48Sustainability Field Study
ANNEX 3: Summary of Activities Conducted Under PCI and CAIPPeaceful Communities Initiative (PCI)Beginning in 2001 and extending through September of 2006, PCI directly implemented communitymobilization and conflict mitigation activities in 73 primary communities in three countries. In its firstthree years, PCI targeted 38 communities in the Ferghana Valley region of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan andUzbekistan. With an extension of the program beginning in 2004, PCI expanded to 35 new communities,including the addition of communities in the Penjikent Raion of Zarafshan Valley, Tajikistan.PCI utilized a cluster approach for selecting and working with communities. The communities andclusters were selected based on a history of or potential for conflict as well as for their level of poverty,isolation and relative under-development. Consisting of at least three target communities each, clusterswere most often interdependent on shared or even cross-border infrastructure, resources, land orpublic buildings and services. <strong>Mercy</strong> <strong>Corps</strong> worked with each of the communities within the clusters todevelop their intra-community capacities as well as to facilitate improved relations between the communitiesthrough close collaboration on the identification, planning and implementation of joint socialand infrastructure projects.During the initial three years, known as PCI I, many ofthe clusters were cross-border clusters focused onalleviating tensions that emerged with the recent impositionof international borders. However, the internalpolitical situations in both Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistanchanged things significantly, bringing negative attitudeson the part of governments for cross-border movementand exchanges. After the revolution in Kyrgyzstanin March of 2005, Uzbekistan in particular becameextremely concerned about the potential for instabilityto spread. This concern was compounded followingSANDY SHEARD, 2007 FOR MERCY CORPSthe events of Andijan in May of the same year and theresulting flow of refugees into Kyrgyzstan. As a result,borders became a very sensitive issue for the remaining period of PCI’s implementation. At the sametime, the relationships that became the most tense were no longer between neighboring communities,but even more between communities and government. PCI adapted by placing greater emphasis ongovernment-community accountability and a focus on village clusters that did not necessarily spanacross international borders but that were instead affected by other issues, such as resource allocationsand ethnic differences.From initiation of the program, PCI recognized that tensions exist between communities and the localgovernment representatives that serve them. The program made a concerted effort to engage governmentin all aspects of the mobilization and peace building process. Oblast, raion, rural board andvillage representatives took part in tenders, provided material and financial contributions to projects,lobbied higher levels of government for contributions and were regular participants in meetings andtrainings. If not members of a CAG themselves, government officials were actively engaged with CAGmembers, assisting with the design and monitoring of projects and taking part in many communities’decision-making processes.Engagement of youth in the program was a primary focal point of PCI, as the design assumed thataddressing sources of tension is only possible through the inclusion of youth in the communitydecision-making process, in order to foster a sense of identity with the community and introduceUnderstanding What Promotes Lasting Change at the Community Level49