Hippolyt Pul POLICY SEMINAR Research Findings on Resilience & Social Cohesion in Burkina Faso and Niger Co-organized by IFPRI, World Food Programme (WFP), Institute for Peace and Development (IPD), and the CGIAR Research Initiative on Fragility, Conflict, and Migration (FCM) JUL 11, 2023 - 9:00 TO 10:30AM EDT

1. SAHEL
SOCIAL
COHESION
RESEARCH IN
BURKINA
FASO AND
NIGER

2. RESPONDENTS’ VIEWS
ON VULNERABILITY
CONTEXT

3. Geographical Coverage of Study
Study Area
Burkina
Faso
14 intervention
Sites
Centre –
Nord
Province
Nord
Province
Est
Province
Sahel
Province
Niger
14 Intervention
Sites
Diffa Maradi Tahoua Tillaberi Zinder
Study Sites

4. Specific
Objectives
Reduction of intra and
inter-communal
tensions through
Reduce scarcity of, and increase
access to natural resources
Facilitating inter- and intra-
community dialogue on access to
and use of natural resources (land
and water)
Promote stronger equity in access
to and use of rehabilitated
resources

5. Assets Recovery and
Development Activities
Conflict Sensitivity
Programming
Collaborative
Actions to
Build
Community
Resilience to
Shocks,
Cycles, and
Trends
Land
rehabilitation
Reforestation
& Pastures
Development
Rehabilitation
of Water
Sources
Improve quality of agro-productive
natural resources
Expand Access to Natural Resources
Soil Fertility
Improvement
• Composting
• Access to animal
manure
• Supply of fertilizers
Soil Water
Retention
Improvement
• Zais
• Bunding
• Haf-moons
Improved Social Cohesion
 Within Communities
 Between Communities
 Between Communities and
External Others
Increased Food
Production
Improved Quality
of Locally Produced
Food
Improved health,
quality, and
number of
livestock
Improved
Community
Resilience
to
Droughts,
Floods,
Conflicts
Reduced inter and
intra-community
Resource competition
and conflicts
Reduced
Community
Food &
Nutrition
Vulnerabilities
Increased Equitable
access to natural
resources

6. Food Assistance For Assets​
Cash Support​
Capacity Building Technology Transfer
1 2
3 4
WFP
INTERVENTIONS

7. WHY THE RESEARCH?
HEARING STORIES; NO
EVIDENCE
FFA Activities
Tangible evidence of
achievement available
and collectible because:
• Clear Objectives and
• Verifiable indicators
• Data collection tools
available
• Analytical frameworks exist
Social Cohesion
• Unplanned and unintended
• Nice to hear anecdotes
• But No means of verification
• Where?
• How?
• Why?
• Positive or Not?

8. Core Research Question
•“How do WFP interventions
contribute […] to reducing tensions
and improving social cohesion?”

9. RESEARCH APPROACH
Research - Grounded
• No preconceived hypothesis
• No pre-defined data codes
Social Cohesion Intervention (Not
Planned)
• No Intentional Social
Cohesion Activities
• No objectives
• No theories of change
• No indicators
Mini-
Survey
KII_01
KII_02
KII_03
FGDs
Simultaneous data collection and analysis,
Codes and categories emerged from data
Constant comparison of data
(internal validation)
Post analysis literature review
• interviews,
observations (environment, people, actions)
memoing
Retro-theory construction or meaning making
Mixed Methods

10. FINDINGS

11. Participants’ Confirmation of Vulnerability Triggers and
Impacts
TRIGGER
S IMPACTS
EFFECT
S
Increased
Vulnerabilities
Reduced food availability
and accessibility.
Destroyed resilience and
coping strategies.
Decreased food, nutrition,
income, and health security.
Restrictions in
the movement for
productive purposes.
Destruction of homes
and properties.
Reduction in quantity and quality
of productive assets.
Destruction of ancillary community
assets. e.g., loss of human
resources to migration.
Natural
Shocks
Droughts
Floods
Bush fires
Human
Induced
Local
Conflicts
Terrorism/VE

12. WFP’S CONTRIBUTION TO ASSET CREATION
Land Asset Recovery and Improvement
• Recovery of lost lands
• Rebuilding of water resources
Soil Fertility Improvement
• Training in the production and use of organic manure/fertilizer
• Supply of inorganic fertilizers
• Awareness creation and application of improved farming techniques e.g. half-moons and zaïs
Improved Access to Water
• Training and technical assistance for the construction of water infrastructure e.g. water towers,
boreholes, wells
• Building of water points for livestock.
Increased Livestock Feed Production
• Diversification of livestock feed
• Providing seeds for growing fodder
• Building of water points for livestock

13. WFP Contribution: Facilitating Intra and Inter-community Dialogue
(Horizontal Social Cohesion)
WFP ACTIVITIES
Facilitated dialogue
and engagements
Created spaces of
engagement
Different ethnic groups
Different livelihood
systems (herders,
farmers)
Different gender
categories
Different age groups
Consensus Building,
and Development of
Common Visions
Community-Based
Participatory Planning
processes
Cohesion building
through teamwork on
common activities
Building consensus on
what activities to
undertake and how
Identification of
collective visions and
interests
Created Opportunities
and Spaces for
Participation
Building of Social
Bonds and Bridges
Created Unity and
Inclusiveness
Create Equality and
Synergy
Improved
Relationships between
herders and farmers
Integration of IDPs/
refugees in host
communities.
Family and a sense of
oneness
Religious values and
beliefs
Mutually beneficial
demographic dividend
Reduced tensions
between communities
Built tolerance, trust,
unity, and peace
Food for Peace Works
Cash incentives
Institution of Conflict
Management Systems
Created the space for
women
Raised awareness
about the role of
women in community
development.

14. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID WFP'S ACTIVITIES INCREASED
PARTICIPATION IN CROSS-IDENTITY SOCIAL AND CULTURAL EVENTS
97.1
94.6
38.8
94.6
82.4
32
2.9
5.4
61.2
5.4
17.6
68
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Cross-Ethnic Social Events
Cross-Community Social Events
Cross-Religious Social Events
Cross-Ethnic Cultural Events
Cross-Community Cultural Events
Cross-Religious Festive Events
YES No

15. 78.9 81.8 73.9
10.3 8.9
11.7
10.9 9.3 14.4
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
120.0
Increased Trust between
different groups
Increased Respect between
different groups
Reduced Suspicions between
different groups
Very high/High Moderate Very low/Low
SOCIAL BONDING THROUGH INCREASED TRUST, RESPECT,
AND REDUCED SUSPICION

16. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Feel safe engaging
other ethnic groups
No longer fear to be
part of activities of
other groups(
religious or ethnic)
Feel secure and
protected from
experiencing harm
Don't feel
discriminated against
99.3 95.3 92.1 97.8
0.4 3.3 4.3
0.8
0.4 1.4 3.6
1.4
Figure 4: Increased Sense Of Safety And Security In Presence Of Other
Groups
Strongly Agree/Agree Strongly Disaggree/Agree Not Sure/Prefer not to say

17. PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAID THEY WITNESSED
COLLABORATIVE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN PROJECT COMMUNITIES
95.3%
94.8%
4.7% 5.2%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
120.0%
Burkina Faso Niger
Witnessed Not Witnessed

18. WFP ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTION TO VERTICAL SOCIAL COHESION
Increased
equality
WOMEN YOUTH
LEADERS
• Chiefs/Elders
• Religious Leaders
• Local Government Official
• CSO/NGO Actors
Increased Mutual
Respect
Increased Trust
Increased
Representation
Participation in decision
making
Increased
participation in
activities
Participation in decision
making
Increased
Representation
Increased
participation in
activities
Decreased Social
Distance
Engagement of
youth of different
identity groups

19. TESTIMONIES
Textbox 26: Opportunities to Meet Helped
Us Know Each Other
“What caused this change is the arrival of the
WFP in our community because before the
arrival of the WFP we did not meet at the
chief's place if it was not during traditional
festivals, that is to say periodically but thanks
to the activities implemented by the WFP, we
cannot go 10 days without meeting”
(BF_KII_01_1127_M)
Textbox 27: Forging Bonds Through Work
“By initiating these activities, the members of our
community and those of other communities got
to know each other, putting aside their ethnicity
to be a single community, no doubt this has
positive consequences for social cohesion. Only
yesterday, so, and so went to a village to attend the
wedding of one of his friends whom he met thanks
to the activities of WFP”. (NR_KII_01_4128_M)

20. HOW AND WHY DID CHANGE
HAPPEN?
KEY LESSONS ON WFP
CONTRIBUTIONS

21. WFP’s
Contribution to
Social Cohesion
Catalytic
Stimulative
Resource Injection
Community
Mobilization
Triggers Collective Action
Social Bonding
Social Bridging
Perceived Shared
Interests
Perceived
Interdependencies

22. Extrinsic vs. intrinsic
motivations for participation:
Place and Role of religion in
social cohesion building
Women and land ownership
Caveats and Need for Deep Dives

23. LIMITATION
STUDY
• Scope of the study
• Exclusion of Outsider/Outlier Voices and Views
• Agro-seasonality and Timing of Data Collection
INTERPRETING
• Scope Limitations
• Results - Not unexpected, Not Unique to
WFP
• Influence of pre-existing social and
cultural predispositions

24. SUGGESTIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR FUTURE
ACTIONS
GOING
FORWAR
D

25. RESPONDENTS’ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING SOCIAL COHESION
•Expand, Enhance, and Intensify Existing Activities
•Expand Opportunities for off-farm food production and income-generation activities
•Intensify Peace Education
Invest in the Development of Complementary Infrastructure
Focus on Agro-business capacity development for young people
1
2
3
4
5

26. RESEARCHERS’ RECOMMENDATIONS
1. CONTINUE, CONSOLIDATE, AND SPREAD
2. REVIEW, REORIENT, RETOOL
3. RECOGNIZE, VALIDATE, AND HARNESS LOCAL CAPACITIES AND
POTENTIALS.
4. LEVERAGE, INNOVATE, AND DEEPEN
5. FURTHER RESEARCH AND LEARNING

27. Questions?