Publikation

The ZFD was established in 1999 as a new instrument for development aid in the realm of conflict resolution and peace-building. From its establishment until 2009, about 583 technical assistants have been sent to 50 countries. The ZFD Rwanda has been operating since 2001 pursuing its objective of fostering reconciliation and peace in the Great Lakes Region. Against the backdrop of the organisations' 10th anniversary, the ZFD Rwanda decided to evaluate its programme in order to assess the efficiency and sustainability of its strategies.

The present evaluation should be considered as part of a learning process rather than a final assessment of the situation, since this evaluation was subject to time constraints and methodological challenges.

Results

According to the interviewees, the ZFD is a very useful instrument of conflict transformation in Rwanda and a relevant actor in the field of peace-building activities.

Thus, the ZFD targets first and foremost the individual attitude and behaviour of local people by the means of peace media, peace education and the promotion of critical thinking and spaces of dialogue. In this regard the ZFD is very efficient.

The training of intermediaries is a strong mechanism of the ZFD programme, which allows for greater peace-building capacity among the ZFDs partner organisations. Thus, the capacities for peace-building have been sustainably developed within the partner organisations.

Shortcomings exist, however, at the level of structural and institutional capacities. The deployment of technical assistants is a very strong aspect of ZFD intervention and allows not only for an external perspective on the conflict situation, but enables a trustful relationship between partners as well as promoting projects and transferring knowledge.

Regarding the efficiency of the ZFD programme on a wider national and regional level it is difficult to make clear distinctions between “efficient” and “non-efficient” as there is an absence of relevant indicators for peace and reconciliation and because of the limited scope of this evaluation. Hence, we are confronted with an allocation gap on this level and cannot draw final conclusions as to how far individual projects finally “add up” to peace.