|
|
|
International Journal of Political
Science and Development Vol. 1(1), pp. 8–31,
August, 2013. ISSN: 2360-784X ©2013 Academic Research
Journals
Full
Length Research Paper
Testing conflict sensitivity of development projects in Ghana an
evaluation of two projects in Ejisu-juaben district, Ashanti Region
Sheka Bangura
Development Assistance
Coordination Office, 13 Bath Street, Brook Fields Freetown, Sierra
Leone.
E-mail.
shekabangs@yahoo.co.uk
Accepted 20 August, 2013
There has been serious
concern about the nexus between development assistance and conflicts
in the recipient nations. Thus, donors have been rethinking their
assistance packages to ensure a conflict sensitive response to the
development needs of poor countries. This paper examined the level
of conflict sensitivity of two development projects in Ejisu-Juaben
District in the Ashanti Region of Ghana. A framework of indicators
was developed to analyze the survey data. One project (a borehole
construction) was found to be moderately sensitive to conflict while
the other (a livestock development project) was found to be highly
sensitive. The former suspended operations due to land conflict, a
situation mainly attributable to a discovered policy weakness
surrounding the operations of the District Water and Sanitation
Projects. The continuity of the livestock development project
suggested a remarkable integration of conflict management concepts
into its operations.
Key words: Conflict sensitivity, development project,
community, district.
INTRODUCTION
There is growing concern and rethinking in the global development
industry in respect of conflict-related risks surrounding
development interventions. While conflicts have prevented
development progress in certain regions, experience has shown that
development activities themselves have contributed to the ignition
and escalation of a number of conflicts in other work places (Shore,
1998; Saferworld et al., 2000; Engel, 2001; Leonhardt, 2001a; 2001b;
DFID, 2002; Barbolet et al., 2003). Strong advocacy is underway to
ensure that development concepts are planned around conflict
sensitivity to enhance development results and ensure peaceful
co-existence among communities. Donors are developing conflict
responsive frameworks to guide development assistance towards
project regions underpinned by high risks of conflicts.
Traditionally, most institutions respond to conflicts when they
result into violence. This has made contemporary conflict
interventions highly costly. Enough attention has not been given to
the root factors and symptoms that precede violent situations
thereby making eventual crisis interventions extremely expensive.
Incorporating conflict management principles at the outset of
project programming is consistent with good practice suggesting
preventive instead of curative measures against violent crises,
noting that conflict is always and everywhere a natural phenomenon.
Violence is only a way of expressing conflicts in the absence of
their timely and peaceful resolution (Nobleza and Nyheim, 2000).
The purpose of this paper is to examine how sensitive to conflicts
on local development projects in Ejisu-Juaben District in the
Ashanti Region of Ghana. There is need to establish the correlation
between development activities and conflicts in project communities.
Sustainable development as a subject of current international debate
can be perceived from various perspectives. This paper is focused
inter alia on generating “conflict lens” for development actors to
promote local development sustainability. Local development
sustainability is defined in this context as a situation where the
conflict risks associated with development projects in their area of
operations are extremely minimized and consistent with the
successful implementation of the project activities without
disruption. The paper explores a range of conflict sensitive
planning methods to guide development workers in conflict prone
environments. Project failures are commonly primarily attributed to
lack of funds, mismanagement and poor technical capacity among
others. While these are crucial factors to consider, there is
growing awareness that conflict risks surrounding project activities
have been equally a fertile source of project failures. This is a
reality that this paper has established.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows:
(i) A conceptual framework; defining what conflict is, depicting the
consequences of project design without a conflict management
component, highlighting various methods of building conflict
sensitivity into project planning. (ii) An overview of communal
conflicts in Ghana and the country’s development policy response to
conflict issues. (iii) Research methodology and approach. (iv)
Survey data. (v) Conclusion.
A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Definition of Conflict
Conflict can be defined as “a relationship between two or more
interdependent parities in which at least one of the parties
perceives the relationship to be negative or detects and pursues
opposing interests and needs. Both parties are convinced that they
are in the right.” (Leonhardt, 2001.) Warner (2001) says “conflict
is a very fluid, mobile and ambiguous word that in different context
can mean different things to different people; it can be a debate or
test; a disagreement, argument, dispute, quarrel; a struggle, battle
or confrontation; or a state of unrest, turmoil or chaos”. This
paper deduces the concept of conflict as a situation of mounting
tension, difference or disagreement between parties over resources,
power, position, interest, opinion, religion, ethnic issues, etc. in
a social setting. These are events that (overtly or covertly) are
always found in local communities where projects are actually
operationalised. A number of such conflicts are hidden in project
settlements and are a potential for project disruption.
Projects ‘with’ and ‘without’ conflict management (CM) component
Figure 1. presents two-effect scenarios for a project operating in
conflict prone environment. These are outcome scenarios resulting
from ‘with’ and ‘without’ conflict management component in the
project design. The direction of the dotted arrows indicates
undesirable project effects if CM component is not built into the
project; the converse holds for a project with CM component, which
is expected to enjoy smooth operations. A project with CM component
is deemed to be maximizing the likelihood of achieving desired
project objectives by running low risks of disruption; the one
without a CM component would be maximizing the likelihood of running
high risks of disruption.
Building Conflict Sensitivity into Project Planning
The contemporary literature contains various conceptual methods and
procedures for integrating conflicts issues into project planning
and management. These methods can be utilised at national and local
level development programming. They are intended for application in
both violent and nonviolent conflict situations.
Conflict analysis: To understand conflict complexities surrounding
their areas, all development actors are advised to adopt conflict
analysis. This should cover the potential, economic and social
manifestations and effects of a national conflict in the project
region, conflicts from a neighbouring region, or conflicts emerging
in the project region itself (OECD-DAC, 2001; Leonhardt, 2001).
According to Barbolet et al (2003), this should involve a systematic
study of the profile, causes, actors, and dynamics of conflict,
Warner (2001) describing it as the mapping of actual or potential
conflict based on information already available or which can be
readily gathered. Performing such analysis is viewed as taking a
close-up of the conflict in which the local causes, coping
strategies, and individual conflict actors can be examined in
detail. This helps to gain understanding of the problem areas in
which external organizations can make a meaningful contribution in
reducing the potential for conflict and advancing the peace-building
process. Conflict analysis thus involves the following steps:
conflict profiling and mapping; actor or stakeholder analysis;
structural cause analysis; prioritization of conflicts and causes;
trends and opportunities.
Project planning in conflict situation: It is advised that the
formulation of project strategy should come after a thorough
conflict analysis. And to start actual strategy development and
planning of the project in conflict environment, there is need to
first carry out a capacity analysis entailing a critical look at the
capacity of the project’s own organization with regards to its
mandate, its position in the conflict context and its material and
human resources in relation to the strategy being considered. This
guides the organization towards the execution of those tasks for
which it is best suited and the maximization of complementarity with
other organizations’ work (Leonhardt, 2001a). Doing an objective
after capacity analysis is seen to be necessary as a next step, to
critically specify what the project wants to achieve noting its
strength and weakness. Then, the project strategy can effectively be
developed, highlighting the individual areas of responsibility for
the project and partners, laying down the initial steps. Project
entry point can be defined here with regard to addressing conflicts
alongside its works, using project usual planning methods.
Subsequently, there is need to develop conflict indicators to
monitor whether the conflict-related purpose of the project is
achieved, and it should not be mistaken for the primary project
purpose indicators (Gaigals and Leonhardt, 2001).
Conflict impact assessment: Conflict impact assessment (CIA) looks
at the way a project is organized and the impact the project has in
relation to conflict emergence and associated risks. CIA is a tool
recommended for use by all development projects implemented in
regions with an average to high risk of conflict, to be part of the
regular programme monitoring as early as possible (Shore 1998;
Leonhardt, 2001b). The derived conflict impact statements can be a
useful meter to measure the sensitivity of project activity to
potential or ongoing conflict in the project region. CIA involves
conflict analysis (already discussed above), risk appraisal, impact
assessment itself, and adaptation. Risk appraisal entails examining
the concept, organization and activities of the project for
potential negative influences on existing conflicts (Anderson, 2000;
Leonhardt, 2001a/b; DFID, 2002; Barbolet et al., 2003). It is widely
accepted that it is difficult for a development actor to remain
neutral in a conflict. The structure of development projects,
defined by variables such as the type of staff they employ and their
partners, could raise serious suspicion about the project siding one
party or the other in conflict. Where there is yet to be serious
conflict, the project structure may be such that certain social
class in the project settlements is favoured more than the others.
It is thus advised that the project team take a bird’s eye-view in
their everyday project work at regular intervals and critically
examine self-evident things with regard to conflict implications,
noting that many decisions and practices which appear rational and
justified from the development policy standpoint in their immediate
context can be problematic in practical terms (Leonhardt, 2001a/b).
During the project implementation stage, impact assessment
identifies actual consequences of the activities on conflicts. The
impacts are to be monitored regularly in order to pre-empt negative
trends and to identify particular opportunities to take positive
action. Adaptation involves the examination of risk appraisal and
impact assessment statements to judge the need for any possible
action following the end of each monitoring phase of the project.
This stage looks for feedbacks from project actions and ascertains
whether there is need for re-planning or ending the project owing to
conflict matters in the project region. The project could be
terminated if its continuity is anticipated to lead to long-term
instability in its work region. It is argued that, risks should not
be taken for short-term benefit derived from the project when
long-run negative impact on social relations in the project
settlements is imminent. (Barbolet et al., 2003; Leonhardt ,
2001a/b.)
Coordination of development activities: Implications for conflict
are said to be serious where there is lack of coordination of
development assistance. Gaigals and Leonhardt (2001) argued that
“one reason for the failure of development assistance to maximize
the possibilities for peace building has been the lack of
co-ordination between donors,” and that “poorly coordinated and
incoherent policies have, on occasions, resulted in donor engagement
undermining efforts specifically targeted to address the underlying
causes of conflict.” Besides wasting scarce resources through
duplication, lack of coordination of development can lead to
oversubscribing of assistance in one locality. Consequently,
inequality between regions and settlements would be increased and
this could have conflict implication; thus, the need for
coordination among actors.
OVERVIEW OF COMMUNAL CONFLICTS AND
DEVELOPMENT POLICY OF GHANA
Relative to its neighbours in the West African sub-region in recent
times, Ghana has been reported to be going through a period of
political stability. However, a critical examination of the
country’s communal dynamics leaves many to see the ‘relative
stability’ as a paradox. That is, the country has been nonetheless
characterized by various longstanding communal conflicts. Many of
these conflicts are said to be traces of “colonial policies of
indirect rule and the practice of elevating favoured chiefs without
sensitivity to the multi-ethnic character of various colonial
territories.” (Tsikata and Seini, 2004). Tsikata and Seini broadly
classify conflicts in Ghana into (i) inter-ethnic conflicts over
land and political power, (ii) intra-ethnic disputes over succession
to traditional political office or boundary disputes, and (iii)
religious disputes between factions of Islam, Muslims and
Christians, and Christians and adherents of traditional religions.
Various types of conflicts are reported in a number of regions
including Ashanti where the study district is located. Exclusively
discussed in the paper by Tsikatah and Seini are the Konkomba
conflicts in the North, Dagbon chieftaincy disputes in the North,
Nkonya-Alavanyo disputes in the Volta Region, and the Ga State and
the Christian Churches conflict in the Greater Accra Region, placing
Chieftaincy disputes at the centre of all communal conflicts.
The message from above is that, it is extremely pertinent that all
development projects in the Ghanaian communities be conflict
sensitive to ensure that communal disputes are not accommodated
while exploring avenues by which development projects could make a
positive difference in the conflicts as they pursue their intended
objectives.
It is all the more crucial to capture conflict management concepts
in national development policy frameworks. The vast majority of
conflicts all over the world are propelled by struggles to meet
economic ends. Acute economic crisis and poverty have engendered
serious instabilities and conflicts in poor nations. The imbalanced
spatial development in poverty stricken nations has aggravated these
conflicts among identities to see through various interests.
Therefore, all poverty reduction frameworks should include mechanism
to ensure peaceful co-existence by the implementation of equitable
growth and development strategies. The Ghana Poverty Reduction
Strategy (GPRS) had not expressed a considerable degree of conflict
sensitivity as a crucial development issue in the country. The
Strategy had some reflection of conflict management principles,
though, as it emphasized participatory approaches to development
planning processes, transparency and accountability, and ensuring
access by the general public to information regarding government and
private sector activities. However, given the number of communal
disputes reported on Ghana, and to be in tune with current donor
concern, it would be crucial if conflict sensitivity could clearly
be integrated at both policy and operational levels in the country.
RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The paper presents a case study research, deeply examining conflict
sensitivity of two local projects in the Ejisu-Juaben District of
Ghana (2001). The variables for the analysis were largely
qualitative, including people’s perceptions, views, opinions,
experiences, motivations, interests, actions and reactions,
participation, attitudes etc. Efforts were made to derive
quantitative statistics for some of the responses. The analysis was
largely indicator based.
Survey Structure
Selection of study district: Firstly, all Ghanaian Districts were
equally representative case studies for this research once
development activities took place in all of them. This conviction is
based on the assumption that conflicts exist everywhere and at all
times, and that every conflict no matter how minor has a potential
to become violent and disrupt development activities. Secondly, the
study focused on efforts to prevent conflicts, a scenario where
violent conflict may not necessarily have occurred. Thus, any
district/region in a poor nation could be taken for a peace and
development study in this context.
Therefore, the author looked for a
district close to his residence in Ghana to reduce cost of the
research. Ejisu-Juaben District was selected among four initially
considered districts, including Kumasi Metropolis, after further
screening and consultations with local authorities and other
researchers.
Selection of case-study projects: The author held rounds of
discussions with Ejisu-Juaben district officials with a view to
identifying case-study projects. Conflict issues in the district
were broadly discussed at this stage. Subsequently, two projects
were purposively selected for the analysis. One of the chosen
projects (a borehole project) had suspended operations due to land
dispute in its location. The second selected project for the study
was a livestock development project with undisturbed implementation
of activities. See background information to these projects in the
analysis Section.
Research Instruments: Various methods were employed to collect the
data including participatory approaches. (See Table 1) Owing to the
sensitive nature of the research, with special reference to the
borehole project which was witnessing serious community dispute over
land, district officials and community members participated in the
collection of the data. Table 1 summarises the survey structure.
Analytical framework
With the help of the reviewed literature, several analytical
indicators were derived to test project response to conflicts. Broad
analytical dimensions were first derived, followed by the derivation
of sub-indicators.
Definition of local projects’ sensitivity to conflicts: The paper
defines local projects’ sensitivity to conflicts as the extent to
which development projects make effort to integrate conflict
management principles into their activities to prevent communal
tensions/clashes due to project intervention or prevent existing
conflicts from intensifying so as to ensure general community
stability and sustainability of the project activities. In other
words, it looks at the degree of responsiveness of the projects to
community conflicts in an effort to identify entry points from where
the project can contribute towards resolving the conflict in order
to ensure continuity of project work.
Construction and measurement of indicators for sensitivity analysis:
Eight analytical dimensions were derived and applied to investigate
the extent to which case projects integrated conflict management
methods into their cycles. Four of these dimensions were examined
descriptively due to difficulty of developing clear sub-indicators
to measure them. The remaining four were examined quantitatively
since sub-indicators were clearly developed, using scale points to
gauge project sensitivity. Table 2. summarizes the information on
the eight dimensions employed for the analysis.
Quantitative dimensions and sub-indicators: Borrowing from the logic
of Likert Scale, the paper adopted three scale levels and scores to
evaluate the degree of project sensitivity to conflict against the
four quantitative analytical dimensions (4, 5, 7 and 8 Table 2). The
projects’ performance scores are 1, 2 and 3, where 1 is awarded for
insignificant project sensitivity to conflicts, 2 is awarded for
moderate sensitivity, and 3 for high sensitivity. Appendices 1, 2, 3
and 4 show these four dimensions and their sub-indicators, spelling
out the basis for the projects being awarded a particular score. For
example, 12 indicators were developed under risk appraisal
dimension. The first indicator is to investigate the issue of the
language commonly spoken among project staff, which has been viewed
in the literature as having conflict implication. It is argued that
the more local project staff you have speaking the same mother
tongue the more the tendency that the staff will accord undue
project support to a local people of the same ethnic identity. Thus,
in this paper, if less than 15% of the project staff had the same
mother tongue, the indicator would reveal high sensitivity to
conflict from the said project and would be awarded a score of 3; if
it had such staff between 15-30% of the total number, the project
would be recorded for moderate sensitivity with a score of 2; if
such staff were more than 30% of the total, insignificant
sensitivity would be recorded with a score of 1 (see Appendix 1).
This analytical logic applies for the rest of the indicators under
risk appraisal, as well as those found under the remaining
quantitative dimensions----conflict monitoring and early warning
system; coordination with other projects/institutions, and community
participation (see Appendix 2, 3 and 4).
For each of the four quantitative dimensions, a total score for the
given sensitivity or scale level (insignificance, moderate or high)
was first obtained, followed by an average grand score which was
used to judge the level of sensitivity of the projects to conflict.
Three ranges of values were developed for each dimension, with the
objective of determining the one the grand score (GS) would fall
into. The ranges were determined depending on the number of
sub-indicators used for the project evaluation. The number lines in
Figures 2, 3, 4 depict these ranges and are referred to as the
sensitivity lines or rulers to measure the degree of projects’
sensitivity to conflict.
To demonstrate how evaluation decision was reached as to whether a
project was sensitive to conflict or not, consider the sensitivity
line for risk appraisal dimension (with 12 sub-indicators) in the
following Figure.
If all 12 indicators were applied, the average project’s
responsiveness to conflict for the relevant dimension would be
recorded insignificant if its grand score (GS) took any value from 1
to 12; the sensitivity would be moderate if the GS took value from
13 to 24; and high if the GS took any value from 25 upwards, noting
that the scale score for insignificant project response against a
sub-indicator is 1, moderate response is 2, and 3 for high response.
The decision logic is based on the reasoning that if there were 12
sub-indicators under a dimension, the maximum total score for
moderate response is 24 if no score was recorded for insignificance
and high response, leaving moderate response with an average GS
score of 24. So that, where scores were distributed across the
scale, a GS of more than 24 that is 25 upwards---automatically
records high sensitivity on the average. A GS taking any value from
1 to 12 denotes insignificant response, so that from 13 to 24
signifies moderate response. This argument was used in the
evaluation decision under the three other quantitative dimensions
whose sensitivity lines are shown in Figure 3.
Descriptive/narrative dimensions: The projects were evaluated
descriptively under the remaining four analytical dimensions due to
difficulty in getting feasible sub-indicators. This made the
evaluation here less objective. The descriptive dimensions are
community conflict profiling, stakeholder analysis, conflict cause
analysis, and adaptation (dimension 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Table 2). A
score (1, 2 or 3) was awarded each project given its level of
reflection on each of these dimensions in an effort to become
conflict sensitive.
Determining final sensitivity score:
Having evaluated the projects on each of the eight dimensions, the
various scores of each project were pooled for final evaluation (see
the final evaluation scheme in Appendix 5). The logic in reaching
the final decision as to whether a project was sensitive to conflict
on the whole remained the same as the framework set for the
quantitative analytical approach discussed above, where the combined
dimensions appeared as broad indicators. In this case, the number
line developed for the final evaluation is referred to as the grand
sensitivity line is shown in Figure 4.
A major assumption underlying this framework is that, all indicators
have the same weights. They were taken to be equally important
conflict issues against which project sensitivity can be evaluated.
All indicators reinforce one and the other in terms of projects’
response to conflict. However, this assumption could depend on the
situation under review. Other researchers on the same topic in
different location may suggest attaching different weights to such
indicators.
Weaknesses of the analytical model
The paper is not oblivious of the eminent subjectivity of the
analysis, but this was beyond the researcher’s control given the
nature of the research; most of the variables encountered were
mainly qualitative. There were problems of summation as shown by
trying to bring together different sensitivity level values,
resulting to pulling up and down of the grand score. If frequency
statistics were used, a project can be awarded a score for
insignificant sensitivity but by adding scores across would pull up
its grand score to a higher sensitivity level thereby creating a
tendency to blur decision. However, this is just the natural problem
of using averages in reaching decision---it is always affected by
extreme values. On the whole, the logic behind the construct was
very strong to enable decisive decision.
Suitability of indicators
The study projects were not of the same nature in terms of coverage,
staff requirement, finance, institutional set-up, etc. In totality,
the borehole project was very small and was community specific
relative to the livestock development project (LDP), which covered
the entire district. Though all the eight analytical dimensions were
applicable in analyzing both projects, the sub-indicators for some
dimensions were not all applicable to the two projects. For
instance, not all sub-indicators developed under the risk appraisal
dimension were suitable for application in the case of the borehole
project-----e.g 1, 2, 5 and 6 in Appendix F1 were not necessary in
the case of the borehole analysis. This contrast was due to the fact
that conflict related issues like language spoken by project staff,
spatial assignment of extension staff across Area Councils and
spatial distribution of beneficiaries were not necessary for
application to the borehole since the project was community specific
and all inhabitants in the project settlement (Hwereso town) were
beneficiaries unlike the LDP which entailed targeting of
beneficiaries; and the borehole project implementing staff were just
the four members of the District Water and Sanitation Team, the
District Coordinating Director and one assistant, while the LDP
staff were more than twenty.
RESULTS
This section analyzes the data obtained from the field.
The analysis started with the borehole project’s sensitivity to
conflict estimated against each of the eight analytical dimensions,
followed by the livestock development project against the same
dimensions.
Sensitivity analysis of the borehole project
The project was supported by the World Bank and managed by the Water
and Sanitation Team of Ejisu-Juaben District. It entailed the
construction of two boreholes within the township of Hwereso. The
first borehole was successfully constructed and now in use. However,
the siting process of the second borehole met stiff resistance from
an individual claiming to be the owner of the plot of land where the
hydro geologist sited the water point. The alleged owner of the plot
uprooted the peg the hydro geologist placed on the land indicating
the water point. Upon receiving the information about this
development, the Odikro (that is the town chief of Hwereso) took the
matter to court against the said landowner on behalf of the
community. According to the Odikro, during an interview with him,
the community took the said landowner to court for causing damage to
public property. But 80% of the town residents interviewed said the
claimant owned the disputed land against 20% who said he did not own
the land. Unfortunately, the said landowner denied the author
audience when approached for his own version of the dispute. This
conflict, starting in October 2004, considerably delayed the
continuity of the project.
In the following subsections, the survey data were analyzed to
evaluate the degree of responsiveness of the project management to
community conflicts in general, and the land dispute in particular.
As discussed in the analytical framework, eight dimensions with
their indicators were applied in testing the level of sensitivity of
the project.
Community conflict profiling
All borehole project staff (the District Water and Sanitation Team)
indicated that they were not aware of any community dispute at the
project location (Hwereso Town) before the project was implemented.
But the community members (the intended beneficiaries including the
Odikro and the Unit Committee) indicated that, the land conflict
that led to the suspension of the borehole construction had been
there before the project was started. This infers that the project
management never made effort to initially engage the community
authorities to understand past or present conflict situation there,
knowledge of which would have brought about informed project
activity to ensure unhindered progress. Therefore, it was evaluated
under this dimension that the project’s sensitivity to conflicts was
insignificant and thus awarded a score of 1.
Stakeholder analysis
During a discussion held with a cross-section of the project
officials regarding the position of the project team and the
District Assembly in the said land dispute, the officials indicated
that their development interventions will not interfere into
community conflicts. This statement was in conformity with the
guidelines for the pre-selection of communities for water &
sanitation (WATSAN) assistance contained in the WATSAN district
operational manual. In these guidelines, it was highlighted under
community conflicts and disputes that ‘……. it will be impossible to
implement projects in communities involved in disputes over
chieftaincy, land, or ethnic issues’, it continued further that ‘
…..if you are aware of any such dispute, then set the community
aside until such time as it is resolved’ (District Operational
Manual 2000, 24). This depicts total irresponsiveness of water
projects managed by the District Assembly to community disputes that
stand on their way. Meanwhile, the key stakeholders to the land
dispute (the ‘landowner’ and the Odikro) were said to have
individually reported the matter to the District Assembly. While the
WATSAN team were saying the project site should be relocated once
the court could not reach a ruling, the community was against it
since they would bear the relocation cost, the landowner expressing
fear that he would be badly affected if the borehole was sunk in his
land. The Town authorities cast serious blame on the District
Assembly for the continuity of the stalemate since they, as the
project managers, refused to bring together the key conflict
stakeholders to find a mutually benefiting solution for the
continuity of the project. The project was again awarded a score of
1 for insignificant sensitivity to conflicts.
Cause Analysis
The project staff discerned some causes of the borehole conflict
when it was reported to them. One cause enumerated was that lands
within and around the township of Hwereso had become attractive and
pretty much expensive due to the ongoing national inland port
project at Boankra community, a neighbouring community to Hwereso
both of which were located along the Kumasi-Accra road. The demand
for lands around the inland port project site was increasing
including Hwereso community lands. Consequently, according to the
WATSAN team, the Odikro of Hwereso town, as the custodian of the
community lands, had decided to hold back some portion of the land
acquired by the other party to the conflict due to the Boankra-project-induced
value added to lands. Though the borehole project management did not
seem to incorporate knowledge of this into its activity in Hwereso,
it may have informed them towards developing better strategies for
future public works in communities. In this dimension, the project
responsiveness was thus evaluated to be moderate and therefore
awarded a score of 2 for the effort made in trying to investigate
the cause of the conflict.
Risk Appraisal
Table 3 presents conflict sensitivity results under risk appraisal
dimension with sensitivity indicators ranging from: proportion of
youth representation on the community WATSAN management committee,
proportion of women representation on the committee, to the
selection process of committee members, and committee members
knowledge of conflict resolution. The results indicated that the
youth were not represented on WATSAN committee. The participation of
youth in community development activities is crucial for the
sustainability of projects, whom otherwise are a potential force to
undermine the continuity of projects. It was revealed that all
committee members were 40 years and above. Based on this ground, the
project’s response to conflict was evaluated as insignificant with a
score of 1 (indicator 1 Table 3). Regarding gender, the survey
indicated that 29% of the WATSAN committee members were women. This
percentage was far below the female representation threshold of 50%
and above set in the district WATSAN operational manual. From
various viewpoints, women are most crucial in household management
to which water is a great need. Thus, deemed to feel the impact of
acute shortage of water resource most, women should be highly
represented on community water management committees. In poor
countries, a lot (if not most) of the community water related
conflicts and fights involve women as they are, for many traditions,
the main fetchers of water for household consumption. With 29%
representation on Hwereso’s WATSAN committee, the project’s response
to local conflict was evaluated as moderate with a score of 2. The
same logic holds in the case of representation of the illiterate on
the committee. If all decision makers in the local communities of
poor nations must read and write, then the voice of a large social
group would have been marginalized, thereby risking potential
conflicts. The survey indicated that only 29% of the WATSAN
committee members were illiterate. Therefore, under this indicator
(3 in Table 3), the project’s sensitivity to conflict is scored 2
for moderate response. On the promotion of transparency in WATSAN
management, 70% of the beneficiary respondents indicated that
committee members did inform them about issues related to water and
sanitation but enough provision was not made for their contribution
in decision-making. Lack of transparency in any leadership can
invite suspicion and mistrust from those being decided for, making
participation of the ordinary members difficult to sustain and
possibly leading to undermining development initiatives. The
project’s sensitivity was evaluated to be moderate here with a score
of 2. With regards to the selection of WATSAN committee members, the
survey revealed that the whole community did the selection; the
project management only guided them. This may have reduced the risk
of having the wrong individuals on the committee. This finding was
in line with the guidelines on community promotion contained in the
district operational manual, emphasizing the formation of community
WATSAN committees by the people (District Operational Manual 2000
pp. 20). Thus the project’s sensitivity to conflict is considered
here as high with a score of 3. As to whether the community was
animated on the national water and sanitation programme (indicator 6
Table 3) out of which the borehole project derived, 70% of the
respondents indicated that the animation was carried out by a
non-governmental organization. This was an important conflict-risk
reducing activity, informing the community about the programme’s
objective, what was required of them, and so on. Therefore, the
project sensitivity was thought to be high and awarded a score of 3.
As to whether WATSAN committee was trained outright in conflict
resolution and management (indicator 7 in Table 11), 100% of the
respondents reported that no such training took place. Thus the
project sensitivity was seen to be insignificant here and awarded a
score of 1.
From the evaluation results in Table 3, the total score for
insignificant project sensitivity was 2, the score for moderate
sensitivity was 4 and the score for high sensitivity was 9. The
grand score (GS) was 15, that is, the sum of the respective total
scores, 2+4+9 = 15. The decision was that, since the number of
sub-indicators in this evaluation form was 7, the overall
sensitivity of the borehole project under the risk appraisal
dimension was insignificant if the GS took any value from 1 to 7; it
was moderate if the GS took any value from 8 to 14; and it was high
if the GS took a value from 15 to 21. Since the GS of 15 was within
the upper range 15<GS<21, it was concluded here that the project
sensitivity to local conflict was high.
Conflict monitoring and early warning system
It is strongly advised that projects in conflict prone regions
incorporate conflict monitoring into the traditional project
monitoring process to ensure sustainability of project objectives
and goals. In that direction, Table 4. presents assessment of the
borehole project’s sensitivity to local conflicts looking at effort
to incorporate conflict monitoring and early warning system into its
monitoring framework. First, it was examined as to whether the
project developed conflict indicators, but there was no response to
the affirmative. Example of conflict indicators that could be
developed and observed for such community projects are: rate of
participation of beneficiaries in meetings and workshops; arguments
or quarrels that erupt during meetings; reported disagreements in
meetings; and reported complaints of women and youths in project
settlements. From the survey, there was no development of such
indicators. Thus, the project was evaluated for insignificant
response under this indicator (1 in Table 4) with a score of 1.
Consequently, the project would not be expected to monitor and
predict any conflict factors as the survey discovered to the
affirmative. Thus, the project was again scored 1 for insignificant
response under the indicators 2 and 3 in Table 4. From this Table,
total score for insignificant project sensitivity is 3, no score
recorded for both moderate and high sensitivity. The GS is 3,
automatically leading to the conclusion under this dimension that
the project’s sensitivity to local conflict was insignificant.
Adaptation
It is clear from the foregoing analysis that, the district WATSAN
projects had already been fore-guided in the district operational
manual with a predetermined approach should they encountered any
community conflict. That is, where a conflict was encountered, they
would rightaway set the project aside until it was resolved as such
projects were not meant to interfere in it. This implies that, even
if the project was able to resolve the conflict through, for
instance, re-planning its activities or mediating so as to continue
its implementation, this would not be done. This is a serious policy
weakness and could lead to depriving the populace of important basic
service score of 1 for insignificant response.
Coordination
The project sensitivity was judged here in respect of its level of
cooperation with other projects or development organizations
operating in Hwereso community, as well as cooperation with
traditional authorities (TAs). A big advantage could be derived from
cooperation in terms of soliciting one and the other’s technical
expertise and other capacities in resolving community conflicts
within the network area of coverage. Table 5 shows the evaluation
results for the project’s conflict response under the coordination
dimension. As to whether the borehole project was in network with
other project organizations, 100% of the respondents answered to the
affirmative. For instance, the project was reported to have
collaborated with Olof Palme Peace Foundation NGO based in Kumasi in
carrying out community animation and project supervision. Thus, the
borehole project was evaluated for high conflict sensitivity with a
score of 3 (indicator 1 Table 5).
The next indicator evaluated the project on was contract award
procedures. The objective was to know whether the borehole project
followed contract award procedures similar to those followed by the
same type of projects within the Town and or neighbouring
settlements. Contractors for the procurement of goods and services
may well understand the terms of the contract for one another.
Therefore, any striking difference in contract details or
arrangement for one project from the other may leave one contractor
feeling disadvantaged and may deliberately perform work below
standard. This could be a source of conflict. However, 80% of the
respondents indicated that the borehole project ensured the same
contract award procedures as in other projects. Competitive bidding
was reportedly employed by most projects including the one under
review. This project was thus awarded a score of 3 for high
sensitivity. Following the same logic, different beneficiary
(community) contribution methods across projects have been reported
to be a fertile source of lackluster community participation in
certain projects thereby undermining their continuity. Initial
discussions held with District Officials revealed that projects used
to encounter obstacles due to unharmonized approaches in the
district. However, 100% of the respondents affirmed that the
borehole project followed the same community contribution methods as
other projects operated in the study community. Thus the project was
evaluated for high sensitivity to conflict under this component with
a score of 3. The project was also awarded a score of 3 for
following the same staff remuneration structure as in similar
projects. The project’s cooperation with the traditional authorities
in the township was however reported to be moderate and thus awarded
a score of 2 for conflict sensitivity.
From Table 5, there was no score for insignificant project
sensitivity, the total score for moderate sensitivity was 2 and the
score for high sensitivity was 12. The grand score (GS) was 14 and
indicates that the project sensitivity was high since it lied in the
range 11<GS<15 given that the number of indicators was 5.
Community Participation
Community sense of ownership of projects can be increased and any
potential resistance minimized if the community members were
involved in the projects right at the beginning of the project
cycle. Table 6. presents assessment of the borehole project under
this dimension, looking through its cycle. With the exception of
budgeting and contract award indicators, 100% of the respondents
indicated that the community was highly involved in the rest of the
project stages----identification, planning, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation, and operation and maintenance. For
instance, in accordance with the guidelines enshrined in the
District WATSAN Operational Manual, the communities were responsible
to assess their needs and come up with priorities; the project under
review was conceived in conformity with these guidelines. Thus for
each of these indicators (1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 Table 6), the project’s
sensitivity was rated high with a score of 3. The community’s
involvement in budgeting and contract award was said to be very
limited, thus the project was awarded a score 1 for each of these
two indicators (3 & 4 Table 6).
From Table 6, the total score for insignificant project sensitivity
was 2; no score for moderate sensitivity; the score for high
sensitivity was 15. The grand score (GS) was 17. The GS indicates
that the project sensitivity was high since it lied in the range
15<GS<21 given that the number of indicators was 7.
Final evaluation of the borehole project
Table 7 presents the final evaluation results for the borehole
project. The table pooled the project’s performance scores across
all dimensions, ranging from conflict profiling, stakeholder
analysis to community participation. It should be recalled that
insignificant sensitivity had a value of 1, moderate sensitivity had
a value of 2 and high sensitivity a value of 3.
From Table 7, the ultimate total score for insignificant project
sensitivity was 4, the score for moderate sensitivity was 2 and the
score for high sensitivity was 9, leaving a final grand score (GS)
of 15. The decision was based on the same ground that, given the
number of the broad dimensions to be 8, the overall sensitivity of
the project was insignificant if GS took value from 1 to 8; it was
moderate if GS took a value from 9 to 16; and it was high if GS took
a value from 17 to 24. Therefore since the final GS (15) lied
between 9 and 16, it was concluded in summary that the borehole
project sensitivity to local conflict was moderate. This could be
highly attributable to the policy weakness discerned in the research
with regard to the absence of policy guideline to support full
incorporation of community conflict management principles into the
district WATSAN project activities. Therefore, the continued
suspension of the borehole project should not be a surprise.
Sensitivity analysis of the livestock development project
The livestock development project (LDP) was an African Development
Fund (ADF) supported project implemented in Ejisu-Juaben district by
the decentralized department of agriculture. The project covered the
entire district, benefiting 31 different farmers’ groups
representing 20 communities. Each beneficiary group comprised at
least 10 livestock farmers with a total of about 375 farmers
directly benefiting from the project so far. Small-scale
small-ruminant farmers were the main beneficiaries and many of them
were women. Launched in 2003, the LDP project, unlike the borehole
project, did not experience any serious conflicts in the
communities. The project’s sensitivity to community conflict was
analyzed below using the same broad dimensions as in evaluating the
borehole project.
Community conflict profiling
About 80 % of the respondents indicated that community conflict
profiling was carried out in the initial stages of the LDP project.
This confirmed the application of the principles developed for
agricultural extension agents (AEAs) operations within the LDP
project guidebook. In getting to know the people aspect of this
guidebook, the AEAs who formed the bulk of the LDP staff in the
district were trained to obtain knowledge with regard to how to
investigate past and present conflict factors in the communities
such as friendships and animosities, quarrelsome persons and
peacemakers, socio-economic stratifications, the gap between the
better-off and the poor including their relationships, and history
of settlements and people. The LDP project was therefore awarded a
score of 3 for high conflict sensitivity under this dimension.
Stakeholder Analysis
From the perspective of Warner’s definition of stakeholder in
community conflict analysis for project planning, and where serious
conflicts are yet to occur, 70% of the respondents indicated that
stakeholder analysis was carried out in adherence to the project
guidelines for staff activities. Through stakeholder analysis, the
project identified leaders and figures of authority in the project
communities, opinion leaders and resource persons, and all the
various institutions that the staff had to recognize and dialogue
with to know the various interests, concerns, fears and motivation.
For instance, the AEAs interviewed indicated that, stakeholder
analysis enabled them to discover that it was a taboo to rear goats
in certain communities owing to local traditions; as a result the
project substituted sheep for goats. Thus the project was evaluated
for high sensitivity to conflict with a score of 3.
Cause analysis
None of the respondents reported any conflict the LDP project
encountered in the communities of operations, nor conflict that
existed before the project was begun. This blanket response perhaps
was due to what was earlier noted in the literature as common
misconception about the meaning of conflict, which to many only
arises when there is an open or violent confrontation. Nonetheless,
the fact that the LDP project carried out community conflict
profiling and stakeholder analysis implies conflict cause analysis
was in progress. You need to ascertain the existence of conflicts
first (effort the LDP project reported to have made) before
underlying causes or structural factors could further be
investigated. Since the project attempted to gather facts on past
and present conflict factors, it was again evaluated for high
sensitivity under this dimension with a score of 3.
Risk appraisal
Risk appraisal was most decisive for the LDP project given its size
(covering the entire district), staff requirement, beneficiary
selection process, etc. Twelve sensitivity indicators were
considered for the measurement of the project’s sensitivity to local
conflicts under this dimension, unlike the borehole project where
only eight sub-indicators were applied. Let us start with the
language commonly spoken by the project staff (1 in Table 8), noting
that the project had 25 staff.
The local language (mother tongue) commonly spoken by the staff
could be a strong determinant in terms of which ethnic group in the
district shall receive more assistance from the project. “……..
language usage in the development organization or project can result
in staff feeling drawn more towards one particular group or region
and giving it stronger support.” (Leonhardt 2001a). From the survey
results, 62 % of the LDP staff had Twi as their mother tongue. Twi
is spoken by the Ashantis ethnic group who constitute about 85.6% of
the Ejisu-Juaben district population. The remaining 38% had other
languages as mother tongue. Consequently, there can be the tendency
to have disproportionate project support accorded to social groups
belonging to the Ashantis. Thus the project’s sensitivity to
conflict was evaluated to be insignificant with a score of 1 given
the high proportion (62%) of staff having the same mother tongue.
Regarding spatial distribution of AEAs across Area Councils (ACs) as
an indicator, it was revealed that, all beneficiary ACs were
serviced by the AEAs. Equitable distribution of extension agents can
suppress complaints that would otherwise emerge from communities for
lack of extension service. The project was awarded a score of 3 here
for high sensitivity (indicator 2 Table 8). Looking at the youth
proportion in the direct beneficiary group (375) as indicator, only
16% are persons of age group 20-34. In this direction, the LDP
project was evaluated with moderate sensitivity to conflict with a
score of 2, since, as discussed under the borehole project, more
involvement of the youth is crucial for community project success.
Regarding gender balance, 30% of the beneficiaries were women. This
figure is far below the intended 45% women beneficiaries mentioned
in the LDP Project Appraisal Report (Africa Development Fund, 2001).
Thus, the project was evaluated for moderate sensitivity to conflict
with a score of 2. Coming to the spatial distribution of
beneficiaries across Area Councils (ACs) (Indicator 5 Table 8), all
ACs in the district, except for Besease, benefited from the project.
Discussion with project officials revealed that Besease was already
benefiting from a similar FAO supported project, thus for equity
reason it was not included as beneficiary AC for this ADF supported
project. This is in adherence to the principle of horizontal spatial
equity in development in support of the current thinking regarding
prevention of communal conflict. (Barbolet et al., 2003). For
equitable distribution of benefits, the project is thus scored high
for conflict sensitivity with a score of 3. As to indicator 6, it
was discerned that the project supported only individuals who
already had livestock. This policy may breed discontent in those
persons (like croppers) who did not readily have livestock but would
have desired to directly benefit from the LDP project. It should be
noted that about 90% of the livestock farmers receiving support were
also croppers. The LDP is evaluated for insignificant response to
conflict in this case with a score of 1.
Educational status of beneficiaries is the next indicator evaluated
the project on (indicator 7 Table 8). It is crucial, especially for
rural projects that those who were not opportune to go to school are
reasonably considered when selecting beneficiaries. Being illiterate
by itself has made one vulnerable, and such individuals could easily
feel discriminated against in any selection process and could pose
invisible threat against the success of projects. Of the LDP
beneficiaries, only 26% were illiterate and persons with little
education (JSS and below). This proportion appears small for a rural
African environment where a good number would have problem reading
and writing. The project is thus evaluated for moderate response
with a score of 2.
Next is project staff influence in the selection of leadership in
beneficiary groups. The LDP project required that the leadership
constitute a chairman, secretary and treasurer (indicator 8 Table
8). The type of leadership chosen for any group had conflict
implication with regard to the level of loyalty it enjoyed from the
rest of the group membership. However, 100% of the beneficiaries
interviewed indicated that the leadership was democratically voted;
the LDP staff had no hands in it other than supervision of the
election process. This gave the project a score of 3 for high
sensitivity to group conflicts. With regards to ensuring
transparency within the leadership of each group, the project was
reported to have adequately put in place mechanisms to ensure
accountability from group leaders, which was confirmed by all
beneficiary respondents. The project encouraged the preparation of
constitution/bye-laws by each beneficiary group within the project
guidelines provided, defining roles, responsibilities and
restrictions of group members including the leaders. To reinforce
this, groups were formed by socio-economic characteristics of
livestock farmers, grouping them by income status, age and other
considerations. The project was therefore evaluated to be highly
sensitive to conflicts under this indicator with a score of 3.
About conducting animation (indicator 10 Table 8), this was reported
to have been the first project activity. Animation was particularly
necessary since the LDP project idea was not coming from the
communities. The details of the project were presented to the people
including its objectives and expected benefits. About 80% of the
respondents indicated that there was general community acceptance of
the project thereafter. This awarded the project another score of 3
for conflict sensitivity. With regard to general training of project
staff and beneficiaries in managing group and community conflicts
(indicator 11 Table 8), the project made laudable effort in this
direction, affirmed by 100% of the respondents. For example, among
the eight chapters in the guidebook on group formation and
development for AEAs prepared by the project, there was a training
chapter on conflict and conflict resolution and all respondents
confirmed the execution of this activity component. Thus the project
was awarded 3 for conflict sensitivity. However, the project was
reported to have remained untimely in the implementation of certain
project components. Most crucial was the delay in disbursement of
loans. Some AEAs indicated that certain farmers did not receive the
LDP project well because they lost confidence in past projects
related to livestock development owing to failure to achieve their
objectives. “Delay in credit disbursement could be a source of
conflict by itself as may wither the relationship between the
farmers and AEAs”, reported one of the LDP staff. The project
sensitivity in regard of timeliness is therefore evaluated for
moderate sensitivity with a score of 2.
From Table 8, the total score for insignificant project sensitivity
was 2, the score for moderate sensitivity was 8 and the score for
high sensitivity was 18. The grand score (GS) was 28. The GS
indicates that the project sensitivity was high since it lied in the
range 25<GS<36 given that the number of indicators was 12.
Conflict monitoring and early warning system
Three sensitivity indicators were applied here as in the borehole
project analysis. In the guidebook for AEAs, conflict indicators
were developed to guide the project staff monitoring of potential
conflicts during the project implementation. The monitoring
indicators include: weakness in the leadership of a beneficiary
group; eroding trust and co-operation among members; lack of
accountability in the group’s finance; and failure by members to pay
dues and attend meetings regularly. 100% of the beneficiaries
interviewed responded that they were aware of these indicators as
signals for serious conflict emergence, that they informed the AEAs
when there were signals for response or onward submission to higher
project authorities. The beneficiaries indicated further that
awareness of these indicators by all members had strengthened their
group dynamics, oneness and trustworthiness. Therefore, for both
developing and monitoring conflict factors, the project’s
sensitivity to conflicts was recorded high with a score of 3
(indicator 1 and 2 Table 9). However, the responses from the survey
depicted possible future conflict in connection with credit
disbursement to members, but this speculation did not appear to have
clearly come under the view of the project staff (indicator 3 Table
9). 100% and 63% of the beneficiaries and staff interviewed
respectively reported that there were problems related to the delay
in disbursement of project loans to farmers. Some farmers were not
sure to benefit from the credit because of the unaffordable
condition of providing 25% collateral.
Already a number of farmers had
expressed mistrust in this project at the beginning (reported by 20%
of staff interviewed) due to failure of similar projects in the
past. Should proper credit arrangement not done, subsequent projects
of the like may face cooperation problems from the communities. Thus
the project is judged for insignificant response under this
indicator with a score of 1.
From Table 9, the total score for insignificant project sensitivity
was 1; no score recorded for moderate sensitivity, and the score for
high sensitivity was 6. The grand score (GS) was 7 and indicates
here that the project sensitivity was high since it lied in the
range 7<GS<9 given that the number of indicators was 3.
Adaptation
About 60% of staff responses indicated that the LDP project had
mechanism in place to resolve any conflict during project
monitoring. The AEAs were said to be equipped with conflict training
to handle potential conflicts within beneficiary groups, reporting
those they could not resolve to higher project authorities. Unlike
the WATSAN programmes, which set aside water projects rightaway in
the event of any community conflict, the LDP first explored ways to
resolve them to ensure continuity of activities. The LDP project was
thus awarded 3 for high conflict sensitivity under this dimension.
Coordination
Discussions held with project officials revealed that the LDP
project did coordinate with other projects operated in the district.
For instance, Besease Area Council was said to be excluded from
those benefiting from the LDP project because there was ongoing FAO
supported livestock project in that AC. There was also a Special
Programme for Food Security (SPFS) in the same Council. This was an
outcome of well coordinated activities to ensure equitable
distribution of development assistance across communities in the
district. The LDP project was thus rated for high conflict response
with a score of 3 for networking with other project activities
(indicator 1 Table 10). Contract award arrangement was not only
reported to be synonymous to other projects within the district, but
the LDP also ensured that procurement arrangements were uniform
across the 25 districts benefiting from the LDP in Ghana. Two of the
three districts supported in the Ashanti region, Ejisu-Juaben and
Kumasi, share boundaries with each other so that information on the
operations of the LDP in each of these neighbouring districts could
easily diffuse into the other. Contractors can easily exchange
information in the two districts so that better remuneration to any
one may bring about under performance from the contractor in the
other district. This also holds for neighbouring beneficiaries and
staff in these districts. Therefore, owing to the project’s effort
toward harmonizing contract arrangements within and outside the
study district, it was awarded a score of 3 for high conflict
sensitivity. The same score was awarded for indicators 3 and 4
(Table 10) for similar justification in terms of following the same
project staff remuneration and beneficiary contribution as in other
project organizations within and in the immediate neighbours of
Ejisu-Juaben district. Regarding cooperation with traditional
authorities (TAs), 100% of the staff interviewed reported that there
was high interaction between the project and the TAs, thereby
awarding the project a score of 3 again for high sensitivity to
conflict.
From Table 10, no score was recorded for insignificant and moderate
project sensitivity; the total score for high sensitivity was 15.
The grand score (GS) was also 15. This automatically brought about
high project response under coordination dimension for the LDP.
Community participation
As indicated earlier, peaceful co-existence among beneficiary
communities and between the latter and project staff can be
bolstered for sustainable project work if the communities were
involved right at the beginning of the project cycle. In the case of
the LDP project, the survey revealed that neither in project
identification nor in planning, budgeting and contract award stages
were the communities meaningfully involved. As noted earlier, some
communities were said to have cast serious doubt on the LDP
objective during the animation stage because of failure of similar
projects before. Such doubts could be attributable to the fact that
the LDP did not come from the people. However, the community
involvement in implementation, M&E and OM was reportedly high. Thus
while the project was awarded 1 under sensitivity indicators 1, 2, 3
and 4 for insignificant response, it was scored 3 for high response
under indicators 5, 6 and 7 (Table 11).
From Table 11, the total score for insignificant project sensitivity
was 4, no score for moderate sensitivity was recorded, and the score
for high sensitivity was 9. The grand score (GS) was 13, indicating
moderate sensitivity of the project since GS lied in the range
8<GS<16 given that the number of indicators was 7.
Final evaluation of the LDP project
Table 12 pooled together the performance scores of the LDP project
across all analytical dimensions. It was ultimately concluded from
the table that the LDP project’s sensitivity was very high with a
grand score (GS) of 23. The decision maintained the same logic. That
is, there are 8 dimensions. The sensitivity would be insignificant
if GS took values from 1 to 8; moderate if it took values from 9 to
16; but the project’s response was found to be high since it took a
value between 17 and 24 (that is 23). The LDP project was only one
point below the highest limit on the conflict sensitivity scale
developed for the analysis. This shows an instance of high
consideration of conflict management principles in project
activities.
Comparing conflict sensitivities of the borehole and LDP projects
Table 13 compares the evaluation results of the two projects across
all eight analytical dimensions. As earlier indicated, the
sensitivity of the borehole project to conflict was found to be
moderate with an overall total evaluation score of 15. In fact, if
sensitivity were to be judged based on frequency of times
insignificant (I), moderate (M) and high (H) scores occurred, the
borehole would have been found for insignificant response to local
conflict because insignificance had the highest frequency of
occurrence across the dimensions (4 times) compared with 2 times for
both moderate and high response. However, summing total scores
across all levels brought the borehole to a moderate conflict
sensitivity on the whole. The LDP project had no insignificant score
for all dimensions; and it was only scored once for moderate
response on the aggregate. It was far more frequently scored for
high response (7 times out of the highest possible frequency of 8
because there are eight dimensions applied), leaving it with overall
total score (GS) of 23 while the borehole was 14.
Looking at the projects against each dimension (Table 13), the LDP
performance outweighed the borehole in 5 dimensions, tying in 2,
while the latter only outweighing the former in 1 according to the
analysis. One important inference is that, whether small or big, all
projects should incorporate conflict management concepts into their
cycles. For example, the borehole project was far smaller in
coverage and is financially 0.02% the cost of the LDP project, yet
the former was suspended due to a conflict during its operations.
Thinking that only large projects should be screened for conflict
impacts may be a serious practical mistake.
Summary of key issues
Borehole Project: The relationship between the Hwereso Town
Authorities and the owner of the contending piece of land for the
construction of the borehole was characterized by rising tension.
Asking the opinion of the community leaders as to the way out to
secure the resumption of the project work, one of them suggested the
use of force if the landowner continued to be recalcitrant over the
use of his land. Therefore, if the District Assembly failed to
intervene as the implementer of the project, this would be an
unproductive policy precedent and may thwart future development
interventions from operating in the community. Livestock Development
Project: The threats associated with the LDP project were in
connection with possible loss of confidence in the project by the
target beneficiaries. Serious delay in the disbursement of credit to
farmers was reported. Moreover, the farmers viewed the loan
condition of 25% collateral as extremely stringent, which many
cannot afford. Several farmers were said to be initially
apprehensive of the LDP intervention because similar projects failed
in many Ghanaian communities before. If this project was to fail,
the participation of the communities in similar projects in the
future would be a big question and relations between the
Agricultural Extension Agents and people would be seriously
strained.
CONCLUSION
Summary of main findings
It has been clearly established that, projects fail not only because
of financial and technical issues but also due to failure to
integrate conflict management principles into the planning and
implementation process. While project managers were found to be
making efforts in integrating conflict management methods in
Ejisu-Juaben, the extent of incorporation of these techniques was
very limited in some cases like the district water and sanitation
projects as demonstrated in the construction of the borehole at
Hwereso town. Weak policy guidelines were discovered to have
restricted the adoption of conflict management methods in these
projects coupled with the myth that conflict resolution is out of
the realm of development workers and planners. The national
guidelines contained in the district operational manual for
community water and sanitation projects in Ghana did not warrant the
implementation of such projects in communities met with conflicts,
or their continuation if a conflict broke out during their
implementation. This policy restriction was found to be the main
factor responsible for the moderate sensitivity of the borehole
project to communal conflicts.
Unlike the borehole project, however, the livestock development
project (LDP) was found to have adequately put in place conflict
management measures alongside its operations. It is suggestive that,
the high level of sensitivity of the LDP to conflict may have
enabled it remain ongoing. Projects could therefore become more
successful if conflict management principles are integrated into
their planning cycles. It is instructive in this paper that conflict
management principles should not be tied to the size of the project.
Whether small or large, all projects, especially those implemented
in a poor country, should be conflict sensitive.
The paper brought out a gamut of useful conflict management
techniques for project planning and management. However, these
techniques are far from representing an exhaustive list of conflict
management tools. More could be found in the development literature.
Recommendations
National development policy and planning frameworks should integrate
communal conflict management concepts, ensuring that operational
plans at regional and district levels be guided by such frameworks.
Mainstreaming conflict sensitive planning requires increased
capacity of the relevant practitioners (including regional and
district planning authorities) to carry out conflict analysis in
their planning responsibilities. Management tools, such as conflict
impact assessment (CIA), should be seen in the same spirit as
environmental impact assessment (EIA). In other words, CIA could be
made an addendum to EIA since the latter itself indirectly addresses
conflicts, but they are not mutually exclusive.
It was a big flaw discovered in the WATSAN District Operational
Manual that the community projects the district assemblies operate
should not interfere into communal conflicts. This has been a myth
in many development interventions and should be reversed in line
with international concerns over empirically established
interrelationships between development assistance and conflicts. The
national WATSAN programme document should be reviewed to proactively
make it conflict sensitive.
Land administration and ownership issues should be looked into
critically at national level. Responses on the land conflict
vis-à-vis the borehole project investigated did not present clear
picture as to the ownership situation of lands in the communities.
The Ghanaian government should give it attention if communal
conflicts should be mitigated.
It should be ensured as much as possible that projects be
implemented as planned especially where the details of the project
had earlier been communicated to the beneficiaries. It was noted
that the percentage of women benefiting from the LDP project was far
below the minimum threshold set in the project appraisal report
while women constituted the greater proportion of farmers rearing
small ruminant animals everywhere in the country. There is need for
cautious targeting of development assistance in poor communities.
Detailed study of the various social spectrums in communities is
necessary in the process. Adapting projects to local conditions
(especially those conceived from the top) is highly necessary to
secure the full participation of the intended beneficiaries.
REFERENCES
Africa Development Fund (2001). Livestock Development Project for
the Republic of Ghana: Appraisal Report, August, Abidjan.
Agency for Community Water and Sanitation (2000). District
Operational Manual, January, Accra.
Anderson MB (2000). Options for Aid in Conflict. Lessons from Field
Experience”, The Collaborative for Development Action Inc,
Cambridge.
Barbolet A, Rachel G, Hesta G, Andrew S (2003). Conflict-Sensitive
Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance and Peacebuilding,
A Resource Pack, IDRC, CIDA, Minbuza, GTZ and SIDA
DFID (2002). “Tools for Development: A Handbook for Those Engaged in
Development Activities”, Performance and effectiveness Department,
DFID, UK.
Dawson E (2000). “Conflict Analysis in Oxfam GB—lessons leant”,
November, policy department, Oxfam.
Delaney T (2004). “Likert Scale”; Juran Institute, Southbury.
Ejisu Juaben District Assembly (2001). “District Profile”; July;
Department of Food and Agriculture, Ejisu, Ghana.
Ejisu-Juaben District Assembly (2004). “District Medium Term
Development Plan”, Ejisu, Ghana.
Fisher S, Abdi DI, Ludin J, Smith R, Williams S, Williams S (2000).
Working with Conflict: skills and strategies for action’’; Zed.
Books Ltd, London.
Gaigals and Leonhardt (2001). “Conflict Sensitive Approaches to
Development: a review
of practice”; International Alert, Saferworld and IDRC.
Goodhand J, Hulme D (2000). “NGOs and Peace building in Complex
Political Emergencies: Final Report to the Department for
International Development”; University of Manchester, Manchester.
Jonathan Goodhand, Tony V, Robert W (2002). “Strategic Conflict
Assessment”; January 2002, DFID.
IDRC (2003). “Decentralisation and Women’s Right in Sub-Saharan
African”, Call for Proposals, IDRC, Ottawa, Canada.
Klingebiel S (2000). Socio-political Impact of Development
Cooperation Measures in Tanzania: Analysing Impacts on Local
Tensions and Conflicts”, Bonn.
Kimenyi (2002). Ethnicity, Institutions of Governance and Conflict
Avoidance, KIPPRA, Nairobi.
Leonhardt M (2001a). Conflict Analysis for Project Planning and
Management: A Practical Guidelines-Draft”, Sector Project Crisis
Prevention and Conflict Transformation, Division 43, Eschborn: GTZ
Leonhardt M (2001b). Conflict Impact Assessment for Development
Projects: A Practical Guidelines-Draft”, Sector Project Crisis
Prevention and Conflict Transformation, Division 43, Eschborn: GTZ.
Nobleza M, Nyheim D (2000). Planning Integrated Responses to Early
Warning: generating means to an end” August, West Africa Network for
Peace Building.
Republic of Ghana (2004a). Livestock Development Project: general
information on group members, April; Ministry of Forestry and
Agriculture, Accra, Ghana.
Klingebiel S (2001). The OECD, World Bank and International Monetary
Fund: Development activities in the crisis prevention and conflict
management sphere, January, German Development Institute, Bonn
Republic of Ghana (2004b). Livestock Development Project: a guide
for effective community entry and mobilization for agricultural
extension agents; April; Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture,
Accra, Ghana.
Republic of Ghana (2004c). Livestock Development Project: a
Guidebook on group formation and development for agricultural
extension agents”, April, Ministry of Forestry and Agriculture,
Accra, Ghana.
Republic of Ghana (2004d). Guidelines For Operationalisation of
District and Regional Planning Coordinating Units”, May, National
Development Planning Commission, Accra, Ghana.
Republic of Ghana (2002). Guidelines for the Preparation of the
District Medium Term Development Plan”, June, National Development
Planning Commission, Accra, Ghana.
Saferworld et al (2000). Peace and Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to
Development, December, OECD Task Force for Conflict, Peace and
Development Cooperation and the Conflict Prevention and
Reconstruction Network.
Schell-Faucon S (2002). Developing Education and Youth Promotion
Measures with Focus on Crisis Prevention and Peace-Building”,
Health, Education, Nutrition, Emergency Aid, Division 43, Eschborn:
GTZ
Shore K (1998). Assessing the Peace and Conflict Impact of
Development Projects,IDRC, Canada.
Tsikata D, Seini W (2004). Identities, Inequalities and Conflicts in
Ghana, November, University of Oxford.
Uvin P (1998). Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in
Rwanda. Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Uvin P (1999). The Influence of Aid in Situations of Violent
Conflict. A Synthesis and a Commentary on the Lessons Learned from
Case Studies on the Limits and Scope for the Use of Development
Assistance Incentives and Disincentives for Influencing Conflict
Situations. Paris: Informal Task Force on Conflict, Peace and
Development Cooperation, DAC-OECD.
Warner M (2001). Complex Problem, Negotiated Solutions: Tools to
reduce conflict in community development”, overseas development
institute, ITDG, London.
Zwanikken Maria, Dele O, Esau C (1994). Capacity Assessment for
Public Sector Management and Decentralization Programming
Mission--Sierra Leone Aide Memoire, Management Development and
Governance Division, UNDP.
|
|