Burundi

The logic of intervention of this project did not fully take into account the rift that exists between the centre and the periphery in Burundi: between the governing and the elected community and collines representatives, who for the main part merely execute power. The project intervention logic overestimated the level of impetus that could come from community leaders. The theory according to which the grassroots population would become more dynamic if only they knew their leaders better was overly optimistic, especially when considering the level of education that these populations have and the traumatic war experiences that are still very present within these communities.

The project was closely linked to the 2010 electoral challenges in Burundi to encourage women to vote and to stand for election. The election process, with a mandatory quota of 30% female representatives within institutions, was an important lever to generate collective awareness among all these leaders and shapers of opinion. This project also went beyond the elections by suggesting the creation of a National Forum for dialogue, allowing women leaders to overcome political differences and to exchange ideas on priorities to be implemented in order to improve the living conditions of Burundian women.

Although all planned activities were carried out, three unplanned activities were undertaken and the project was able to reach a large number of women, none of the expected goals were achieved. The grantee opted for an all-encompassing approach, rather than a more rigorous approach which would have contributed to the final objective. Beneficiaries were identified via a system of suggestions coming from the three regions without there being any kind of control mechanism in place and women leaders could not be efficiently identified. There is no indication of women leaders having been identified in all 17 provinces and thereby covering the whole country

The media coverage of the project helped remind stakeholders of the importance of maintaining peace in order to hold free, peaceful and reassuring elections. Media coverage on the concerns of citizens regarding security issues and on whether or not their aspirations and hopes regarding the electoral programmes would be taken into account, allowed the grantee to bring grassroots populations closer to political decision makers in Burundi and reinforce its strategy for advocacy.

Many of the professionals trained by the grantee before and during the project period have subsequently taken an active part in transitional justice related work in civil society, international organizations, the media and sometimes in state institutions in Burundi. Many representatives working on transitional justice and met by the evaluators had been trained by the grantee, and had used the skills they acquired to develop projects on behalf of their respective NGOs.

Although it foresaw the possibility of politically motivated delays, the project had little in place in the way of mitigation. The strategy in relation to institutional stakeholders in Burundi was not fully developed – for example there was no attempt to formalize and set an agreed framework for the project’s support and technical advice to the National Consultation Steering Committee.

The project created a critical mass of well-trained people, who in turn helped civil society, government and international organizations to increase their work on transitional justice in Burundi.

The project strategy did not fully consider how the grantee’s intervention would be received by government stakeholders. The grantee had built a positive record with civil society and the UN mission based on earlier training and technical advice and on the grantee’s international credibility. However they did not have a similar record with the government officials that were to lead the National Consultation Steering Committee and its technical advisory team. The credibility that the grantee built with the police through the implementation of the census project did not translate into an open door at the National Consultation Steering Committee.

There was no explicit commitment on the part of the partners to achieving the project’s objective and results - as opposed to implementing the activities - and no formal agreement on operational standards. A formal Memorandum of Understanding between the three partners would have helped ensure more consistent implementation and follow-up of the activities regarding transitional justice in Burundi.

Victims’ groups were established as a direct result of the project – for example groups of women who suffered from politically motivated sexual violence and survivors of the 1972 killings in Burundi.