Monitoring and Evaluation of Peace building Workshop IPI & NUPI New York, 7-8 May 2009

Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding in Burundi - MTM Highlights and key challenges Vincent Kayijuka, PBSO

Contents Key features of the MTM Strengths and weaknesses Challenges in the application of the MTM Some lessons learned Conclusion

I. Key features of the MTM

What are we monitoring? The implementation of mutual engagements; Progress towards achieving results The implementation of mutual engagements and contributions of the Government of Burundi, the PBC, and other relevant stakeholders of the Strategic Framework; Progress towards achieving results for peace consolidation while mitigating risks identified in the Strategic Framework

Stakeholders Government Political Parties Civil Society and Private Sector Women Organizations Religious Organisations Conseil des Abashingantahe (Council of Wise) PBC International Partners BINUB

The Framework PBC review meetings Progress Reports Advice to the Security Council, General Assembly and Economic and Social Council Political Forum of the Partners Coordination Group PBC review meetings Progress Reports Strategic Forum of the Partners Coordination Group M&E Group of the Strategic Framework for Peacebuilding Monitoring and Evaluation Group of the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper Matrix (risks, benchmarks, indicators, etc.)

Indicators Total 42 Quantitative indicators Qualitative indicators 22 20 Process indicators Outcomes indicators 12 30

Indicators Strategic indicators Programmatic indicators ??

II. Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths Weaknesses Owned by stakeholders in Bujumbura A good mix of different types of indicators Quite comprehensive Linkages with the M&E system of the PRSP Not fully owned by stakeholders in NY Too many, some too programmatic Too cumbersome? Linkages not fully taken into account

III. Challenges in the application of the MTM

Challenges in the application People want results “yesterday” Beyond the report Framework/matrix and review process too heavy External factors and unpredicted events Impact is usually a long-term change that would occur after 5-10 years a program or an intervention has been implemented Framework/matrix too heavy and doesn’t facilitate a strategic and open conversation External factors and unpredicted events could jeopardize the achievements of the results we have planned for or dreamed of. This is likely to happen since peacebuilding challenges are so complex.

Challenges in the application Things are not linear Mutual accountability How is national and local ownership taken into account? How are local processes and dynamics taken into account? Who monitors whom? Who reports to who? How is national and local ownership taken into account in the M&E process? How does the MTM take into account internal processes and dynamics among local stakeholders?

Challenges in the application Coherence MTM - M&E of the PRSP How to use the MTM as an early warning system? Ensure coherence between the MTM and the M&E of the PRSP Use the MTM as an early warning system that will lead to action every time there is a risk emerging, an opportunity or a major blockage

IV. Key lessons learned

Key lessons learned The dialogue facilitated by this tool is more important than the report itself; Issues and processes are linked: some indicators should be cross cutting; A strategic focus facilitates the M&E exercise The preparation of the first progress report in May 2008 provided national and internation partners with an alternative space to discuss peacebuilding issues and to highlight the issue of FNL and resumption of fights as a top priority to be addressed;

V. Conclusion

Conclusion M&E peacebuilding is less about frameworks and numbers, it is more about people and dynamics PB indicators in LT development strategies (conflict prevention) Less is more Who monitors whom? Who reports to who? How is national and local ownership taken into account in the M&E process? How does the MTM take into account internal processes and dynamics among local stakeholders?