Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adrian Morel, Conflict & Development Program, WB Indonesia Presentation to the Development Impact Evaluation Initiative (DIME) workshop Dubai, June 1st, 2010
Summary
o Assistance to conflict victims through community-based approach increasingly used in post-conflict reintegration programs o CDD approach viewed as an effective mechanism for channeling such support: o Ensure the right people benefit (targeting) o Funds are effectively used (transparency, accountability) o Help repair the social fabric (participation, inclusion) o Based on assumption that CDD may not only achieve welfare outcomes but also lead to improvements in social and state-society relations o The BRA-KDP program (2006-2007) delivered US$ 20.4 million in assistance to conflict victims in 1,724 villages (one third of Aceh) o This presentation is based on a large-scale mixed methods evaluation of the program. o Main findings:
o BRA-KDP successful in reaching a large number of conflict-affected people (over 230,000) o Substantial welfare impacts o Less successful in improving social relations and building trust in state
Reintegration in Aceh
o Six months after the Dec 26th 2004 tsunami, the Helsinki MoU peace accord (August 2005) ended 30 years of separatist conflict between the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) and the Government of Indonesia (GoI): o 30,000 deaths; over 400,000 displaced o US$ 10.7 billion in damage and loss; 50% of rural infrastructure damaged or destroyed o 1.5 million Acehnese or 39% of the population consider themselves conflict victims o Government Reintegration Fund (US$ 150 million) set up to help combatants, prisoners and conflict-affected groups o The Aceh Reintegration Board (BRA) established to manage funds and programs Supervision by National Planning Agency (Bappenas)
o BRA-KDP mechanisms:
o Village meetings, facilitated by KDP staff, decided on local criteria for who was a victim and how funds should be spent o Open menu: communities can decide whether to finance public infrastructure or economically beneficial private goods o Ex-combatants not eligible (they receive targeted support from other BRA program)
Questions
o How successful was BRA-KDP in improving the welfare of conflict victims, improving social relations and building trust in the state? o What does the BRA-KDP experience tell us about how CDD can be used for reintegration in other post-conflict areas?
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
o Prioritizing conflict victims within villages, although others can also benefit (community decision-making)
o Throughout analysis, we look at whether treatment effects are different for conflict-affected and most conflict-affected. These were based primarily on self-reported answers to the survey
569
629
668
PROGRAM IMPACTS
All
Conflict victims
Most conflict-affected
0.13 0.04 -0.09 0.43 (282) (269) (0.12) (0.26) *** Significant at 99%; ** Significant at 95%; * Significant at 90%. The table reports population average responses (with sample Ns below, where total sample size is 2315), and the difference for populations in treatment and control communities using least squares and instrumental variable regressions. All regressions control for conflict and spending capacity, their quadratic and cubed terms, and their interaction. Question: How many of the following things do you or a member of your household possess?
Gains for conflict victims in overall asset holdings Largest difference was for motorbikes Little evidence that the project directly funded motorbikes. Program participants used money they generated from extra economic opportunities to buy bikes.
TABLE 1: LAND USE Individuals in Individuals in control treatment communities communities (N) (N) 7740.13 (644) 6905.98 (245) 9437.52 (617) 7043.51 (297)
Difference IV (se)
Conflict victims
Most Conflict-affected
8215.34 7607.05 (152) (200) *** Significant at 99%; ** Significant at 95%; * Significant at 90%. 2 Question: How many m of land is being farmed by this household?
Conflict victims in treatment communities have more than 7500 sq-meters of additional land cleared as a result of the program (a doubling of land use)
Social Impacts
Acceptance of returning groups, reported social tensions, measures of collective action capacity / involvement in associational life: similar between treatment and control areas No consistent evidence of impacts positive or negative of BRA-KDP on attitudes towards government / state These findings contrast with other research on KDP in Indonesia: positive impacts on various measures of social cohesion Might result from BRA-KDP being one-off and spent on private goods less opportunities for cohesion-building collective action
Communities in project areas more accepting of ex-combatants BUT conflict victims significantly less likely to accept former combatants after program implementation Reasons: Ex-GAM extorted funds from BRA-KDP, leading to higher levels of non-acceptance; BRA-KDP empowered non-GAM groups in society, enabling them to voice their non-acceptance of GAM
CONCLUSIONS
o rapid compensation in ways hat have significant welfare impacts in post-conflict environments o delivering private goods
o Scope for post-conflict compensation projects that have developmental impacts in other conflict-affected areas
o Need to better link CDD with other post-conflict programs / possibly best to have same programs for ex-combatants and civilians rather than separate ones
o CDD not a silver bullet peace-building solution. It does not inevitably results in enhanced social cohesion, in particular when programs have a limited duration.
Recommendations
Continue to experiment with CDD as a mechanism for reintegration, gather information on what works and what does not, where and why in order to inform the design of future post-conflict interventions In post-conflict areas where relations between former combatants and civilians are relatively good, deliver assistance to both groups altogether using the same mechanism Deliver assistance over multiple rounds to maximize social impacts
Full Reports
o Adrian Morel, Makiko Watanabe, Rob Wrobel (2009), Delivering Assistance to Conflict-Affected Communities: The BRA-KDP Program in Aceh. ISDP No. 13. Jakarta, WB o Patrick Barron, Macartan Humphreys, Laura Paler and Jeremy Weinstein (2009), Community-Based Reintegration in Aceh: Assessing the Impacts of BRAKDP. ISDP No. 12. Jakarta, WB
Thanks!