Burundi

The grantee’s political neutrality created an image favourable towards sustainable peace in Burundi and has allowed the organization to position itself as a known and respected mediator in potential conflicts.

The project would have benefitted from making use of knowledge gained during the training and research activities. This could have encouraged all actors to use the research and knowledge acquired as reference material in order to develop party practices at the Burundian national level. This could have reinforced declarations made by political party leaders before and after elections, and to give a sense of responsibility to grassroots communities with regard to the importance of their role when it comes to applying the acquired knowledge.

During the elections, Burundian civil society actors coordinated among themselves, to make their voice more credible and coherent when dealing with public authorities. However, the grantee isolated itself from the activities being undertaken by the platform of these CSOs, considerably weakening the relevance of the project as a whole.

The National Forum remains merely a well-intentioned document, and there is no environment for political dialogue between women leaders from across the board. None of the project elements led to the drafting of a policy promoting women. The signing and ratification of a legislative text remain wishful thinking. The report written by female observers was not circulated. The documentary that was made in four of the Northern provinces has never been shown and remains to this day in a desk drawer in the association.

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.

The project could most probably have been more efficient if it had been more closely managed by the grantee’s office in South Africa. Its greater involvement would have enhanced the value of the project in the eyes of implementing partners and provided valuable assistance to the staff working on Burundi.

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.