Systemic Action Research for Peacebuilding in Mali (Vestibule de la Paix project)

The ‘Vestibule of de la Paix’ programme was a Systemic Action Research for peacebuilding initiative implemented in Mali by a consortium of partners that all identified the critical failure to meaningfully include local communities in the Malian peace process.

It was co-designed over several years by a collaboration initiated by the funder, Humanity United, whose peacebuilding strategy centred on building local agency as a vehicle to transform the peacebuilding system. L’Institut Malien de Recherche Action pour la Paix (IMRAP), a Malian NGO with past experience of participatory research led the SAR operations in three local sites in Mali. Interpeace, a Swiss peacebuilding organisation coordinated the partnership and supported IMRAP in particular on the programme’s Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) work. Members of the Participation research cluster at IDS brought extensive experience with participatory methodologies and rigorous evaluation and played a technical support role. One unique feature of the project was that all four partners, including the funder, were involved in collaboratively managing and implementing the programme.

The central proposition of the programme was to use SAR to build the agency of local actors thus activating endogenous ownership of the pathways to peace, with the intention of connecting into the national peace process in Mali. It was implemented over 5 years (2019 – 2024) and included three streams of SAR in three regions of the country with varying levels and diverse types of conflict. An embedded theory based and participatory evaluation research component was operationalised through the programme’s MEL system, implemented across all partners, producing a rich evidence base on how the SAR process contributed to shaping the conditions for community driven peacebuilding.

What happened

The Vestibule de la Paix programme was initially designed to be a 10-year process with parallel streams of SAR operating in multiple locations across the country as well as one central stream engaging national peacebuilding actors. As a result of numerous challenges during its implementation, including a coup d’etat that completely reshaped the national peace process, and the COVID pandemic, it ran for 5 years, and included only three streams of SAR in the cercles of Kangaba, Djenné and central Mopti. The process was initiated in Kangaba, where there are lower levels of conflict, thus allowing the full implementation team, including with IDS colleagues to model the process and adapt the methodology to work in areas with higher levels of conflict.

Given the context of conflict, an extensive initial trust building and community grounding process was necessary. This took considerable time and in Djenne and Mopti where conflict dynamics were more acute and evolving, it took over a year to identify specific locations and have sufficient engagement with communities to enable the design to take shape. The IMRAP team spent multiple days in all selected villages and worked closely with traditional authorities to ensure the safety of the implementation team.

Once trust was established, the main SAR activities began. Further details of the SAR process in Kangaba are described in English here and in Djenne and Mopti here, and French versions are also available (Kangaba and Djenne and Mopti).

First with the identification of story collectors and story tellers which required a detailed sampling strategy to ensure stories were collected from all social groups in the commune. Local story collectors were trained (in Kangaba 39 collectors, in Djenne 35 collectors and in Mopti 34 collectors) and supported in the collection of life stories (in Kangaba 312 stories; in Djenne 491 stories and in Mopti 320 stories). The collective causal analysis of the stories was facilitated via participatory analysis workshops (with 50 participants in Kangaba and 60 in each of Djenne and Mopti workshops). The research team selected these analysts from all participating villages to ensure diversity across minorities, young people and women. Multiple languages had to be used during the analysis process. In each workshop, participants were facilitated in trios to analyse each of the stories, developing individual story system maps, identifying the factors that were mentioned in the stories. Thematic analysis accompanied the causal analysis, and aggregation of main themes onto a large system map. Participants in the analysis workshop then identified key ‘issues’ that were present in the system dynamics that they would then work on through setting up action research groups (ARGs) in each of the participating villages. 

A core set of participants from the analysis workshop became the nuclei for setting up the ARGs in each of the selected villages (10 in Kangaba and 13 in Djenne and Mopti) where community-wide sessions were held to inform the collective of the results of the story analysis process. The nuclei invited others into the ARG process, building groups with diverse actor which intended to be representative of all social groups. The ARGs were self-facilitated, selecting one woman and one man to form a within group facilitation team. The IMRAP operational team provide period support to meetings and in particular on note taking.  

The ARGs over 12 – 18 months met twice a month as they followed the phases of an AR cycle: first agreeing the specific theme they would focus on (by discussing the prioritised themes from the previous phase and localising in their context), then conducting their own research on the specific theme through interviewing a wide range of community actors to hear their different perspectives, then undertaking analysis of the new evidence and formulating a theory of change around how they might respond to the issue. Most ARGs conducted community wide actions in response to their analysis. They then reflected on their learning from action, to adjust their plans going forward. In many cases, they expanded or deepened their understanding of the issue through taking action. See Hicks et al. (2023) for a detailed description of five of the ARGs in Kangaba.

Findings and new knowledge

Each of the ARGs generated their own understanding of local conflicts through their own evidence gathering. They used this new understanding to develop and take actions. The evaluation research of the programme generated new evidence on how a SAR process works in the context of peacebuilding, and for whom, and where ARGs took actions, what these in turn led to.

The findings show that trust building was a central feature of the entire SAR process, with extensive and ongoing trust building efforts by the IMRAP team. We found that in Djenne and Mopti, where conflict conditions were more challenging, the trust building was critical for even being able to implement the programme. The IMRAP operational team spent time building relationships in each village – often staying several days – and participants saw this as different to other interventions.

When comparing ARGs that successfully designed and implemented conflict mediation actions to those that were unable to move to action, we found that it was a combination of high levels of trust within the ARG; facilitators who were able to coordinate engagements with many community stakeholders and ensure an inclusive approach; embodying the use of an inclusive and causal methodology to explore the systemic nature of conflict. Where ARGs were not successful it was largely due to poor facilitation, which relates to the challenge of women selected as facilitators struggling to manage group dynamics, and in some cases, when conflict dynamics entered the group itself. In spite of the intentional effort to include women as equal partners in facilitation, it was only women who had previously held leadership positions who could succeed in the role. Where women were successfully engaged was in soap making interventions in Kangaba, which created a safe space for them to build new relationships that influenced broader social ties between social groups that had previous been in conflict.

One of the most interesting methodological findings from this evaluation of SAR is that the ARGs embodied the inclusive and causal methodology, using causal analysis throughout their process, to uncover the dynamics of conflict as well as map out possible solutions – the ARGs became systemic conflict mediation mechanisms. Their methodology, together with the engagement of local authorities is what gave them legitimacy in the eyes of many. This led to ARGs, in some cases, overcoming long standing conflicts where other mediation attempts had failed.

You can watch a short summary video of the project here:

Lessons

This was the first large scale application of SAR for peacebuilding. By starting with first designing a contextualised the process in the Kangaba area, where levels of conflict were lower, allowed the full implementation team to be present in the field to learn through direct experience. Then, as the methodology was implemented in Djenne and Mopti, the IMRAP team used their learning from the first phase to inform their design in the next contexts. The main lessons they used to adapt the methodology include:

• Spending time in the field to build trust and ‘get close’ to the communities was critical for the trust building process to take shape – the IMRAP team was not simply present, but they were engaging and building a relationship with individuals and communities
• High levels of flexibility and logistical support are were required to ensure the methodology worked within specific contexts, with diverse languages and ethnicities
• Regular debriefs between team members, and guidance from the M&E team supported team reflexivity, to notice when a process was working or not, and to identify necessary adaptations – for example, in Kangaba, the ARGs had weak documentation and the team had to provide additional support with more field visits than originally planned

The biggest challenge faced related to social norms around gender and conflict mediation. The implementation team was intentional in opening up space for women to not just be included in the process, but to become active agents of change themselves, and to take on leadership roles through selecting a team of one male and one female facilitator for each group. But this did not automatically lead to women becoming successful facilitators in most cases. It was only women who already held leadership positions who were able to take on a leadership role within the process.

When working in conflict affected areas there is a trade-off to be navigated, between working with the local authorities in order to have legitimacy in the eyes of those in power, and, opening up to groups that are not usually included, such as youth and women.  In Djenne and Mopti, ensuring legitimacy within existing systems of hierarchy and power, was critical to ensure safety of the implementation team in the field.

A further challenge was encountered when some of the story telling processes were found to have the potential to lead to re-traumatisation of story tellers who had experienced violence and conflict. The team responded quickly through identifying psychosocial support, and the evaluation evidences how this support went on to build further trust and legitimacy.