynamics 7

Reintegration Dynamics 7

Gender Dynamics 8

3. Community Togetherness 11


Gender Dynamics 13

4. Freedom of Expression 13


Gender Dynamics 16

5. Security 17


Gender Dynamics 19

6. Trust 19

Community and Gender Dynamics 20

7. Environmental Awareness 22

8. Perceptions of the MGKD Project 22

9. Conclusions 24

Findings on Current Community Dynamics 24

Recommendations for Phase II Post Implementation 26

10. Annexes 27

2

1. Introduction The MGKD Project

The “Village Prosperity through Peace” project (Makmu Gampong Kareuna Dame or MGKD) is an ongoing peace building initiative between the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) and aims to support the Helsinki Accords peace agreement in Nanggrroe Aceh Darussalam province. The primary objective of the MGKD project is to stabilize the peace process at the village level by facilitating the reintegration of former combatants and amnestied prisoners within their communities of origin and increasing levels of trust and cooperation within villages affected by decades of conflict. This is to be achieved by supporting village social dynamics in areas of social interaction, community togetherness, freedom of expression, security and trust. In particular, it is hoped that by funding a community project that is planned and implemented by the village community, levels of social interaction within conflict-affected communities will increase, thereby building levels of trust and social bonds between villagers. In accordance with CIDA’s Policy on Gender Equality (1999)1, the second objective of the MGKD project is to increase the level of women’s participation through women- specific community projects.

With MGKD Phase 1 completed in March 2008, the second phase began in April 2008. MGKD Phase 2 will target 141 communities in villages across three districts in Aceh province (Aceh Utara, Aceh Timur and Aceh Selatan), specifically focusing on previously “high conflict” areas that have received little or no development and post-conflict reintegration assistance. Target villages were selected by cross-referencing demographic data from the IOM-Harvard University Research on Psychosocial Needs in Conflict Affected Communities (2007) with the World Bank’s Conflict Intensity Index data for Aceh Province (2006). The selected villages were verified through a rigorous consultation process with government, development and reintegration agencies at the district and sub-district levels.

The Village Social Dynamics field‐survey

Before the full implementation of Phase 2 could begin, it was first necessary to survey the existing social dynamics of village communities, so as to (1) better understand the habits and norms of the beneficiary groups, (2) identify levels of social interaction, community togetherness, freedom of expression, security and trust and (3) understand villagers’

1 CIDA’s gender policy advocates gender equality at the village level through the promotion of women’s equal participation in decision making structures, as well as equal access to, and control over, the resources and benefits of development.

3

perceptions and expectations of the MGKD project. An in-depth understanding of all three areas will be useful when assessing the impact and implementation of MGKD Phase 2 in January 2009. The gender dynamics of the aforementioned five variables (social interaction, community togetherness, freedom of expression, security and trust) were also examined, so as to better understand the unique challenges women face in post-conflict communities. The insights gained will be used to inform the MGKD’s approach to promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. Lastly, this survey also examined current levels of environmental awareness among the participants, so as to better understand the ways in which principles of environmental protection could be promoted in MGKD Phase 2.

M. Yasin facilitates a focus group discussion in Ie Tarek II in Aceh Utara (May 21st 2008)

Report Structure and Methodology

Eighteen randomly selected villages in three targeted districts (Aceh Utara, Aceh Timur and Aceh Selatan) were surveyed for this report. Each IOM district field office was responsible for undertaking the pre-implementation survey in six villages. The field survey consisted of two parts:

• A Self-Evaluation Pie assessment • A focus group discussion (FGD) questionnaire

Self- Evaluation Pies: The quantitative data collected from this exercise was used to gain a general sense of village social dynamics. In total, 450 villagers in 18 villages were given a “Self-Evaluation Pie” [Annex 1] and were asked to indicate their perceptions of (1) the levels of social interaction, (2) community togetherness, (3) freedom of expression, (4) trust and (5) security in their villages. Responses ranged along a scale of “Very Low,” “Low,” “Moderate,” “High” and “Very High” levels. The data collected for each variable is shown as a percentage figure at the beginning of each section in this report, and represents people’s general impression of the social situation within their communities. The five variables surveyed are broad concepts, and there was a concern that they could be interpreted differently by different people. To assure a consistent understanding of the variables, the facilitators

4

delivered the same definition for each concept, thus assuring that the replies received were comparable at the analysis stage.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): The data collected from this exercise was used to explain and supplement the general perceptions in the Self-Evaluation Pies. Whereas the Self-Evaluation Pies provided a general snapshot of village social dynamics, the FGDs provided more detailed information about the opinions and daily practices of villagers in all five areas [Annex 2]. In all, thirty-six focus group discussions were held in 18 villages. Each FGD represents the collective opinions of participants within a particular village, with all participants answering the same questionnaire. To the greatest extent possible, in every village the responses from the participants were recorded as single, detailed and representative answer for the question asked. Between ten to fifteen participants attended every FGD, and their responses to each question were pooled to construct a collective “village” answer. The frequency of any given response was represented as a percentage figure out of the total 36 “village answers.”

One of the goals of this report was to gage the current levels of social cohesion for the village as a whole- that is, for both female and male villagers. However, typically the voices and opinions of women are underrepresented in survey discussions that include both male and female participants. With this in mind, the overall participant sample for the Self Evaluation and FGD sessions consisted of:

a. Fifty percent female-only respondents (i.e. 18 Women’s-only sessions) b. Fifty percent both female and male respondents (i.e. 18 Village sessions)

In the end, females were overrepresented in the survey because there were more female than male participants in the sample, and this guaranteed that the opinions and impressions of women were fully taken into consideration.

Discussion during briefing session in IOM’s Tapaktuan office (Aceh Selatan, May 25th 2008)

5

2. Social Interaction Social Interaction refers to the mutual relations between people. Communities with high

levels of social interaction meet frequently for fun, recreation or spiritual purposes, as well as to make village decisions and solve problems affecting the group as a whole. Social Interaction includes formal and informal activities like religious holidays, weddings/funerals, informal gatherings, sports, entertainment/cultural activities and village meetings.

Data collected from the Self-Evaluation Pies shows that overall people think the levels of social interaction within their villages are very high, with 61% of villages indicating Very High and 25% indicating High [Figure1].

When the same sample is disaggregated for gender [Figure 1a.], there is an evident difference in the perception of social interaction between women-only and co-ed groups. Women-only groups reported Very High levels of social interaction less frequently than groups containing men, suggesting that women experience lower levels of social interaction than men. The following subsections will explain and elaborate these findings using the responses to the FGD Questionnaire.

6

Social Interaction‐ Community Dynamics

According to the frequency with which people interact on a daily basis, the level of social interaction in the village communities is very high. Villagers will typically stop and start casual conversations with each other on the street, with 69% of villages saying that people will do this Always, 11% Often, and 19% Sometimes. All villages (100%) said residents will visit their neighbours and participate in gotong royong2 activities. Ninety-one (91%) will participate together in religious activities such as daily prayers (especially the Prophet’s birthday celebrations and weekly Quran readings), 69% will attend weddings and funerals within the community, 55% will chat over coffee (mostly men), 38% will participate in community sports (usually volleyball or soccer), and 33% will participate in cultural and entertainment activities.

Participation in village decision-making is an integral part of a healthy pattern of social interaction within a community, and within the surveyed villages participatory decision-making structures are strong. It was found that village decision making is typically conducted communally and decisions made jointly. When decisions affecting all villagers need to be made, these will always (100% of the time) be decided upon in village meetings, typically through consensus (41%), through voting (17%) or both (41%).

Social Interaction‐ Reintegration Dynamics

There is strong indication that former combatants are actively involved in community events. Eighty-four percent (84%) of villages indicated that former combatants and amnestied prisoners “Often participate” in community events, 9% said they “Always participate”, and only 7% said they “Sometimes participate.” Most significantly, no villages replied “Rarely” or 2 Roughly understood as a form of volunteerism, gotong royong includes the construction and rehabilitation of community infrastructure, both for public and private use.

7

“Never participate.” When examining the ways in which villagers participate, in 90% of villages former combatants and villagers both plan and participate equally in social events, and although the questionnaire did not ask such a question, ten out of the 32 villages that had former combatants (i.e. 31%), indicated that in their village there is no distinction between former combatants and regular villagers- all are considered to be community members. Former combatants will generally participate in village decision-making structures. In 75% of the villages former combatants are involved in village meetings, in 31% of villages amnestied prisoners are involved, and in 43% other conflict returnees are involved3. In one village in Aceh Selatan a former combatant has become the leader of the village youth sports and recreation group.

Although in general the levels of reintegration are strong, it is important to note that in a minority of cases there are still reintegration challenges to be found. For example, in 9% of villages, participants indicated that villagers more actively participate in social events than former combatants, and in one village in Aceh Timur participants indicated that some former combatants (roughly a quarter) are reluctant to attend social events (Tanjung Tualang). Lastly, in two villages residents indicated that they were worried former combatants in their village might jeopardize village peace. In a village in Aceh Utara female participants indicated that there are many former combatants in the village and they are afraid that they will disturb the peace (Lawang). In Tanjung Tualang villagers said that they did not think the peace in Aceh will last because of criminal activity by ex-GAM members.

Social Interaction‐ Gender Dynamics

The disaggregated data for the Self Evaluation Pies indicates that female participants tended to record lower levels of Very High social interaction. This means that although overall women feel involved in social activities, women tend to feel less involved than men. The following discussion will consider this finding in terms of women’s participation in village decision making structures.

First, there is supporting evidence that many women participate actively in village decision-making structures. Most of the villages surveyed replied that women Always attend village meetings (69%) and 63% of the villages said that when women do attend, they participate actively, speak and give input. In one village women will have pre-meetings before the village meetings, where they will hold discussions with family and friends to gather support for ideas to be proposed in the village meetings (Lhok Mampalam, Aceh Selatan). In two villages, participants volunteered that there will always be a special effort made to inform 3 Rather than indicating their exclusion, the lower incidence of participation among amnestied prisoners is likely due to there being far fewer ex-prisoners in Aceh compared to ex-combatants and other conflict returnees.

8

women of village meetings by announcing meeting times in Mosques- public places where women gather the most in the community. In addition, in one village in Aceh Selatan (Sawang II) a former female combatant has become the local leader of the SPP (Simpan Pinjam Kelompok) women’s microcredit group for the National Program for Community Empowerment (PNPM or Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat). On the surface, at least, female participation in village decision-making seems strong.

However, even though the majority of women may be present in the room during village meetings, evidence suggests that the frequency with which they actively participate is low. Eight percent (8%) of villages said that when women attend meetings they sit in but do not participate in the discussion, and in one village participants indicated that women will not attend meetings if their husband forbids them (Tanjung Tualang, Aceh Timur), while in another village participants said that the women will follow whatever the men decide (Ulee Jalan, Aceh Timur). In 25% of villages, women will only sometimes attend meetings, and in a significant portion of the villages (38%) their participation in uneven: sometimes women participate actively and give input and sometimes they sit on the side silently. The varying levels of participation depend mostly on the character of individuals. In Sawang II (Aceh Selatan), for instance, respondents said that women who are teachers, civil servants or former combatants tend to be more vocal in village discussions than other female villagers.

Additional data supporting this finding was gathered from a supplementary Gender Evaluation Survey conducted by facilitators during the Village FGDs. Facilitators were asked to observe the participation dynamics of both female and male participants, and, if the results of the Gender Evaluation Survey are taken to represent a typical village meeting, it is evident that active participation among women is lower than among men. When the levels of participant engagement4 were measured [Figure 1b and Figure 1c], it was seen that on average women were less engaged than men, with only 33% of women, compared to 72% of men, exhibiting high levels of engagement. Moreover, whereas almost 17% of women exhibited low levels of engagement, there were no men who exhibited low or very low levels. Similarly, 5% of men exhibited very high levels of engagement, while no females exhibited very high levels at all. These figures show that overall, the frequency and enthusiasm of female responses tended to be lower than male responses.

4 Engagement was measured according to the frequency with which women spoke, their evident levels of enthusiasm when answering questions, and their encouragement of other participants in the discussion.

9

In all, the extent to which women participate in village meetings is by no means consistent. Although the majority of women do attend meetings, when the frequency with which they attend, and the extent to which they participate is examined, it becomes evident that a significant proportion of women do not fully engage in village decision making. It is also important to note that an indication that women do participate in village meetings does not necessarily mean that their input in mainstreamed into all types of village decision-making. At times women are only involved if decisions need to be made about “women’s issues” or “domestic issues,” such as organizing cultural activities (e.g. the Prophet’s birthday celebrations) or pooling of village assets (e.g. collecting dinnerware and utensils for communal use during holidays and special occasions). Certain topics are considered to fall within the domain of male decision-making, especially meetings having to do with the implementation

10

of development projects. Six villages (16%) pointed out that decision-making was gendered in their village, and this may also be the case in other villages.5

The observation that women’s decision-making roles are structured according to gender roles is not meant to “rank” male dominated aspects of village life as somehow being more significant than those that women preside over. The organization of cultural and recreational activities by women is an integral source of village pride and the overwhelming majority of female participants said that they were happy with the decision-making process in their village, and did not want it to change6 (100% of women’s groups). Thus it cannot be said that the domestic or cultural decision-making areas over which women preside are undervalued or less important than other, male-dominated areas of decision-making or that women are unhappy making decisions within their ascribed gender roles.

The main issue of concern is that a gendered division of decision-making roles prevents women from fully participating in all aspects of village life. By limiting the authority of women to one domain, women are made to feel uncertain and insecure about their opinions in areas outside the domestic realm. In five villages women admitted that they thought their argumentation skills were lacking in relation to men, and twice women said that they are intimidated by the formal atmosphere of village meetings, preferring to express themselves in more informal settings (Maklaka, Aceh Selatan in both Village and Women- only FGDs ).

3. Community Togetherness Community Togetherness was defined as the participation of community members in

collective activities for mutual benefit, whereby villagers work together on projects that will later benefit everyone in the village; a feeling of empathy, sympathy and loyalty to one’s community members.

The overall levels of community togetherness within the villages surveyed are very high, with 63% of respondents indicating Very High, and 22% indicating High [Figure2]. The following

5 In the questionnaire villages were not asked whether their decision-making mechanism was split along gender roles, and the ones who said this volunteered the information. 6 It is difficult to gage women’s level of satisfaction with the decision-making process. Although all said that they are happy with the decision-making process, women have never been exposed to more authoritative roles in areas outside the domestic realm and have no alternative to compare their current situation with. Moreover, cultural norms against expressing critical opinions might have prevented them from expressing dissatisfaction with current decision-making structures. After the completion of Phase II it would be prudent to ask women again how they feel about the decision making process in their villages.

11

subsections will explain and elaborate on these findings using the responses to the FGD questionnaire.

Community Togetherness ‐ Community Dynamics

In general, the surveyed villages exhibit high levels of community togetherness, which is evident in the ways in which villagers describe their relationships with fellow community members and the ways in which people collaborate to solve problems affecting the entire community. Ninety-one percent (91%) of the villages replied that villagers feel close to all members of their community, and 44% added that they feel especially close to their family, friends and neighbours. Thirty four out of 36 villages (94%) responded that they feel proud of their village. Although not all villages provided an explanation for this sentiment, those who did provide one indicated that their pride stemmed from either the social bonds or their membership within their community. The most frequent explanation (given by 10 villages) was that the sense of unity within their village- described as “togetherness,” “harmony” or “brotherhood”- made them feel proud. Another 8 villages said that they were proud because their village is their place of birth (described as their “motherland” or “homeland”). Finally, five villages said they are proud of the meaning village membership brings into their lives: people said that within their village they find justice, agency, fairness, freedom, tolerance, empathy or cooperation.

The perception that villagers have a duty to help each other in times of need is common, and is indicative of high levels of community togetherness. Life within the villages is intensely communal, with the majority of villagers feeling a sense of responsibility towards the wellbeing of their community members. All survey participants visit their neighbours (69% Always, and 11% Often) and when indicating a purpose, “to visit a sick neighbour” was indicated just as often as “to chat and share stories” (seven times each), and more often than “to borrow something” (two times). Death within the village affects the community as a whole and is a time when the community joins together to help those in need. At times funerals may be the responsibility of the entire village (Lhok Mampalam, Aceh Selatan). When somebody dies all

12

villagers may stop their activities for the day (Gunung Cut, Aceh Selatan) and will donate rice or some money to the bereaved (Matang Kupula Sa, Aceh Timur).

Lastly, the tendency to pool resources in all aspects of social life is common, and also points to high levels of cooperation and community togetherness. Eighty-six percent (86%) of villages always lend each other farm tools, cooking and wedding equipment as well as religious items; 47% always lend each other money and 52% sometimes lend each other money. Although this tendency stems mostly from economic necessity, the ability to negotiate the sharing of resources is nevertheless indicative of high levels of community togetherness.

Community Togetherness ‐ Gender Dynamics

Gotong royong is a village activity undertaken for collective benefit, and it was found that its implementation is divided according to the existing gender roles in the community. Roughly understood as a form of volunteerism, gotong royong includes the construction and rehabilitation of community infrastructure, both for public and private use. While the majority of villagers partake in gotong royong Often (55%) and Sometimes (33%), it is usually men who carry out this activity, while women typically take on a support role by providing food for the men or organizing neighbourhood cleanup initiatives.

4. Freedom of Expression Freedom of Expression is the lack of restriction on voicing opinions, ideas and behaviors;

freedom to think and do. The overall finding is that the levels of freedom of expression within the villages surveyed are very high, with 58% of respondents indicating Very High, and 24% indicating High [Figure3]. Although only 14% indicated Moderate levels of freedom of expression, this trend is nevertheless significant.

13

When the same sample is disaggregated for gender [Figure 3a.], there is an evident difference in the perceived levels of freedom of expression between women-only and co-ed groups. Women-only groups reported Very High levels of freedom of expression less frequently than groups containing men, suggesting that women experience lower levels of freedom of expression than men. The following subsections will explain and elaborate these findings using the responses to the FGD questionnaire.

Freedom of Expression‐Community Dynamics

The overall finding is that although the majority of villagers feel free to express their ideas and opinions, a minority of residents still feel uncomfortable expressing themselves, particularly on issues dealing with security and politics.

The majority of villages (92%) indicated that people can express their opinions freely in village meetings even if their opinions are unpopular and controversial. Seventy-two percent (72%) feel free to express their opinions to everyone in their community, while 25% prefer to express themselves only to close family and friends. The latter trend, rather than indicating that people are fearful or suspicious of their wider community, is likely indicative of a local cultural norm whereby people feel more comfortable keeping very personal information within their immediate social circles. The villages where people preferred to express themselves to close friends and family, if a reason for their preferences was provided, it always had to do with concerns about norms and privacy.

All villages (100%) said that people can freely announce social gatherings, 84% said they feel free to announce political gatherings and 69% said everyone feels free to discuss topics

14

like government, politics, the military and upcoming elections.7 Although not all villages are politically active, at least four indicated that all political parties are free to conduct meetings in their village, and that different political opinions are tolerated. In one village, some residents have become board members within political parties (Sawang II, Aceh Selatan). Considering that during the conflict many people were afraid to discuss political issues out of fear of being labelled as GAM or military supporters, and many were reluctant to celebrate community events and weddings out of fear of being accused of holding political events, the general trends in terms of freedom of expression indicate that a sense of normalcy and safety has been restored within most villages.

That being said, there is still a noticeable proportion of villages where people do not feel free to express themselves. In 9% of villages people said that they do not feel free to announce political gatherings. While some of these did not feel comfortable because people were not familiar with political issues, at least four indicated that their discomfort was linked to past experiences during the conflict. Two villages indicated that they were concerned that political meetings might create offence to some village members and trigger tensions within their community (Lhok Mampalam and Malaka in Aceh Selatan). One community indicated that it struggled with strong political schisms along Government and GAM lines, so that people felt unsure about announcing political gatherings (Leubok Mane, Aceh Utara). Lastly, in a fourth village people said they avoid voicing controversial opinions during village meetings and will only say things they know will not be rejected by other villagers (Pulo Le II, Aceh Selatan). In addition, a noticeable minority does not feel free to discuss topics like the government, elections, and the military. Two villages in Aceh Selatan still feel the effects of conflict on their freedom of expression. The following comments were given by participants during Village and Women’s FGDs:

--“All issues can be discussed, but people have to take care to keep their emotions under control to avoid conflict and disintegration.” (Lhok Mampalam, Village FGD)

--“Women will chose to be silent when discussing issues of security and politics because they feel this discussion will only remind them of traumatic experiences and events.” (Lhok Mamplam, Women’s FGD)

--“Some people in the village are uncomfortable discussing issues dealing with politics and security because of traumatic experiences during the conflict.” (Malaka, Women’s FGD)

--“Discussing politics is still difficult because of past trauma during the conflict.” (Malaka, Village FGD)

7 Where people indicated that they are uncomfortable with discussing these topics, they were usually women and the most common explanation given had to do with them being disinterested in, or unfamiliar with, these topics, rather than them being afraid to discuss them.

15

Overall then, although in most villages people feel free to express themselves, this situation is by no means uniform.

Freedom of Expression‐Gender dynamics

The disaggregated data for the Self Evaluation Pies indicated that female participants tended to record lower Very High freedom of expression levels. This means that although most women feel that they free to express themselves, women still feel less comfortable doing so than men.

Ninety percent (90%) of villages said that women are comfortable expressing their opinions to friends, family and neighbours outside village meetings. However, when asked who it is that women feel most comfortable speaking to, it was evident that a significant portion of women were not comfortable expressing themselves to men outside their immediate household. Although 50% of villages said that women are comfortable speaking to both men and women, nearly as many villages (44%) said that women are more comfortable speaking with women. Three villages said that when greeting guests and people on the street, women do not feel comfortable addressing men.

Out of the villages where women felt uncomfortable speaking with men, in five women said that they feel reluctant simply because they interact more often with other women and feel closer to them. Women were said to be better listeners and storytellers, and more empathetic and understanding than men; in one village women noted that they usually discuss their opinions during women`s Quran readings (Sawang II). Only one case indicated that religious norms limit the interaction of women with men outside their immediate family (Kampung Keude Bagok, Aceh Timur). A more worrying, and equally frequent, explanation given for women`s reluctance to speak with men is that they do not feel confident in their opinions and ideas. Women often said they are malu, “shy” or “embarrassed,” when speaking with men. In five villages women spoke of their perception of themselves as lacking in expressive capacity in relation to men; they were unsure about their knowledge and capacity and worried that their opinions would be rejected. In 10 villages women said that they were uncomfortable discussing issues like politics and security, usually because they thought this was a “male issue” which they did not know enough about, did not understand or did not want to understand. Only two cases indicated that the reluctance to discuss political issues among women was conflicted related (Malaka and Lhok Mampalam in Aceh Selatan). When considering the areas where the MGKD project can work towards promoting female leadership and empowerment, helping women feel confident in expressing and forming ideas in a public forum seems to be an area requiring support.

16

5. Security Security refers to a feeling that one is protected and safe in one’s environment.

The overall finding is that the levels of personal security within the villages surveyed are very high, with 71% of respondents indicating Very High, and 18% indicating High [Figure4]. A small percentage (9%) of respondents indicated a Moderate level of security.

When the same sample is disaggregated for gender [Figure 4a.], there is an evident difference in the perceived levels of security between women-only and co-ed groups. Women-only groups reported Very High levels of security less frequently than groups containing men, suggesting that women feel less safe in their villages than men. The following subsections will explain and elaborate these findings using the responses to the FGD Questionnaire.

Security‐Community Dynamics

The majority of villagers do not feel any threat from criminal activity or conflict-affiliated groups like KPA, the military or the police, although a minority of people are worried about criminal activity outside their village. On a day to day basis, residents in 86% of villages are

17

generally not afraid for their family’s safety. Ninety-seven percent (97%) of villages say residents Never feel any threat from criminal activity inside the village and 80% percent said they Never or Rarely feel any threat from criminal activity outside their village. Eighty-eight (88%) percent of villages said residents are comfortable walking around their village at night. There are currently no village self-defence groups active in any villages, meaning that people do not fear that any conflict-related security concerns might resurface. If communities require a security mechanism, it is usually only for managing special events, such as Independence Day celebrations or elections, when large numbers of people stay outdoors until late. If necessary, communities will put together ad-hoc community watch groups to manage activities and those groups will later be disbanded.

Despite the general trend, a small minority of villages have indicated that they do have security concerns, and while there are not many such cases, the sense of insecurity these people experience is nevertheless genuine. Sixteen percent (16%) of villages are Sometimes worried about a threat of criminal activity from outside their village, usually because stories of theft or robbery incidents in neighbouring villages make people afraid. One village reported that its residents had concerns about criminal activity from inside the village, with respondents saying “Sometimes there are thieves in the village and not all insiders are trusted” (Lawang, Aceh Utara).

Moreover, there is still a minority of people who feel intimidated at the sight of government security forces. Although in most villages (92%), residents are not afraid of the sight of the police or the military, three villages (8%) indicated that to this day they fear security forces. In one village in Aceh Timur, residents said that they still feel suspicious when asked by government officials for their identification papers. In another village, residents said that the sight of the police and the military scares the elderly, and according to the women in this village, the “[security forces] are vicious.” Even villages that said they are not afraid added that if the police or the military were to enter their village in a big group, people would instantly become afraid (Guning Cut, Aceh Selatan; Alue Dua Muka S, Aceh Timur).

The most significant finding of relevance to the MGKD project has to do with the sizeable portion of the surveyed population that is not sure about the sustainability of the peace process in Aceh: thirty-six (36%) percent of villages responded that they are not sure if the peace will last. The most frequent reason for people being uncertain had to do with what villagers perceive as an unfair distribution of economic resources in the province. As villagers in Lawang, Aceh Utara said, “the distribution of development resources has been unfair, and might trigger conflict.” The second most frequent reason given was people’s perception of the rise of criminal activity in Aceh, which many see as an indication that peace process is not working. In two villages respondents were concerned that former combatants and GAM might disturb the peace process. Unlike security concerns having to do with perceived levels of criminal activity (over which the MGKD project has little control), the work being done in Phase 2 should attempt to build people’s confidence in the sustainability of the peace process-

18

especially among beneficiaries concerned about the distribution of economic development resources. One way in which IOM could help build people’s confidence in the peace process is by continuing to communicate to beneficiaries that the government is an essential partner in the peace process. IOM works in partnership with the government, so without its active support, peace stabilization projects like MGKD would not be possible, and therefore the government is an essential actor in maintaining a lasting peace in Aceh.

Security‐Gender Dynamics

The disaggregated data for the Self-Evaluation Pies indicated that female participants tended to record lower Very High levels of security. This means that on a day-to-day basis women feel more insecure than men. Among those who indicated they feel insecure, women usually said they were afraid of being attacked by a wild animal, as tiger and elephant attacks are not uncommon, especially in remote areas. In one village women feel insecure walking outside after eleven at night because they fear being robbed or kidnapped (Alue Dua Muka S, Aceh Timur).

6. Trust Trust refers to a belief by someone that their neighbours , friends and family are committed

to their protection and wellbeing; have their best interest and protection in mind; will not hurt, betray or lie to them; and will not steal or destroy their property.

It was difficult to determine the accurate levels of trust within the surveyed communities based on the data collected. Although 56% of villages indicated Very High levels, and 21% indicating High [Figure5], a significant portion of the villages (21%) indicated Moderate levels of trust. This finding suggests that in some areas of social interaction people do not feel entirely trusting of their community members, though the supporting data from the FGD questionnaire does not adequately explain this trend. The FGD results showed relatively low percentages for certain questions (especially when compared to the high percentages for social interaction and community togetherness), though it is uncertain whether these figures indicate low levels of mistrust, per se. While in some areas of daily life people seem to trust each other very much (especially in terms of money lending and borrowing equipment), in other areas levels of trust seem to be lower. When the same sample is disaggregated for gender [Figure 7a.], there is an evident difference in the perceived levels of trust between women-only and co-ed groups. Women-only groups reported Very High levels of trust less frequently than groups containing men, suggesting that women feel less trustful of their community members than men.

19

Trust‐ Community and Gender Dynamics

All respondents trusted that the people closest to them would help them during a personal crisis or problem. Most (64%) replied that all of their community members would help. Twenty percent specified that all their community members, but especially friends and family, would help; another 8% said that friends, family and neighbours would help. Most significantly, no one replied that they were not sure if anyone would help them in a time of need. A high level of trust within the surveyed communities is also evident in the extent and frequency with which villagers pool resources amongst themselves. Ninety-four (94%) percent of villages said that they Always lend each other things like farm tools, cooking and wedding equipment and religious items. Forty-eight percent (48%) will Always lend each other money, and 52% will Sometimes do so. For those who said “Sometimes,” the primary consideration when lending is the availability of money to spare (mentioned in seven villages), whereas considerations about the borrower’s trustworthiness are ranked much lower (mentioned in three).

However, in some areas of community life it seems that people are less trusting. When asked if people would share personal information and their problems with their neighbours, while 38% replied that they “Always will”, 47% replied that they “Sometimes will” and 13% replied that they would Rarely or Never disclose personal information to their neighbours. When compared to the high levels of community togetherness and social interaction evident

20

in other sections of this report, these percentages seem to indicate an unusually low level of trust. What explains these figures? When a rationale for their preferences was provided, most respondents said that it is typically not the norm to share sensitive information and problems with people outside the immediate family. For this reason, many villages qualified their responses with “depending on the issue” (three times) or “not bad or negative information” (five times). Taken together, these relatively low percentages mean that people are reluctant to share personal problems because of the cultural norms within their communities, rather than because of low levels of trust between neighbours. Therefore information sharing is probably an inadequate measure of trust between people, and another reason is needed to explain the Moderate trust trend evident in the data from the Self Evaluation Pies.

When respondents were asked if people in the village leave children to their neighbours’ care, 42% said Always or Often, while 58% said Sometimes. Three villages added that people would probably leave their children in the care of a relative rather than a neighbour. Again, when compared to the high levels of community togetherness and interaction evident in previous sections, the percentage of “Always” seems relatively low; it is unclear why so many people would only sometimes trust their children to their neighbour’s care. But do these replies necessarily indicate a low level of trust between people? Perhaps not: if in Acehnese culture people would not typically leave their children in the care of a neighbour, possibly the question is not an appropriate one to measure trust. An additional explanation could be that the phrasing of the question was confusing. The question asks “do people leave children...” (Rather than “would people leave children...”). It is possible that some may have interpreted the question as asking about the frequency of times they leave children with neighbours (i.e. “how often do people leave children in their neighbour’s care?”), and since this is clearly not a regular practice, most people answered “Sometimes.”

Ultimately, because nearly half of the villages (42%) said they Always leave their children with neighbours, and not a single village indicated that they Rarely or Never do so, at the very least this questions shows that people will trust their children to their neighbours’ care if necessary. Possibly, then, this question indicates that although levels of suspicion and distrust between neighbours do not seem to be high, the level of trust is not necessarily high either. Overall, it seems that there is a small portion of the population experiencing moderate levels of trust and that women are less trusting of others than men. Moreover, community trust levels seem to be lower than levels of social interaction and community togetherness. While these trends can be identified, the reasons behind them remain unclear.

21

7. Environmental Awareness An integral component of the MGKD project is the promotion of environmental protection

principles. All villages selected for an MGKD grant are required to complete an environmental impact assessment as part of their project proposal. One of the goals of this survey was to understand the levels of environmental awareness of villagers, as well as to get a sense of the current environmental protection practices that villagers employ.

The most familiar environmental issues for villagers are illegal logging (69%), pesticide use (44%) and soil erosion (30%). Less familiar issues include herbicide use (22%), overfishing (11%), and coral fishing (5%). The majority of respondents (77%) had never received information, education or training about environmental problems prior to the MGKD project. No one has ever heard of climate change or global warming. It is recommended that villagers planning a community project in any of the areas mentioned above receive information on these topics, especially on the less familiar issues.

The most common environmental protection practices that villagers employ are the planting of trees, mangroves or plants (30%), as well as appropriate waste disposal (22%). Less common is the use of organic fertilizer (8%); responsible tree cutting (5%); drainage and flood prevention (5%); and construction of appropriate sanitation infrastructure (5%).

8. Perceptions of the MGKD Project The following section outlines the perceptions and expectations of the MGKD before the

project’s implementation, and will be a useful reference when surveying people’s level of satisfaction with MGKD after Phase 2 implementation.

Overall, enthusiasm for the MGKD project is very high, with all the villages (100%) saying that the project is welcome in their village. Only two of 36 villages (5%) said they had some doubts about MGKD, and in both cases the concern was whether or not the project would be carried through. The majority of the villages (95%) said they had no doubts or concerns, with five villages adding that residents had faith in the project because either they had (1) seen the results of MGKD in neighbouring villages, (2) had spoken with other MGKD recipients and knew the MGKD process to be clear and expedient, or (3) were generally familiar with IOM’s work and logo.

When asked what peace building benefits people thought MGKD will bring to their village, people tended to identify benefits for the community as a whole. Fifty-six (56%) said they

22

hoped the project would make the village more peaceful, and 53% percent said they hoped it will help villagers work together; only 19% said they hoped it will make former combatants feel more welcome in the village. These figures suggest that people’s perceptions of the peace-building process tend to be associated with positive changes within the overall community, rather than for any particular conflict-affected group. This perception of peace building is important to keep in mind when conducting the evaluation of MGKD Phase 2. As people will likely see any improvements in terms of changes within the community, it would be better to focus on evaluating community structures, rather than individual benefits.

An unexpected finding regarding people’s expectations of MGKD was that a significant portion of the participants associated potential project benefits with material gains. Many view the MGKD project as an economic development project, rather than a “peace-building” or “reintegration project,” as such. Thirty-six (36%) percent hope that the program will improve the economic prosperity of their village, and another 22% said that they hope the program will allow them to increase communal village assets by, for example, purchasing wedding equipment, dinnerware and utensils. This trend is made more significant by the fact that the survey did not offer participants the option to choose “village prosperity” as an option; villagers volunteered this information independently.

What does this finding suggest? Mainly, that concepts of peace and peace building in Aceh are associated with economic development. Past grievances dealing with unjust resource distribution and economic deprivation were the primary causes of conflict in Aceh. As such, the stabilization of peace in the region is inherently linked to economic development and increased levels in material wellbeing.8 When you ask people for evidence of peace in their communities, they will likely look for evidence of material improvements as much as improved community interaction.

Women’s focus group discussion in Tanjung Tualang, Aceh Timur (May 22nd 2008)

8 As mentioned in Section 6, inequitable economic development and unfair resource distribution was the most frequent explanation among participants who said they were not sure if the peace in Aceh would last.

23

This finding has two important implications for MGKD in terms of post-implementation evaluation and project socialization. First, it means that we cannot evaluate the success of MGKD only in terms of positive changes in community dynamics. When thinking about impact, it is just as important to ask people about perceived changes in social cohesion and interaction as it is about perceived changes in the community’s material wellbeing and village prosperity. For villages, both are indicators that the peace process is working, and both are therefore relevant to MGKD. Second, when evaluating project socialization thus far, it is important to keep in mind villagers’ strong association of peace with economic development. When we ask villagers about the purpose and goals of the MGKD project, they will inevitably reply “development,” “poverty reduction” etc, as often (if not more often) than “peace building,” “reintegration,” or “community cohesion.” This is not a sign that socialization is not working, but that for villagers it is merely a different way of answering “peace.”

Ninety-four percent (94%) of the communities surveyed have had some type of development project implemented in their village, and in all but two cases it was in part of a government development initiative, such as PNPM (Program Nasional Pemberdayaan Masyarakat or National Program on Community Empowerment) or BRA (Badan Reintegrasi Aceh or Aceh Reintegration Agency) projects. Most villages received either construction assistance (61%), materials and equipment (38%), a grant (33%) or a combination of both. Although many villages said there were no issues associated with project implementation (58%), nearly half experienced some type of problem. Problems included not enough transparency (7 villages), not enough participation (2 villages), project delays (2 villages), low quality of infrastructure (1 village), a poor delivery mechanism (1 village) and in one case a request for a bribe by former combatants.

9. Conclusions Findings on Current Community Dynamics

The overall findings for this survey indicate that many aspects of daily life in post-conflict communities have returned to normal and levels of social cohesion tend to be very high. When considering the general trends within the survey, the high levels of social cohesion evident within the majority of communities suggest that at the village level, the peace appears to be stabilized.

However, it is important to keep three points in mind. First, considering that it has been over three years since the signing of the MOU, the security situation on the ground has increased dramatically due to the cessation of hostilities between rebel and government forces. It is therefore not surprising that in many communities life has returned to normal.

24

Second, while evidence of strong social dynamics is an unquestionably positive development, it is important to note that there is a strong possibility that the survey figures from which this finding has been drawn are somewhat inflated. This is because a cultural norm concerning the sharing of critical, negative or personal information outside the family circle posed a challenge for data collection. It is therefore likely that people were reluctant to express concerns, doubts and criticisms, especially if they were concerned that raising feelings of insecurity and doubt might label their village as “problematic” and jeopardize funding.

Lastly, it needs to be emphasized that despite the general trend of high social cohesion, there are still areas of community life where the effects of conflict continue to influence community dynamics. In terms of social interaction, some former combatants and women are underrepresented in decision-making structures, and women tend to participate less frequently in social activities than men. In some villages the effects of conflict still linger and make people uncomfortable announcing political gatherings and discussing politics and security issues out of a concern this will cause tensions and conflict within their community. Two notable problems were identified in areas of trust and security. Over a third of the villages surveyed are uncertain of the sustainability of the peace process, usually because of concerns about inequitable economic development and perceived rising levels of criminalization in Aceh. In terms of trust, people tended to exhibit relatively low levels of trust (especially among women) when compared to the high levels of social cohesion evident within the rest of the survey.

In summary, what are the implications of the survey findings for the MGKD Phase 2? First, in those areas where the effects of conflict are still highly evident, MGKD peace building efforts are of critical importance for peace stabilization. Moreover, even in those areas where life has returned to normal, the MGKD project is still highly relevant. Considering the large number of people who have doubts regarding the peace process, it is vital that whatever peace building progress has already been made, it is maintained, supported and built upon to ensure its sustainability.

J. Grigorovich and participants from a women’s focus group discussion in Tanjung Tualang, Aceh Tumur (May

25

Recommendations for Phase 2 Post‐Implementation Evaluation

The following are some suggestions for the Phase 2 post-implementation evaluation survey:

1. During the evaluation phase it may be necessary to supplement the survey methodology with in-depth personal interviews. This is for two reasons: first, according to the data gathered in this report, community dynamics figures before project implementation are already high, meaning that if the same methodology is applied to the evaluation phase the results will likely be very similar. As such, it will be difficult to evaluate the project impact using quantitative data alone. People’s personal accounts from in-depth interviews may be useful to supplement quantitative FGD and Self-Evaluation data that will likely be numerically similar to the pre-implementation survey. Rather than analyze the percentage difference before and after implementation, the impact of the project might be more evident in the personal accounts of villagers who have experienced changes and benefits within their communities. Second, collecting information that is critical or private in nature has proved difficult during this survey because of cultural norms. In order to get constructive feedback that could be used to improve future projects we would need to ask people for their private and critical opinions, which are more likely to be shared in a private, informal setting.

2. If FGDs are to will be conducted again for the evaluation phase, it would be better to change the structure of the potential responses within the questionnaire. Instead of offering people the option of replying with “Yes” or “No” answers (which, when collated, may result in polarized or extreme trends), it may be better to provide a range of options, like “Somewhat” or “Not at all.” For example, if participants are asked “Do people in this village trust their neighbours?”, instead of a “Yes” or “No” answer it would be better to offer a range of answers, such as, “I trust my neighbour completely” or “I trust my neighbour somewhat.”

3. It is important to emphasize the importance of participant “probing”: when people reply with an answer (“Yes”, “No”, “I'm not sure”) it is necessary to ask them why they supplied that particular answer, what is the reason for that answer and not another. This is the only way to attach meaning to percentage figures and explain numeric trends. Moreover, as village FGD discussions tend to be hectic, facilitators should discuss the session after the end of the FGD to make sure that no important comments were missed. It would also be useful to supply the facilitators with recording equipment to allow them to review responses if needed.

26

Annexes Annex 1: Self Evaluation Pie

27

Annex 2: Pre Implementation FGD Questionnaire (May 2008)

1. SOCIAL INTERACTION 1a. Do people in your village start a casual conversation with someone if they met them outside their home?

Possible Answers Men Women Always Sometimes Rarely Often

1b. Do neighbours typically visit in each other’s homes?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No Other?

28

1c. What kind of group activities do people in the village participate in? (Circle any that apply)

Possible Answer Men Women Chatting over coffee Weddings and funerals Religious holidays and daily prayers Construction Projects Culture and Entertainment Sports Women’s Groups (please specify what kind): Other?

1d. How often do village members collaborate in “gotong royong” activities? (activities in which everyone participates to create an outcome benefiting the entire community)

Possible Answers Men Women Often Sometimes Rarely Never Other?

29

1e. How often do youth (people under 20 years of age) attend social activities like religious, culture, sports, arts or entertainment activities?

Possible Answer Men Women Often Sometimes Rarely Never Other?

1f. How often do village members and former combatants/ amnestied prisoners attend in social activities like religious, culture, sports, arts or entertainment activities?


30

1g1. In what ways do village members and former combatants/amnestied prisoners participate in social events?

Possible Answers Men Women Both are organizers and combatants/amnestied prisoners participate equally Mostly villagers are active participants Mostly former combatants/ amnestied prisoners are active participants Mostly villagers are passive participants Mostly former combatants/ amnestied prisoners are passive participants No one group participates more than another Other?

1.g2 Do former combatants/ amnestied prisoners attend and participate rarely or often?

Possible Answers Men Women Always Sometimes Rarely Never Other?

31

1.h How often do villagers go to local markets to buy and sell goods? (Indicate all that apply)

Possible Answers Frequency Men Women Always buy Always sell Sometimes buy Sometimes sell Rarely buy Rarely sell Never buy Never sell Other?

2. VILLAGE DECISION MAKING 2a. How are decisions made in the village? (Circle all that apply)

Possible Answer Men Women Village meetings Consultations outside village meetings Other? (please specify)

32

2b. Who of the following participates in making decisions? (Indicate all that apply)

Possible Answers Men Women The geuchik The elders Only men Only women Both men and women ex-combatants amnestied prisoners other conflict returnees Village groups (ex. religious groups, educators, etc.) Other?

2c1. If you have village meetings, how do decisions get made?

Possible Answers Men Women Consensus Voting No discussion at all The geuchik decides Other?

2c2. If you have village meetings, how much time does it typically take to reach a decision?

Possible Answers Men Women Little time, after a short discussion A lot of time, after a long discussion It depends on the issue Other?

2c3. If you have village meetings, how many participants attend on average? (Please circle)

33

(30-40) (50-75) (75-100) (100-150) (150-200) (more than 200)

2d1. Are women consulted when making decisions in the village?

Possible Answer Men Women Always Sometimes Rarely Never Only on specific issues (Please specify): Other?

2d2. If women are always or sometimes consulted in village meetings, how do they participate?

Possible Answer Men Women Women actively participate, speak and give input Women sit in but do not participate Women’s participation varies: they sometimes participate and sometimes do not participate

34

2e. How do you feel about the decision making process in your village?

Possible Answer Men Women Like it, don’t want it to change Would like it to change (specify how) Don’t know or not sure Other?

3. Community Togetherness 3a. Do you feel close to the members of this community? (Please circle all that apply)

Possible Answers Men Women Feel close to all the members of the village Feel close to friends and family Feel loyal to the geuchik Feel loyal to the religious leaders Feel loyal to the village elders Feel loyal to the adat DO NOT fee loyal to any members of the village

3b. Do you feel proud of your village?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No (please explain)

35

4. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION 4a. Do people feel that they can express their opinions freely in village meetings, even if their opinion is unpopular or controversial?

Possible Answer Men Women Yes No Depends on the issue, sometimes People feel comfortable and sometimes people feel uncomfortable Other?

If participants indicate an example of an issue that they usually do not feel comfortable discussing please indicate this issue below. Otherwise, DO NOT ask for an elaboration of the issue.

36

4b. Are people comfortable in expressing feelings and opinions to friends, family and neighbours outside village meetings? (Please circle all that apply)

Possible Answers Men Women People feel comfortable expressing their opinions to everyone People only feel comfortable expressing their ideas to close family and friends People do not feel comfortable expressing their opinions to anyone People feel comfortable discussing some ideas freely, but others are not appropriate for discussion. (If participants give an example of a topic, please write below. Otherwise do not ask for examples):

Other?

4c1. Are women comfortable in expressing their opinions to friends, family and neighbours outside village meetings?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No Not Sure Other?

37

4c2. Are women more comfortable in expressing their feelings and opinions to men or to women?

Possible Answers Men Women Women are usually comfortable speaking to both men and women Women are more comfortable speaking with men Women are more comfortable speaking with women Women are never comfortable expressing their feeling and opinions

4d. Do people feel they can freely announce social gatherings?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No Some village members do not feel comfortable announcing social gatherings Not Sure Other?

38

4e. Do people feel they can freely announce political gatherings?

Answer Men Women Yes, people feel free No, people do not feel free Some village GROUPS do not feel comfortable announcing political gatherings. (If participants indicate which groups please write this below, otherwise DO NOT ask): Some village MEMBERS do not feel comfortable announcing social gatherings (If participants indicate which members please write this below, otherwise DO NOT ask) Not sure Other?

39

4f. Do people feel they can freely discuss political topics like the government, political parties, former-combatants, the military, politicians, and upcoming elections? (Please circle those that apply)

Possible Answers Men Women Yes, everyone can discuss these topics No, no one can discuss these topics Some village members do not feel comfortable discussing political issues People feel comfortable discussing some topics but not other topics. (If participants mention topics they are not comfortable with discussing indicate this below, otherwise DO NOT ask for an example)

5. SECURITY 5a. Do you feel afraid about your and your family’s physical security?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No Sometimes (Please explain why or when)

40

5b1. Do you feel any threat from criminal activity outside the village?


5b2. Do you feel any threat from criminal activity inside the village?


If participants specify a type of threat, please indicate it below, otherwise DO NOT ask.

Possible Answers Men Women Torture Rape Murder Intimidation Theft Extortion Disappearances Violence Domestic violence [cross cutting with gender] Sexual harassment [cross cutting with gender] Illegal logging [cross cutting with environment] Other?

41

5c. Do you believe the peace in Aceh will stay?

Possible Answers Men Women No Yes Not sure Other?

5d. Does the sight of the police or military make people in the village afraid?

Possible Answers Men Women No Yes Some groups are afraid when they see the police or military. (If participants specify which groups feel afraid, please indicate these below. Otherwise DO NOT ask):

42

5e. Do villagers feel comfortable going out alone at night?

Possible Answers Men Women All villagers feel comfortable Only women feel uncomfortable Only men feel uncomfortable Only certain groups feel uncomfortable (former combatants, conflict returnees, conflict victims) Everyone feels uncomfortable Other?

5f. Are any village self-defence groups still active?

Possible Answers Men Women No Yes Not sure

5g. Do people from this community visit other villages in the area?

Possible Answers Men Women Always Sometimes Rarely Never Other?

43

5h. Have there been any rumours of threats made against village members for expressing ideas and opinions?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No Not sure Other?

6. TRUST 6a. Do you believe your community members would help you in a personal crisis or problem?

Possible Answers Men Women All my community members would help me My close friends would help me My family would help me My neighbours would help me None of my community members would help me Not sure if anyone would help me Other?

44

6b. Do people in the village share personal information and their problems with their neighbours?

Possible Answers Men Women Always Sometimes Rarely Never Not sure Other?

6c. Do people in your village ever leave each other’s children in their neighbour’s care?


6d. Do neighbours in this village lend each other equipment like farm tools, cooking and wedding equipment or religious items?


45

6e. Do neighbours in this village lend each other money?

Possible Answers Men Women Always Sometimes Rarely Never Not sure

7. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 7a. What kind of environmental issues are you familiar with?

Possible Answers Men Women Illegal logging Over fishing Coral fishing Pesticide use Herbicide use Soil erosion Water pollution Dramatic or unpredictable weather patterns Other?

7b. Have you ever received information, training or education about environmental problems?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes (Please indicate who delivered the information, training or education) No Other?

46

7c. Are there any environmental protection practices you engage in?

Men Women

8. EXPECTATIONS OF MGKD PROJECT 8a. Is the MGKD project welcome in the village?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No Indifferent Not Sure Other?

8b. What benefits do you think the MGKD project will have for your village?

Possible Answers Men Women

47

Make the village more peaceful Help people work together in the future Make ex-combatants feel more welcome in the village I'm not sure Other?

8c. Do you feel any uncertainties or doubts about the MGKD project?

Men Women

8d1. Have there ever been other development projects in this village?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No I'm not sure

8d2. If Yes, who organized these development projects?

Possible Answers Men Women

48

Government projects (ex. KDP-WB Project) International NGOs Local NGOs Other?

8d3. If yes, what kinds of benefits did the village receive from the program?

Possible Answers Men Women Received cash Received grants Received materials and equipment Received training Received infrastructure Other?

8d4. If yes, were there any major problems associated with project implementation?

Possible Answers Men Women Yes No I'm not sure Other?

49

village social dynamics survey: mgkd phase 2 pre...

Documents