East Consortium: Research on climate-sensitive programming and social cohesion in the DRC

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The DRC has endured three decades of recurring crises, including armed conflicts, rebellions and community conflicts, leading to increased violence, widespread insecurity and mass displacement of populations. The eastern provinces of the country are particularly affected by these crises, which compromise livelihoods and social cohesion and make the affected populations vulnerable. This vulnerability is exacerbated by the climate crisis and its effects, which affect livelihoods and influence the dynamics of tensions and conflicts.

Since1 December 2023, the EAST Consortium has been implementing the project “Strengthening the resilience and protection of vulnerable populations living in conflict-affected areas in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo”, an initiative funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) to strengthen the food security and nutritional status of households affected by conflict and long-term displacement, and to ensure that vulnerable households are protected, have access to humanitarian aid and are better equipped to recover from the effects of violence. As part of this project, research on climate-sensitive programming was conducted to analyse how and to what extent inclusive and climate-sensitive livelihood practices adopted in communities served by EAST consortium partners in eastern DRC contribute to social cohesion or influence conflict dynamics. The research, conducted using a primarily qualitative methodology supplemented by quantitative secondary data, collected and analysed data and answered the research questions. A summary of the research findings and recommendations are presented below: All respondents (40/40) in the project participant group reported adopting climate-sensitive crops and farming practices thanks to the EAST project’s livelihood interventions, compared to very few opinions in the control group. The crops and farming practices adopted by the participant group include drought-resistant or droughttolerant crops (peanuts, cassava), crops that can be grown at home in a controlled environment (mushrooms), monitoring the seasons and adapting sowing and harvesting schedules, adopting ploughing or surface composting (burying crop residues), developing agriculture in non-flood-prone areas identified in advance, using drainage systems around fields, and adopting ridge cultivation with furrow digging. It should be noted, however, that the implementation of climate-sensitive subsistence practices was not based on strategic project planning, i.e. actions planned at the project design stage with clear objectives defined at the outset. Rather, it was based on the knowledge and experience of consultants recruited to build the capacity of beneficiaries. Furthermore, in the participant group, a large majority of opinions (49/55) indicated a positive perception of the results of adopting climate-sensitive livelihood practices, while in the control group, less than half of the opinions (20/41) indicated a positive perception of the results of their livelihoods. This means that in the localities covered by the project, livelihood activities produced more positive results than in localities not covered by the project. For almost all respondents in the participant group (36/38), the adoption of climate-sensitive livelihood practices helped to mitigate conflicts, whereas in the control group few respondents (19/46) indicated that the livelihoods developed helped to mitigate conflicts. Furthermore, in the participant group, almost all respondents (48/55 in North Kivu and 29/32 in Tanganyika) indicated that there were signs of social cohesion in their communities. Indeed, the study results showed that the adoption and development of IGA and climate-sensitive livelihoods in the target localities created opportunities for economic and social collaboration between community members through grouping and participation in various project activities (capacity building, VSLA, literacy, community work, etc.) and economic collaboration within various agricultural and animal value chains. Working together and collaborating on these activities enables participants to strengthen their economic and social ties, reduce tensions and conflicts, and reinforce social cohesion among members. This social cohesion manifests itself in several ways, including mutual aid and assistance during happy and unhappy events, and the sharing of knowledge and experience on livelihood practices. This means that the resilience measures put in place by the project contribute significantly to conflict mitigation and the strengthening of social cohesion, whereas in localities not covered by the project, livelihood practices contribute to conflict mitigation to a lesser extent. It should also be noted that the adoption of climate-sensitive livelihood practices has also led to a small degree of tension and minor conflicts between community members, thereby negatively affecting social cohesion. However, it is important to note that although these tensions and conflicts have been observed in both provinces covered by the research, they are much more explicit in North Kivu than in Tanganyika. This can be explained by the contextual factors in North Kivu, where the population has been living in a context of conflict, tension and mistrust between community members for nearly three decades. These results show the importance of 6 analysing the potential negative impacts of the adoption and development of IGAs and climate-sensitive livelihood practices in the localities covered by the projects, and of developing and implementing measures to mitigate these impacts. For all aspects analysed (adaptation of livelihood practices to climate, results of livelihood practices, inclusion in livelihood practices, contribution of livelihood practices to conflict mitigation and social cohesion, etc.), the situation is much better in the localities covered by the EAST project than in those not covered (control localities). The differences observed between these two groups can be explained by the fact that the localities covered by the EAST project received support in terms of capacity building, IGA start-up funds, cash assistance for basic needs, monitoring and support, while the localities not covered did not receive this type of support. This research provides evidence that will inform decision-making, as well as strategies and approaches for climatesensitive programming and social cohesion. In light of the results, the research makes the following recommendations: 1. Include a component on peaceful conflict management and strengthening social cohesion in the design phase for better results in conflict mitigation and strengthening social cohesion (Consortium Members). 2. Adopt a systematic agroecological approach during the design phase to enable livelihoods to contribute to the preservation of natural resources and biodiversity, improve economic performance, develop synergies, and be socially beneficial (Consortium members). 3. Include interventions related to the establishment of early warning systems and climate information to enable community members to make decisions based on reliable data (Consortium members). 4. Extend interventions to other conflict-affected areas and increase the number of beneficiaries in localities where conflicts and the effects of climate change have increased the vulnerability of many households in the project areas (Consortium Members and Donor). 5. Conduct activities to analyse the potential negative impacts of the adoption and development of climatesensitive agricultural practices and livelihoods in the localities covered by the projects and put in place measures to mitigate these impacts. 6. Strengthen monitoring and support for the development and implementation of IGAs to increase the chances of success of these activities (consortium members). 7° Ensure that participants benefit from IGA-related interventions at least six months before the end of the project to allow time to monitor and support them and provide them with advice and guidance as needed (Consortium members). 8° Harmonise the approach to implementing the cash-for-work programme between the different organisations in terms of number of days and daily rates (Consortium members), 8° Include other types of disability (blindness, visual impairment, deafness, hearing impairment, albinism, etc.) and provide appropriate equipment (CH, Consortium members), 9. Support IGA beneficiaries who open businesses (hairdressing, sewing, sale of various products, etc.) in obtaining operating licences (Consortium members). 10° Also include participants in the “cash for work” programme in the IGAs by giving them starter kits (Donor, Consortium Members), 11° Give priority to the use of “cash transfers” to provide starter kits to enable beneficiaries to purchase the products they need in their respective markets (Consortium members).