Global Poverty Action FundANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2015

Please read the following instructions carefully.

This annual report template includes DFID reporting requirements for 2015. It is designed to:

provide assurance on project progress and management; check compliance with the terms and conditions of your grant; inform a wider analysis of all GPAF projects; communicate the successes and challenges of your project; and contribute to learning on emerging results.

What has changed from last year’s (2014) template?The template has been reviewed in response to the Fund Manager’s experience from previous rounds, input from the GPAF Evaluation Manager and DFID requirements and considerations. It also reflects feedback from grant holders reporting in 2014 and attending the Results and Learning seminars in January 2015. Some revisions have been made to strengthen the document, whilst maintaining a high degree of continuity with last year’s report.

The key changes are:

clarifications to guidance and clearer wording of some questions, for example on logframes, risk and value for money

two new sections on a) the new requirement in grant arrangements for a visibility statement and b) methodological tools

a revised and more open section on learning some different questions on project accountability to stakeholders, to avoid

repetition from last year a few new questions, for example on assumptions, beneficiary data and use

of the DFID logo removal of a few questions, for example on beneficiaries

What is required?

How? Where relevant, refer back to your 2014 Annual (or Interim) Report feedback

letter Use the Annual Report template (this document) without altering its structure. Cover the period between 1st April 2014 and 31st March 2015 Keep within the page length limits. Submit your Annual Report and all accompanying documentation, including

separate annexes as WORD / Excel documents, rather than PDF files. Send all required documents by email to gpaf@tripleline.com. Hard copies are

not required.

When? Your report is due by 30th April 2015

What to send? (Use as checklist)

1. Narrative Report (this document)

Mark with an

“X”Section and Title Page

limit Notes

1 Basic Information 2 Basic project data.

2 Summary, Progress & Achievements 6 A narrative summary of progress and

results.

3 Value for Money 2 A summary of actions and achievements in relation to value for money.

4 Sustainability 1 Progress towards ensuring sustainability

5Project Accountability to Stakeholders

1 Information on project mechanisms to enable beneficiary feedback.

6 Learning 2 Lessons from project implementation for learning and dissemination.

7Responses to Due Diligence Recommendations

1Information on actions undertaken following Due Diligence review (if not already reported).

Annex A

Outcome and output scoring 12

A record of progress against the milestones and targets in your project logframe. Includes an assessment of progress against each indicator and the evidence which supports the statements of achievement.

Annex B

Consolidated beneficiary table 2 A summary of the number of individual

project beneficiaries.

Annex C Portfolio Analysis 3

Some basic information about your project to feed into an analysis of the whole portfolio of GPAF projects.

2. Project Documents (attachments)

Mark with an

“X”Document Notes

Photograph(s) and notes

New photograph(s) which illustrates or tells a story of your project. Attach as a separate file(s) (i.e. do not embed into another document), preferably as a JPEG file.

IMPORTANT: In a separate document please provide: * captions or explanations of the photo(s);* the photographer’s name, if possible;* assurance that subjects have given their consent, both for the photograph to be taken and for its possible use in learning/publicity materials.

Mark with an

“X”Document Notes

Reporting Logframe

Most recently approved Logframe and Activity Log in Excel format, with ‘Achieved’ boxes completed for each indicator, and each relevant milestone.

Please label this document: “GPAF (ref. no.) Reporting Logframe (+ date prepared)”.

Revised Logframe

To be submitted if you are proposing a revision to the logframe – see section 2.9 of the report. Highlight the changes you have made. Please also include a narrative Word document, maximum 2 A4 pages at Font 12, which explains why revisions are requested and what the revisions are.

Please label this document: “GPAF (ref. no.) Revised Logframe – Proposed (+ date prepared)”.

Revised Risk Matrix Highlights any new risks, if applicable - see section 2.10 of the report.

Up to date asset register

The register you use to record all capital items of equipment purchased with project funds.

3. Financial Report (attachment - use the most recent Excel template circulated with this report template)

Mark with an

“X”Document Notes

Annual Financial Report + Variance Notes

Two worksheets on Excel template showing expenditure over 2014/15, compared to budget.

Financial SummaryWorksheet on Excel template showing a summary of expenditure over the life of your project, compared to budget.

It is very important to note that:

Project expenditure must be reported against the full budget agreed by Fund Manager and not the summary budget used for expenditure claims.

Any variances in excess of 10%, either positive or negative, (or transfers between main budget-sub-headings) must be explained.

You should show any variances both in terms of total amount in GBP (£) and as a percentage of budget.

Information and References:

Purpose of the GPAF

The Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) is a demand-led fund supporting projects which are focused on:

poverty reduction and pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)

through tangible changes to poor people’s lives including through:

service delivery empowerment and accountability work on conflict, security and justice

Further Guidance documents that may help with the completion of this annual report include:

Gender and Diversity: Gender guidelines prepared specifically for the GPAF: Gender and the Global

Poverty Action FundNote that these guidelines are due to be updated, after which the hyperlink above will not work. The new guidelines, once uploaded, will be on the GPAF page of www.gov.uk under ‘project documents’. 

DFID Disability Framework 2014

Value For Money: BOND VFM Guidelines BOND – Integrating VFM into the Programme Cycle Diagram DFID VFM Guidelines

Quality of Evidence: BOND Quality of Evidence Guidelines DFID How-To-Note – Assessing the Strength of Evidence

Any Questions?

If you have any questions about the completion of your annual reporting requirements, please contact the Fund Manager at gpaf@tripleline.com or on 0208 788 4680.

Common questions with answers and further guidance are being circulated as Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) alongside this report, drawing on the issues raised by grant holders at the Results and Learning seminars held at the end of January 2015.

GPAF ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORTSECTION 1: BASIC INFORMATION This information is needed to update the Fund Manager’s records1.1 Grant Holder Organisation

NameScottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF)

1.2 Grant Holder Organisation Address

19 Park Circus, Glasgow G3 6BE, Scotland, United Kingdom.

1.3 Project partner(s) List implementation partners. Highlight any changes to

partners. For multi-country projects,

please indicate which partner is in which country

1. CDJP Uvira, South Kivu, DRC.2. CDJP Bukavu, South Kivu, DRC.3. BDOM Codilusi, South Kivu, DRC.4. CEJP Rwanda, Kigali, Rwanda.

No changes to the project partners.

1.4 Project Title Improving income, assets and food security of 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu, DRC and Ruhango District, Rwanda.

1.5 GPAF Number GPAF-IMP-067.1.6 Countries Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Rwanda.1.7 Location within countries DRC – Bukavu and Uvira areas of South Kivu Province.

Rwanda – Ruhango District and Kigoma Sector. 1.8 Project Start & End Dates Start: January 2013.

End: December 2015.1.9 Reporting Period From: 01/04/2014

To: 31/03/20151.10 Project Year (e.g. Year 1,

Year 2)Year 3

1.11 Total project budget £569,211.191.12 Total funding from DFID £313,7911.13 Financial contributions from

other sources Please state all other sources of funding and amounts in relation to this project. Sources should be listed in brackets, e.g.:£75,000 (ABC Foundation)

Total £255,420.19

List all contributions £184,109 (SCIAF).

1.14 Date report produced 30/04/20151.15 Name and position of

person(s) who compiled this report

Name: Mark Brownbridge.Position: Programme Officer.Name: Mari Everett.Position: International Financial Accountant. Name: Percy Patrick.Position: Programme Manager.

1.16 Name, position & email address for the main contact person for correspondence relating to

Name: Mark Brownbridge Position: Programme OfficerEmail 1: mbrownbridge@sciaf.org.uk

this project1.17 Secondary contact person

(optional)Name: Percy PatrickPosition: Programme ManagerEmail 1: ppatrick@sciaf.org.uk

1.18 Acronyms Please try not to use too many acronyms, and explain all that you do use e.g. CHW – Community Health Worker.

Acronym ExplanationSCIAF Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund.S & C Groups/SHGs

Savings and Credit Groups/Units or Self-help Groups.

SHGs Self-help GroupsIGA Income Generating Activities.M23 March 23 Movement (militia).DRC Democratic Republic of Congo. SGBV Sexual and Gender-Based Violence. EU European Union.

FARDC Forces Armées de la République Démocratique du Congo (Congolese national army)

SECTION 2: SUMMARY, PROGRESS AND RESULTS (Up to 6 pages)2.1 PROJECT SUMMARY (max 10 lines)

Please provide a brief project summary including who will benefit, the overall change the initiative is intending to achieve and a brief summary of the approach.

The project aims to improve income, assets and food security of 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu Province of DRC and in Ruhango District of Rwanda through increased productivity in agriculture and microenterprises via skill development, microfinance, agricultural inputs and strong leadership. The project initiatives enable them to have vibrant livelihoods that generate a substantial increase in income, assets ownership, self-esteem and social participation so that they meet their basic economic and health needs and have access to justice.2.2 RELEVANCE TO CONTEXT

Has the context changed? Does your GPAF project remain relevant to the context where you are working? How do you know? Please explain what you have done to ensure that the interventions represented in the logframe and activity log continue to respond to the priorities and needs of the target population.

The context has not changed and the GPAF project remains relevant to the context where SCIAF is working. A mid-term review conducted by an external consultant in January and February 2015 concluded that the ‘underlying project logic was sound’ and is relevant to the needs of women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu Province, DRC.1 South Kivu Province continues to experience elevated levels of conflict, despite the Congolese Army having dislodged a number of rebel contingents in recent months, rebel activities continue to pose a significant threat. Sexual violence continues in Rwanda in spite of Rwandan Government efforts. In the Human Development Index DRC ranks 186 with 87.72% of the population living below $1.25/day and Rwanda ranks 167 with 63.17% of the population living below $1.25/day.2 The log-frame was amended in August 2014, with agreement form Triple Line. Modest amendments to milestones from the following outcomes and outputs were made: outcome indicator 4, 6, 2.2, 4.1 and 4.2. With the exception of outcome indicator 4, which represented a modest reduction of the milestones, the milestones in the other mentioned indicators have been modestly increased. All agreed modifications were proposed due to the project realities, with the implementing partners and SCIAF believing that small increases in the project’s outputs can be achieved. 2.3 EQUITY (GENDER & DIVERSITY)

Does this project continue to contribute to equity - i.e. equitable poverty reduction and empowerment of men, women, girl and boys and relevant marginalised groups to participate in decisions that affect them at the local and national level and start to equalise their life chances? (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box)

Yes X No To some extent:a. Please explain your response in the space below including reference to the gender and other

power relations encountered by the project, and to any socio-economic analysis: Women in DRC/Rwanda are one of the poorest and marginalised groups in their community. Their basic human rights and dignity are violated and the first victims of an ongoing conflict. The project is designed to work primarily with women affected by conflict and poverty and address factors preventing them to access to and control over resources, and limiting their participation and decision-making within and outside their households. In addition the project aims to address the limited access and control over resources in existing patriarchal system. The project seeks to improve the economic well-being of the women beneficiaries through supporting them develop IGAs. The economic benefits associated with women developing IGAs are sustained through them being members of SHGs, which operate as business lending facilities. The SHGs also act as invaluable psychosocial support facilities for their members, with good results in supporting their members to recover their emotional wellbeing.

1 Jones, Sarah. (2015) “SCIAF/DFID Great Lakes Livelihoods Programme Mid-Term Review”.2 UNDP HDR 2014 (2012 figures).

b. What has the project done this year to ensure that it is designed, implemented and monitored in such a way that gender needs and issues are addressed or mainstreamed, and that it delivers and tracks improvements in the lives of women and girls? What analytical tools do you use, if any, to do this? (Please refer to the guidance note ‘Gender and the GPAF’)

Gender is at the heart of this project. It aims to address the particular challenges that women face in the DRC in relation to conflict, violence and poverty in a way that both empowers them individually, and addresses some of the societal factors and relationships that make them particularly vulnerable. The project is women-focused, with all but a small number of beneficiaries being women. The male beneficiaries are exclusively police and army personnel, priests and tax officials receiving training in areas such as improving understanding of SGBV, the role and responsibility of military and police in protecting the population, the impact of illegal taxes that are often imposed on small traders, etc. The training is dedicated to supporting the goals of the programme, and delivering benefits to the beneficiary and others in the target communities, through beginning to challenging the culture of impunity by perpetrators of violence and officials that fail to exercise their duty and not threaten the economic well-being of the population. The staffs employed by the 4 implementing partners have continued their approach of engaging with the male members of the beneficiary households (usually husbands or adult sons) to ensure that they understand the objectives of the project and their responsibilities and potential benefits of engaging in it for the women beneficiaries. Through this approach concerns and objections from male family members, which are usually as a result of anxiety and uncertainty with the project, are minimised. The project design has proved to be appropriate to needs of the beneficiaries and has been an effective means of improving their economic status through the formation of microfinance units and the development of small enterprises controlled by the beneficiaries, and being members of SHGs which have several important functions – savings and credit facilities that enable their members to borrow money that enable them to increase the scale of their business or diversify their enterprises; providing psychosocial support that helps beneficiaries’ emotional recovery and improve their confidence and self-esteem; reducing the level of isolation and discrimination and reducing vulnerability to SGBV. The project has a well-defined monitoring and evaluation system, with a range of tools used by all partners for data collection. Partner staffs work in a participatory fashion with beneficiaries to collect data on the indicators identified in the log-frame.3 Partners use women volunteers to assist with data collection in order to facilitate gather information from beneficiaries, as we it may more difficult if done by male staff members.

c. What steps have the grant holder and implementing partner(s) taken to support the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion through: i) Organisational policies and practice, including the staffing profile of the project?ii) Promoting inclusion skills and competencies within the organisation?Please respond particularly with reference to gender and disability.

SCIAF and implementing partners have taken following steps to support the principles of equity, diversity and inclusion. Beneficiary Selection: SCIAF and implementing partners have developed the beneficiary selection criteria with active involvement of the target communities and community leaders. The beneficiaries were selected based on following criteria: 1) Widow, 2) Single women, 3) Women affected by sexual violence, 4) Landless/ extreme poverty, 5) Child headed households, 6) Disabled and 7) PLWHIV. According to the external Mid-Term review “The process of selection of beneficiaries differed somewhat between partners but the primary criterion for selection of beneficiaries was extreme vulnerability as a result of conflict, extreme poverty, SGBV or widowhood.”4 Promoting Women’s Empowerment and Equality: In addition the programme seeks to build the capacity of women in leadership and to raise awareness amongst duty bearers of women’s rights and their responsibilities towards them. (All Self-Help Groups leaders are women. Self-Help Groups leaders are trained in leadership and management. Special emphasis has been given to identify disable and PLHIV as beneficiaries. (See section below). The influence persons/decision-makers (i.e. priests, army and police officials) in society is trained on gender equality, laws related to sexual violence and the needs of women.) Organisational Staffing and Policies: 40% implementing partner staff are female and occupy senior position within the project such as Project Coordinator. SCIAF is focusing on gender mainstreaming, and is developing an organisational Gender Policy during 2015. During 2015 and as part

3 See Mid Term Review Report pp31-32.4 Jones, Sarah. (2015) p12.

of the new Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020 SCIAF will be providing significantly more support to partners to develop gender policies and mainstream gender throughout their work. HIV/AIDS and Disabilities: SCIAF has worked with the implementing partners to raise awareness and commitment to actively including people with disabilities and/or people living with HIV/AIDS. Progress in integrating this into the programme activities has varied between the partners, and one partner in particular (CEJP Rwanda) has made significant efforts to identify and include people with disabilities and/or people living with HIV & AIDS in the programme. CEJP Rwanda has identified 35 out of 300 beneficiaries being disabled or PLHIV and 3% of CDJP Bukavu’s beneficiaries are disabled.2.4 KEY ACHIEVEMENTS

Please provide a heading and summary of the three most significant project achievements over the last year (up to 10 lines each) with particular reference to the objectives of the GPAF. This section provides you with an opportunity to tell the story of the project’s successes and what you are most proud of this year. Please be as specific as possible in describing the target groups; how many citizens benefitted (men/women; girls/boys); and how they have benefitted. Also make it clear where the achievements were made in coalition or partnership with other, non-project actors.

1. In January/February 2015 an external consultant carried out a Mid-Term Review of the programme, visiting all 4 partners and meeting beneficiaries and staff in each project area. She concluded that while the programme is not yet meeting all milestones, it has made a significant difference to the livelihoods and well-being of project beneficiaries. The consultant concluded the project has been effective in: I) encouraging adoption of new and sustainable farming techniques and technology; ii) increasing agricultural production and yield; iii) building cohesive and supportive SHGs; iv) building the capacity of individuals and groups to save and build capital; v) developing the capacity of members to effectively and sustainably build and maintain IGAs; vi) directly and indirectly providing psychosocial support and mediation to beneficiaries and their families; vii) supporting women to recognise their collective voice and exercise their collective power. 2. An example of how the project has helped women to benefit from a reduction in corruption that damage the economic opportunities open to them in Bukavu. In Bukavu market traders are subject to some legitimate government taxes. However, they are also commonly being required to pay a number of illegal taxes that are for the sole purpose of personal profit for the tax officials. During the training provided to tax officials and police CDJP Bukavu informed the officials of the illegal taxes that being imposed and the location of the markets being subjected to these taxes. There then followed police investigations, with support from the Ministry of Finance, to establish the identity of the wrongdoers and this led to arrests.3). Training and advocacy with the police/military has helped to start to change behaviours and reduce the culture of impunity. In Bukavu, prior to the programme’s trainings for police/military personnel, there was considerable reluctance to collaborate with CDJP Bukavu in investigating any crime suspected to be perpetrated by military/police personnel. Since the training the situation has begun to change. This may have been important in the recent case of the abduction of a programme beneficiary in March 2015. The police have been active in investigating this abduction, and CDJP Bukavu believes that prior to their engagement with police/military there may have been no active investigation into this abduction.2.5 PROGRESS AGAINST DELIVERABLE AND TIMESCALES

How would you describe the current status of project progress in relation to the original time-scale? (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box)a. This project is on track against its deliverables and original timescale Xb. This project is off track but expected to be back on track in the next reporting

periodc. This project is off track and not expected to be back on track in the next

reporting periodPlease list key factors that have contributed positively to progress:

The project is now in its final year of implementation, and over the past 2 years the implementing partners have become increasingly adept at implementing the project and understanding their role in facilitating positive development change for the beneficiaries. Specifically partners have developed improved skills in key project management, including understanding of log-framework and utilising them as management tools, improve reporting, engaged in improved approaches in identifying and selecting poor/vulnerable beneficiaries and providing bespoke support that supports beneficiaries achieve their potential. Closer engagement with local authorities in target communities has led to an increase in support they have provided to the project and the beneficiaries. In Bukavu, CDJP Bukavu has continued to strive to improve the relationships between themselves and the local authorities, principally the military and ministry of finance officials. This closer working relationship has helped to begin to address the culture of impunity by perpetrators of crimes and has begun to encourage a greater appreciation of the responsibility of military/police personnel to protect citizens and investigate crimes that occur. Being part of the Catholic Church has continued to enable the implementing partners to effectively implement the project in a cost-effective manner, through being able to have recourse to skilled and committed volunteers, including priests, to carry out much of the project’s work in the target communities and being able utilise the church’s infrastructure, such as meeting rooms to have general beneficiary meetings and confidential psychosocial support to individuals. SCIAF has provided support to the implementing partners in monitoring and evaluation. The partners, for example, have been trained in effective use of the DFID log frame as a management tool. Continued training and on-going support has been given to partners to improve their understanding of and ability to carry out effective assessments and surveys, such as those mentioned in Annex 7. This has helped the implementing partners to have an improved understanding of the contribution of the project to beneficiaries and the development needs of the beneficiaries. For example, implementing partners initially had significant difficulties in supporting project beneficiaries to estimate their crop production levels. Progressively they have been able to develop approaches that support beneficiaries to being able to make accurate production estimates.List key challenges or factors impacting negatively on progress, and how they have been addressed:The security situation in DRC continues to present challenges to the programme. Partners in Bukavu have observed that while the conflict between formal militia forces and the DRC govt. military has reduced, especially in response to the military defeat of the M23, the numbers of targeted assignations and kidnapping has increased and there has been an apparent proliferation of small, unorganised armed groups that have few if any political goals, focusing on entirely or largely on banditry. Violent crime continues to present day-to-day challenges for community members. Violence against programme beneficiaries and partner staff occurs from time-to-time and the rule of law and the effective administration of justice remain tenuous. In March 2015 one of CDJP Bukavu’s beneficiaries was abducted.  In order to contribute to safeguarding the security of beneficiaries, in particular in Bukavu, South Kivu Province the partners (especially CDJP Bukavu) are working hard to develop good working relationships with the military/police in order for them to understand and accept their mandate or proactively protect civilians and effectively investigate incidents of violence against the public. The Mid-Term Review highlighted the important role that SHGs play in supporting women and the success that they are having within the programme. However, it also highlighted concerns about the challenges some groups face in effectively building loan funds and, more generally, developing as autonomous groups. SCIAF has sought to address the problems of loan funds through additional funding (providing £23,200 supplementary funding from SCIAF’s own funds). How best to link members to external financial services, develop the autonomy of the SHGs, and establish the 3 associations, will be reviewed with the partners in the remainder of the programme. The Mid-Term Review also highlighted challenges with the livestock rotation component, which while “highly regarded and appreciated” by beneficiaries, is insufficiently resourced to be able to provide all members with livestock as quickly as they would like.[1] If the project is considered to be ‘off track’ please explain what measures are being taken to get the project back ‘on track’:Not applicable

[1] Mid-Term Review, p6.

2.6 CHANGES TO PROJECT STATUSIn the last reporting period have there been any significant changes in relation to the following? Tick the boxes as appropriate. (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box)a. Project designb. Partner(s)c. Context Xd. Availability of match-funding (where relevant)Provide a brief explanation of what has changed, when and why:

The security situation in South Kivu Province, DRC has generally remained stable, and in the continued absence of the M23 following their military defeat in November 2013, there has been a reduction in the level of conflict. However, the causes of the conflict have not been addressed, the remaining militia groups remain active and there is a common belief in South Kivu Province that the number of disparate, unofficial and unnamed armed groups with no goals except banditry.2.7 UNINTENDED (POSITIVE) OUTCOMES

Are there any unintended outcomes that have been observed as a result of your project implementation during this reporting period? Please list below. If these require a revision to the project logframe, please incorporate into your response to question 2.9.

On 23 March 2015 a beneficiary of the project, through CDJP Bukavu was abducted. This incident was reported to Triple Line. After approximately 1 week the armed group released the beneficiary unharmed. As a direct result of the project and the relationship that CDJP Bukavu has established with the police/military in South Kivu, the abduction was investigated carefully by the police, which may not have been the case without the training that CDJP Bukavu has provided to police officers, which has encouraged them to take the incidents seriously and investigate them more fully. BDOM Codilusi has reported that 24 of its beneficiaries have been able to renovate their own homes, including purchasing new zinc sheet roofing. While the number of beneficiaries benefitting to this extend is relatively modest, it is almost certain that these beneficiaries would be unable to renovate their homes in this way if they were not part of the project. And the fact that this renovation is quite costly, relative to beneficiaries’ normal living costs, indicates the project has at least for some beneficiaries led to positive economic change. 2.8 UNINTENDED (NEGATIVE) CONSEQUENCES

Has the project implementation led to any unintended negative effects during this reporting period? Please list and explain below. If these are considered to have a negative effect on the outcome of the project, do they require a revision of the project risk matrix? If so, please incorporate into your response to question 2.11.

There have not been any negative consequences in the project. The one exception is inevitably that some beneficiaries initially have unrealistic expectations on the transformative impact the will have on their lives. An example with slight disquiet arising as a result of having to wait for a longer period than they have anticipated before they are provided with loan funding through their respective SHGs. 2.9 PROJECT LOGFRAME

Note: All changes to logframes require approval from the Fund Manager. (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate boxes)Has your logframe been approved by the Fund Manager?

Yes X Not yet – work in progress Not sureIf your logframe has been approved, do you wish to make changes to it or discuss it with the Fund Manager?

Yes X NoHave any of the assumptions underpinning your logframe or wider ‘theory of change’ come under challenge? Please explain what happened and, broadly, the impact. No

If you want to make changes to your approved logframe, as a result of changed assumptions or for other reasons, have you attached a justification and a copy of your logframe highlighting the proposed changes? Please label this document: “GPAF (ref. no.) Revised Logframe – Prepared (+ date prepared)”

Yes X NoOn the basis of your project implementation experience during this reporting period, do you consider there to be any key aspects of your project which are not sufficiently captured in your project logframe (such as hard-to-measure qualitative results)?

If yes, please use the space below to explain. Yes No X

Not applicable.

2.10 RISK MANAGEMENT & MITIGATIONWith reference to the project’s risk matrix, please use the table below to describe the main risks you faced in the reporting period and how you dealt with them. Ensure that you consider the challenges described in section 2.5 when completing this section.

Which risks materialized during the year?Describe briefly. Please ensure you include staff turnover and vacancies or risks relating to partnership working if this applied.

Was the risk anticipated? Yes / No / To some extent

What action did you take to address the risk? Briefly explain.

Was this action sufficient?Yes / No / To some extent

1. CDJP Bukavu has made progress in developing a working relationship with the military/police commander. The commander has been relocated and replaced by a new officer. The good relationship is spearheaded by the commander, so a change at this level is a potential threat.

No CDJP Bukavu is developing a strategy and approach to develop a good working relationship with the new military and police commandant.

This will be known at a later stage when there has bene time to assess its impact.

2. In eastern DRC insecurity remains a major threat to the whole civilian population and specifically to women.

Yes In December 2014 SCIAF commissioned a security consultant to carry out a security risk assessment in DRC that will inform implementing partners in DRC and SCIAF on appropriate security provision and safeguards.

To some extent.

3. Increasing food prices may force beneficiaries to spend a greater proportion of household income on food, necessitating distress sales of assets and lower than expected results.

Yes The only mitigation action the project can affect is to contribute to beneficiaries’ self-reliance through producing a higher proportion of their family’s food requirements, with them being less dependent on purchasing food in local markets.

To some extent.

2.11 Are you expecting significant new risk(s) in the next reporting period that would affect project performance or completion? If yes, tick the box and list the new anticipated risks in the table below. Yes X NoAnticipated risks and mitigating actions. Complete the table if relevant (maximum of 4 risks). Focus on higher level risks such as a deterioration in the operating environment. Include any unanticipated risks which occurred in the reporting period and which you expect to continue to apply in the next. Include staff vacancies and partnership working as appropriate.

Anticipated risks Intended mitigating actions

Risk rating: Your assessment of risk probability & impact

1. In Bukavu there is a concern that the security situation may further deteriorate through an apparent proliferation of small armed groups, with an impact on the project and direct impact on beneficiaries.

SCIAF has commissioned a specialist to provide basic security training & carryout a security assessment for partners in DRC.

Medium.

2. Community disturbances and violence may take place if it is announced that the current DRC president, Joseph Kabila, intends to change the national constitution and stand for office for a third time. So far the president has not confirmed or denied he intends to stand for a third term.

Implementing partners will develop contingency plans to minimise the risks to their staff and beneficiaries while ensuring delivery of the project is continued.

Medium.

2.12 If you anticipate new risks please submit a revised risk matrix. Revised risk matrix attached highlighting new anticipated risks? (Mark with an “X” in the appropriate box) Yes X No

SECTION 3: VALUE FOR MONEY (Up to 2 pages)See introductory section on page 4 for guidance and resources on Value for Money. 3.1 Economy: Buying inputs of the appropriate quality at the right price. What policies and

practices have been followed this year to ensure that funds have been used to purchase inputs economically? What has the project done to drive down costs whilst maintaining the necessary standards of quality? Include references to the use of any relevant unit cost benchmarks. (DFID considers inputs to include staff, consultants, raw materials and capital to produce outputs.)

SCIAF and the implementing partners have continued to exercise careful control over expenditure through engaging in a tender process for the procurement of seeds, agricultural tools, small animals and other significant purchases. The policy and practice adhere to is to document the procedures and controls by SCIAF which govern the accounting and payment of all types of expenditure and based on the concepts of best practice, value for money and quality for all procurement contracts for supplies, works, services and utilities. The final decision will be based on price, quality and delivery and after sales service. All original quotations and documents should be retained for inspection and the procurement procedures followed should be documented. In addition, SCIAF is working with the partners in revising their procurement policies to formalise their guidelines on purchasing, with safeguards on ensuring value for money and financial probity being central components of the policy.

The implementing partners have continued implementing practical measures that minimise project costs. Examples include sourcing trainers and consultants locally, combine training among partners and carrying out trainings in local facilities where the venue hire costs are lowest and the transportation charges for participants are minimised.

Parish volunteers are continuing to support the project. The costs associated with engaging the volunteers are relatively modest, with them having a detailed understanding and deep empathy of beneficiaries’ needs and constraints and they offer the best opportunities for sustaining aspects of the project beyond the period of funding. Only local staffs are hired for the project. 3.2 Efficiency: Converting inputs to outputs through project activities. What steps have you

taken this year to ensure resources (inputs) have been used efficiently to maximise the results achieved, such as numbers reached or depth of engagement? Include references to the use of any relevant cost comparisons (benchmarks) at the output level (e.g. standard training cost per trainee) and any efficiencies gained from working in collaboration with others.

The Mid-Term Review concluded that while there ‘is insufficient data available for an accurate assessment of the programme’s efficiency. However, the scale of the project and the number of beneficiaries who have benefited from project inputs is impressive in relation to the level of funding.”5

The project has continued to provide livestock on a ‘pass-on’ basis. The aim is to maximise the number of beneficiaries that have received livestock (goats or pigs) by the end of the project, with parish volunteers supporting a continuation of the ‘pass-on’ process to beneficiaries that have yet to receive a livestock.

The project’s emphasis on training a sub-section of beneficiaries that are adjudged to be the most able to present the training to other beneficiaries through a ToT approach in their respective groups has been an cost efficient means of ensuring that all beneficiaries have access to the knowledge that can affect positive behavioural change.

All the project’s modest procurement has been on the local market. Seeds, tools and livestock have been locally sources. The cost efficiency of this approach is principally concerned with reducing the costs associated with transportation of procured items to the target communities.

5 Mid-Term Review p33.

3.3 Effectiveness: Project outputs achieving the desired outcome on poverty reductionTo what extent do you consider the project to be achieving the anticipated changes for beneficiaries and target groups? How well are the outputs of the project working towards the achievement of the outcome?

The procurement of seeds, tools and livestock from the local market has had the additional benefits of a). seeds and livestock are adapted to the local conditions in the target communities. This avoids the risk associated with the possibility of introducing exotic diseases and poor adaptability to local conditions. Sourcing tools on the local market can, especially in those that are locally fabricated, have the additional safeguard of being a positive incentive for suppliers to ensure that their reputation is enhanced through providing good quality, durable tools.

The project continues to work through church structures. This has continued to facilitate effective project implementation, enabling the project to readily reach beneficiaries, many of whom are ‘hard to reach’ and has enabled the project to benefit from being part of highly respected organisation that has some resources and human capacity at its disposal. This has enabled implementing partners to benefit through being able to advocate for the rights of the beneficiaries and engage local authorities to support beneficiaries through delivering services to them to a greater extent than would be the case had the implementing partners being independent of the church.3.4 Have there been or do you anticipate multiplier effects from this project? Multiplier effects

include leveraging additional funds, longer term or larger scale implementation or replication of approaches and results. Where additional project funds have already been secured, how have they been used to enhance delivery?

SCIAF has continued to contribute to the development of the capacity of the implementing partner organisations and the staff working for them. During the reporting period SCIAF has provided a grant of £1,250 to each partner, thus a total of £5,000 to the DFID project implementing partners, for them to utilise to improve the competence of spoken and written English by their key staff members and improve their communication skills.

One of the anticipated multiplier effects of the project is the microfinance programme that provides opportunity to regular savings and participates in the management of these savings and access to credit. It will results in generating self-employment possibilities for the beneficiaries in year 3 and beyond. Another activity that has larger scale implementation possibility is small animal loan or pass-one scheme as it is already showing results (i.e. in year 2 60 pass-on). It is reaching out many more vulnerable beneficiaries after starting with just a few.

Also in the reporting period CDJP Bukavu and CDJP Uvira (plus a partner in Rwanda and 2 partners in Malawi) have worked with SCIAF in developing a successful funding proposal to DFID for Aid Match funding, beginning in September 2015.

SCIAF is continuing to target appropriate funding opportunities to engage in with its partners and is continuing to support the capacity of partners to develop high quality project proposals.

SECTION 4: SUSTAINABILITY (Up to 1 page)

4.1 What have you done during this reporting period / what are the plans to ensure that positive changes to peoples’ lives will be sustained beyond the lifetime of the GPAF grant?

The Mid-Term Review concluded that “the programme design and activities were premised on building sustainable revenue and resources among a highly socially and economically vulnerable population. At this stage is difficult to assess how sustainable the programme will prove, given the length of the programme life and that very few of the SHG members have completed payment on their loans and many of the IGAs, if not new, are only recently expanded. However, the review had examples of individuals who had rapidly built a number of successful IGAs, were expanding their businesses and savings with formal institutions other than COOPEC. At an individual level, it can be argued that there are now women who have achieved or are systematically moving toward sustainable livelihoods. That most beneficiaries have made schooling their children their financial priority is also a measure of commitment to building a future generation and their skills and an aspect of sustainable livelihoods. The review recognises that the programme faces a number of risks that bear on the extent to which programme initiatives are sustained. Political instability, climate change, insecurity are risks faced by beneficiaries and it is not possible, in any way, to gauge how much these will affect sustainability.”6

The project has supported beneficiaries to develop and enhance their skills and ability in food production and income generation by providing training on mixed and modern farming techniques and microenterprise development. Formation of seed banks in Uvira and Rwanda supports farmers for conserving quality seeds through their self-management and use it in next farming season for planting. The goat/pig given under the animal loan or pass-on scheme will help to reach out more vulnerable households with a minimum cost.

4.2 If the project is introducing new or improved services that need to continue beyond the life of the grant, what have you done / what are the plans to ensure the sustainability of the service?

The project is committed to the formation of 3 associations SHGs, which previously did not exist. There will be one association formed in each of the 3 project target areas (Bukavu, Ruhango and Uvira). The associations will be an umbrella grouping of the SHGs and will represent the SHGs that they represent, with a mandate of advocating for the rights and services that SHG members are entitled to, will help to support SHGs to open bank/cooperative accounts, access credit etc.

The project has given SHG management training to selected members of the SHGs and in turn they will train their members. The partner staff also trained in microfinance concept. SCIAF is working with the implementing partners to closely mentoring and monitoring this activity. The association formation work is going on. Microenterprise, animal pass-on scheme and seed bank will be associated with SHG/association in long run. 4.3 What do you consider to be the main risks to sustainability and what are you doing to

mitigate these risks? In South Kivu, DRC the key challenge that potentially threatens the long-term benefits of the project is security. The implementing partners are unable to influence the extent of insecurity in the target communities and it is impossible for them to have any control over the security situation and its impact on beneficiaries beyond the period of project funding. However, SCIAF has been supporting the implementing partners in DRC through commissioning an organisation security assessment that will help partners to better understand the security risk and execute their projects accordingly, minimising the security risk to staff and beneficiaries. Through implementing the project effectively in an insecure context, the project will maximise the opportunities for its beneficiaries to increase their ability to develop and sustain small businesses and effectively work together in the future.

6 P33.

SECTION 5: PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO STAKEHOLDERS (Up to 1 page). DFID is particularly interested in mechanisms to enable project beneficiaries to provide feedback to project managers and their response to it. The purpose of beneficiary feedback is to maintain accountability to the people who the project is designed to assist or empower, and to ensure the relevance, effectiveness and sustainability of the intervention. The questions below aim to enhance understanding of the use of beneficiary feedback mechanisms within the GPAF portfolio. 5.1 What feedback do you seek from primary beneficiaries, how do you collect this

information and when? Implementing partners seek feedback principally in terms of understanding 1). The effectiveness of the project in delivering its goals 2). Any incidents and issues of concern regarding the management of the project and the relationship between beneficiaries and those implementing the project.

Feedback is collected from the beneficiaries during the training programme, community meeting, through volunteers, community leaders and Parish meeting and project staff one-to-one meeting with the beneficiary. The community volunteers are reporting beneficiary comments/feedbacks to the Project Coordinator who in turn discuss it with the larger partner team and send vital information to SCIAF. 5.2 What challenges has your project faced this year in collecting feedback from its primary

beneficiaries? As stated above, a key challenge in collecting feedback from beneficiaries is the fact that a significant proportion is illiterate and thus unable to provide written feedback to project staff. As written feedback can be anonymous if required the difficulty with getting much written feedback limits the opportunities to receive constructive and critical feedback.

Also, the large numbers of beneficiaries and the extensive geographical areas in which the beneficiaries reside (in beneficiaries in the case of 3 of the 4 implementing partners’ beneficiaries) means that it is very challenging to meet them individually in order to solicit their opinions of the project and the approach adopted by its staff and volunteers.

A formal approach to downward accountability is a relatively new concept to the implementing partners and none of the partners have downward accountability policies. The SCIAF programme officer has sensitised the implementing partners and has given them a downward accountability framework, which the partners are beginning to utilise as a tool to better communicate with their beneficiaries and solicit their views and opinions. But this area requires further attention and this is now a SCIAF priority.

5.3 What challenges has your project faced this year in acting upon beneficiary feedback?

Limited project resources have been a key constraint in addressing the beneficiaries’ feedback. For example, beneficiaries have reported that they need medical support, especially for health problems caused by SGBV and with greater availability of resources it would have been advantageous to allocate additional funding for ‘seed-funding’ for SHGs. 5.4 If you made any significant change to project design and / or delivery as a result of

beneficiary feedback, please describe it here.We are not making any significant change to project design and/or delivery as a result of beneficiary feedback.

SECTION 6: LEARNING (Up to 2 pages)Please identify the top 3 lessons you have learnt from this project, including from things which have not gone well and innovative approaches. Be specific and clear in describing the lesson, and in explaining how you have applied learning to improve project delivery.

Lesson How has this led to changes or improvements in the way you (i.e. grant holder or partner) have worked?

1. The SHGs offer substantial opportunity for their members to benefit from new skills, solidarity and friendship, however the groups have also sometimes been subject to conflict amongst their members and implementing partners have had to address this issue

The implementing partners have had to redouble their efforts to sensitize their members to improve the understanding and appreciation of all SHG members of their responsibilities within the SHGs. This has helped to reduce conflict within groups which was centred on a minority of members not respecting the rules governing the SHGs, including a reluctance by some to contribute the stipulated funds to the group and attend the scheduled meetings, while claiming the same funds that fully paid up members are entitled to.

2. The project’s beneficiaries are living in extreme poverty. Sometimes it is very difficult for beneficiaries who receive the equivalent of £50 for developing their own small businesses to ensure that the full amount is retained for establishing the business that they have identified and is not used for consumption or payment of urgent needs such as payment of medical costs or school fees.

Implementing partners that have provided (£50 equivalent) direct grants (CDJP Bukavu and BDOM Codilusi) for beneficiaries to develop small businesses have had to adopt a very supportive approach, ensuring that beneficiaries understand the importance of ensuring that the full grant is retained as working capital, without which it will be extremely challenge to generate adequate profit to cover daily costs as well as reinvest in the business. Beneficiaries are also informed clearly of their responsibility to their SHG colleagues, reminding them that if beneficiaries’ businesses do not prosper the funds available within the group for lending to members will not allow sustainable businesses to develop.

3. Many beneficiaries, particularly in South Kivu, prefer to develop additional IGAs rather than saving surplus funds in local banks/cooperatives. The reason for this is unfamiliarity with banks/cooperatives and how savings accounts operate, an inaccessible form of publicity and promotional material and perhaps suspicion that the funds may not be safe in the savings facilities. The result is beneficiaries have the opportunity of generating additional funds from the funds that have been generated from existing IGAs but the risk of total business failure is accentuated.

The implementing partners, especially CDJP Bukavu, are focused on developing a relationship with the local banks/cooperatives to improve their accessibility for poor, often illiterate, women, with simplified publicity and explanations of the accounts that they offer and a greater appreciation of the needs and constraints of the beneficiaries.

Are there any other lessons (up to 3) which you have learned that you think may be particularly useful for other partners, grant holders, the fund manager or for DFID? Please describe them and explain their wider relevance below.

No other lessons learned.

SECTION 7: REQUIREMENTS OF GRANT ARRANGEMENT (Up to 1 page)7.1 Responses to Due Diligence Recommendations If this is your first Annual Report for this project, you are required under clause 37 of your original Grant Arrangement to provide an update on any actions taken during this period in response to the recommendations of the Due Diligence report prepared for your organisation by KPMG. Please note that you should not comment on recommendations included as specific terms and conditions in section 4.d. of your Grant Arrangement, as these are monitored through a separate process. If this is your second or subsequent Annual Report, please use the space below to comment on any actions taken during this period in response to any remaining Due Diligence recommendations.

Recommendation 5 (9) PoliciesThe Employee Handbook and a range of other policies continued to be revised by the senior management team throughout  2014.  The UNISON group was also given the opportunity to review all suggested changes.  The amended policies and handbook were then implemented on 1st April 2015.  A rolling programming of review was also agreed to ensure that the UNISON group is fully involved in any future reviews.

Recommendation 6 (10) Authorisation limitsThe scheme of delegation was revised by the Finance and Audit Subcommittee in March 2015 to make it more appropriate to SCIAF’s current structure.  The Finance and Audit Subcommittee’s recommendations were approved by SCIAF’s Board of Directors at their meeting on the 20th March 2015. We’d be happy to provide a copy of the updated policy on ‘Delegated Authority’ on request. 7.2 Use of DFID logoClause 58 of your original Grant Arrangement commits you, unless agreed otherwise, to explicitly acknowledge DFID's support through use of DFID's UK Aid logo in all communications with the public or third parties about your project. Please outline the ways in which you have done this during the reporting period.The webpages for DRC and Rwanda on SCIAF’s website include details of the DFID funded project, as well as DFID UK Aid logo. Newspaper articles, and other similar literature, produced by SCIAF over the reporting period and by journalists visiting SCIAF’s projects over the reporting period have focused on the forthcoming Aid Match project to be funded by SCIAF from September 2015. However, for the remainder of the project SCIAF will endeavour to write a number of articles that highlight the outcomes and achievements of the project, with appropriate reference to DFID’s contribution to the project,with the DFID logo being placed alongside all such publicity.

The implementing partners have few opportunities to use the DFID UK Aid logo in their external communication and mention of DFID’s support to the project. However, when it has been possible to do so implementing partners have acknowledged DFID support appropriately. For example, CEJP Rwanda’s Programme Coordinator took part in a 30 minute radio broadcast on RADIO 10, ensuring that DFID’s support to the project was mentioned a number of times. All implementing partners are ensuring that in every beneficiary training they organise beneficiaries are informed that the project is made possible through DFID funding, with DFID name and logo being placed on the white/black board at the front of the training rooms. Once all associations that are being established to support the interests of the SHGs in the 3 project locations have been formed, they will be provided with a banner clearly indicating DFID funding for the initiative, with the banner being placed in a prominent position.

ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING

Please read the instructions on this page carefully and complete all sectionsBefore working on this section, please complete the relevant indicator

‘achieved’ boxes on your ‘Reporting Logframe’ (which should be based on the most recently approved version of your logframe).

SCORING ANNEX A asks you to score performance against your Outcome and Outputs making a judgement based on the actual achievements compared to expected results as indicated in the logframe milestones for this reporting period. Use the five-point scoring system below to rate your achievement of results.

Score Description of ScoreA++ Output/outcome substantially exceeded expectationA+ Output/outcome moderately exceeded expectationA Output/outcome met expectationB Output/outcome moderately did not meet expectationC Output/outcome substantially did not meet expectation

REPORTING PERFORMANCE

Complete what has been ‘achieved’ under each outcome and output indicator in your logframe

Within this section of the document (Annex A), provide an overall score against the outcome and each output.

Provide an explanation for each outcome and output score describing the progress, or the barriers to progress, made against the outcome or output indicators in the reporting year. Do not simply describe activities.

Back up statements of progress/achievements with references to evidence that can be checked if necessary. Be as specific as possible, avoiding general references like ‘project monitoring records’. Examples could include ‘field training reports and attendance records completed at the end of each wave of training’, ‘sample survey of heads of household in two villages from each of the project locations, February 2015’, ‘local district exam results, verified through teacher focus groups, July 2014.’ Cross refer to section A7 to avoid repetition as necessary.

Comment on the strength of evidence provided. Consider for example: how well samples represent the reference population; the extent to which the measure reflects the specific contribution of this project; triangulation of data; absence of bias; and the balance between qualitative and quantitative data.

Be sure to complete the final section (A.7) on methodological tools.

If your logframe is not yet approved, use the latest version and report anticipated progress towards the first milestones. Where your evidence base is incomplete, please explain your plans to monitor progress and when you expect to have the data you need (sections A.x.6).

BENEFICIARY DATA

Annex A also asks you to disaggregate beneficiary data at the Outcome level. It is this data, consolidated in Annex B, which DFID uses to assess the numbers of people benefitting from GPAF projects.

DFID is also interested in finding out about the number of people engaged by the project at Output level, and the nature of their engagement. The delivery of the outputs is considered as the means of achieving the desired changes to the lives of the beneficiaries identified at the outcome level. Although many of those engaged at output level will experience positive changes (e.g. to skills, awareness or improved capacity), for the purposes of this GPAF progress reporting, they are not defined as beneficiaries.

ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING (Up to 12 pages). Retain in portrait format

OUTCOMEA.0.1 Outcome: write in full your project outcome in the box belowWomen affected by conflict and poverty in Bukavu and Uvira areas of DR Congo and Kigoma sector and Ruhango district of Rwanda are able to meet their basic needs in relation to food security, income and access to justice.A.0.2 Outcome Score: Please provide an overall outcome score (A++ – C)A+

A.0.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against outcome indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

Four of the outcome indicators are slightly exceeded, with one of these being substantially exceeded. Two of the indicators were slightly underachieved.

Outcome indicator 1 slightly exceeds the March 2015 milestoneOutcome indicator 2 slightly unachieved the March 2015 milestoneOutcome indicator 3 slightly exceeds the March 2015 milestoneOutcome indicator 4 substantially exceeds the March 2015 milestoneOutcome indicator 5 did not achieve the March 2015 milestoneOutcome indicator 6 slightly exceeds the March 2015 milestone

A.0.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each outcome indicator as included in most recently approved logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement.

Indicator 1: Number of beneficiaries who can access at least two meals a day of variety of food to meet their nutrient adequacy. (Note: Locally adequate diet - Beans, Cassava/Cassava Bread, Fish and/or vegetables.)

Outcome indicator 1 – the number of beneficiaries who can access at least two meals a day was slightly exceeded

The end of year survey indicates that an additional total of 705 beneficiaries were able to access two nutritious meals per day by end March 2015. This represents good progress from the position at the end of the previous reporting period (March 2014). Thus a total of 1,149 women (a total of 5,745 family members and beneficiaries) were able to eat two meals per day, with this figure being greater than the milestone of 1,120 (5,600 family members and beneficiaries). The tendency of exceeding the milestone that was observed in March 2013 has continued. SCIAF’s decision to provide ‘seed funding’ to SHGs supported by CDJP Uvira and CEJP Rwanda has helped to increase the figures for this indicator and this will continue to support this indicator for the remainder of the project as the benefits of the SHGs being able to more effectively operate is increases.Indicator 2: Number of target women who earn more than $50 per month.

Outcome indicator 2 - the number of women who earn more than $50 per monthly is slightly underachieved. This figure is reduced by the fact that CEJP Rwanda reported that they have found that average monthly income from the beneficiaries included into the project in the reporting period is only $4.70, and this is on account of the fact that the period between the beneficiaries being provided the prerequisite support following training and the annual assessment was insufficient to allow a significant increase in income levels. The implementing partner expects beneficiaries’ income to increase in the near future once they have benefited from increased crop production associated with the support provided by the project.Indicator 3: Average net monthly income of target women.

The average net monthly income, which is measured through the annual income and income source

survey, slightly exceeds the March 2015 milestone. However, the figure of an average monthly income of $54 masks significant variations between the beneficiaries supported by the different implementing partners. CEJP Rwanda reported that average monthly income for their beneficiaries was as low as $4.70. The reason cited was that SCIAF provided supplementary ‘seed’ funding for the SHGs supported by the partner and the period between the provision of the funding to the groups and the delivery to beneficiaries has been insufficient to generate an income through the development of micro-businesses. Furthermore, for beneficiaries supported by all implementing partners, the IGA funding is provided to the respective SHGs, with the group members determining democratically who will receive the initial funding to develop their own enterprises. Subsequently progressively more beneficiaries will receive funds after the beneficiaries who initially receive funding have returned money to their respective groups for reallocation to others. Therefore it is expected that the income levels of beneficiaries will progressively increase in the future.

Indicator 4: Number of target women farmers who report an increase in yield due to the project intervention.

During the reporting period 361 beneficiaries reported an increase in their crop yield. The cumulative figure for the number of beneficiaries believing that their crop yield has increased since the beginning of the project is 1,052, which is much greater than the milestone of 500. It is not clear if beneficiaries fully understand the distinction between crop yield and crop production, and crop yield is more difficult for beneficiaries to estimate. It is natural that beneficiaries’ crop production has increased as the project has provided beneficiaries with project inputs (seeds and tools), training and in some cases has enabled women to collaborate with one another and rent a piece of land, and this increase the agricultural area that they are cultivating.

Indicator 5: Average annual yield of key crops grown by target women farmers.

This measure was based on the number of beneficiaries who reported that their crop production levels has increased, as it was not possible to compare production figures with those of 2014 as no reliable data was produced in 2013/2014. The increased agricultural production that beneficiaries cite is a function of the sustainable agricultural training that beneficiaries have received and the agricultural inputs (seeds and tools) received. This indicator is not consistent with the baseline data for beneficiaries’ crop production, which indicated higher production levels than the current situation as evidenced through the Annual Agricultural Yield Survey. This is a reflection of the fact that the implementing partners initially had difficulties estimating crop production figures, thus the baseline survey data is probably an inflated figure and the crop production figures from the last annual survey is thought to be much more accurate as the implementing partners have considered carefully approaches on how to more effectively collect this data at the beneficiary farm level

Indicator 6: Number of SGBV cases taken to court.

14 court cases were help in support of survivors of SGBV prosecuting the alleged perpetrators of SGBV. The total number of cases going to court since the start of the project is 73, one more than the March 2015 milestone. A.0.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens benefitting from this outcome in this reporting

period. Describe briefly who they were and how they benefitted NB. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

AdultMale

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description (e.g. farmers)

Change/improvement(e.g. income increased)

0 705 0 0 705Not known Women

farmers and vendors

Access two meals a day.

0 462 0 0 462 Not known Women Increased income

farmers and vendors

0 0 0 0 0 0Women farmers and vendors

Average net monthly income

0 861 0 0 861 Not knownWomen farmers and vendors

Increase in crop yield

0 14 0 0 14Not known Women

farmers and vendors

Court cases

A.0.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

The data for the above indicators is provided through the annual survey that the implementing partners have carried out with their beneficiaries at the end of year. The principal surveys that supported the data collection for this indicator are annual crop yield survey, annual income and income source survey, annual dietary diversity survey and annual household hunger survey.

Comprehensive data from the project lawyer of the beneficiaries that receive legal support is carefully collected. The data includes the name and address of the survivor receiving legal support, the specific legal advice requested by the beneficiary that provided by the lawyer, the date that cases are initiated, completed or if cases or on-going and the outcome from the respective cases.

OUTPUT 1A.1.1 Output 1 Write in full263 Community organisations (SHGs) and three Associations are effectively functioning and managed by members. Note: 'Effectively functioning' = 1) Regular monthly meeting, 2) Record keeping, 3) independent minutes writing, 4) Bank account for SHG and 5) Taking up family/social issues of members.A.1.2 Output 1 score (A++ – C)B

A.1.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

The milestones for all three indicators were all underachieved.

The milestone for output indicator 1.1 (Number of members of democratically organised savings and credit units = Self Help Groups (SHGs) was underachieved to the extent that there were 2,157 members of SHGs at the end of the reporting period, with the milestone being 2,800. The milestone for output indicator 1.2 (the number of SHGs able to run their own group activities and savings and credit schemes without outside support) was also not met, with a total of 101 SHGs being considered to be able to run their own activities without outside support as oppose to 110 as the March 2015 milestone.

Output indicator 1.3 is concerned with a) the number of women beneficiaries who access loans through SHGs and b) the number that eligible for a business loan from other sources. The March 2015 milestone for these are 1,800 beneficiaries having accessed a loan through their respective SHGs and 100 beneficiaries are eligible to obtain a business loan from other sources. Both milestone measures have not been met, with a total of 928 beneficiaries accessing loans through their SHGs during the reporting period, and a total of 1,379 in the project so far. b). no beneficiaries in the reporting period have accessed loans from other sourcesA.1.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved

logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if required).

Indicator 1.1: Number of members of democratically organised savings and credit units = Self Help Groups (SHGs).

The milestones for all three indicators were all underachieved. The milestone for output indicator 1.1 (Number of members of democratically organised savings and credit units = Self Help Groups (SHGs) was underachieved to the extent that there was a cumulative total of 2,157 members of SHGs at the end of the reporting period, with the milestone being 2,800. (in the reporting period there were 1,488 additional beneficiary members of SHGs). The two reasons for the milestone not being met are 1). 148 of CDJP Uvira’s 500 beneficiaries are not currently active members of SHG as they are economically extremely vulnerable and have withdrawn from SHGs believing that they are unable provide the required funds to their respective SHGs. Similarly, 31 of CEJP Rwanda’s 600 beneficiaries supported through the project so far have withdrawn from SHGs for the same reason 2). The March 2015 milestone for this output is too high and needs revising. The maximum number of beneficiaries that could be members of SHGs at this stage, assuming 100% participation, 2,300. Therefore in the revised log frame it is suggested the March 2015 milestone is amended to 2,000 and the target is reduced to 3,000.

Indicator 1.2: Number of SHGs able to run their own group activities and savings & credit schemes without outside support.

The milestone for this output indicator was not met, with a total of 101 SHGs being considered to be able to run their own activities without outside support as oppose to 110 as the March 2015 milestone. There are two principle reasons for this. 1). The judgement as to whether a SHG has reached a stage of development that enables them to be largely or entirely self-reliant without external support is to an extent subjective, with the implementing partners having differing approaches to measuring this. This is discussed in the mid-term review and will be addressed in the remainder of the programme 2). The beneficiaries supported by CDJP Uvira and CEJP Rwanda were not provided with direct grants to develop their own IGAs. They were supported to increase their household income through engaging in individual activities (CEJP Rwanda beneficiaries) and group activities (CDJP Uvira beneficiaries). On a pro-rata basis, the funds allocated to beneficiaries for these activities are smaller than the £50 funding allocated for beneficiaries to develop their own IGAs. As a consequence a number of the SHGs supported by CDJP Uvira and CEJP Rwanda struggled to develop as planned due to the difficulties their members have in saving adequate funds to enable the groups to generate adequate funds to enable members to borrow capital to develop their own IGAs. As a result SCIAF has provided additional supplementary funding, from SCIAF’s own funds, to CDJP Uvira (£7,500 for 500 beneficiaries) and CEJP Rwanda (£16,200 for 900 beneficiaries) for them to provide to SHGs as initial ‘seed funding’ that will facilitate initial lending that will enable the groups to generate the necessary capital to initiate funding within the respective groups. The funding was provided by SCIAF in November 2014, so there has been insufficient time for it to have an impact but it is hoped that this initiative will both enable the groups to begin lending significant funds to their members to develop their own SHGs and also become increasingly effectively managed by their members.

Indicator 1.3: Number of women in target group a) who access loans through SHG savings & credit activities and/or b) are eligible to obtain a business loan from other sources.

The March 2015 milestone for these are 1,800 beneficiaries have accessed a loan through their respective SHGs and 100 beneficiaries are eligible to obtain a business loan from other sources. Both milestone measures have not been met, with a total of 928 beneficiaries accessing loans through their SHGs during the reporting period, and a total of 1,379 in the project so far. In the reporting period no beneficiaries have become eligible to obtain a business loan from elsewhere, although as the three associations of SHGs are still in the process of being developed they have not yet begun to support project beneficiaries to investigate these avenues of funding. It is hoped that once the associations are operational they will support members to access small business funding from other lending facilities. As stated above, it is also hoped that milestone a (the number of beneficiaries who access loans) will be

supported through the ‘seed funding’ provided to the SHGs. Indicator 1.4: Not applicable

A.1.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output in this reporting period. Describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged. N.B. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description Nature of engagement

0 1,488 0 0 1,488 Not knownSavings and credit group members

Membership of SHGs

0 0 0 0 38 N/A

Savings and credit groups

SHGs have become self-reliant, without external support

0 767 0 0 767 Not known

Women members of SHGs

Women beneficiaries able to access loans through SHGs

A.1.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

The data for the above indicators is provided through the frequent information collection from SHGs. It has been challenging to have a consistent measure of output indicator 1.2 (number of SHGs able to run their own activities and savings and credit schemes without outside support) as implementing partners differ in the value judgements they have when deciding if a group has reached a stage of development that allows sustained activity without external support.

Output 2A.2.1 Output 2 Write in full:Target communities have increased and diversified livelihood opportunities.

A.2.2 Output 2 score (A++ – C)A

A.2.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

The March 2015 milestones for 2 of the 3 output indicators have been met. The total number of members of target group engaged in income generation activities (output indicator 2.1) and the number of women who earn their income from at least two diversified sources (output indicator 2.2) have been exceeded. The March 2015 milestone for output indicator 2.3 was not met for reasons outlined below.A.2.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved

logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if required).

Indicator 2.1: Number of target group engaged in income generation activities.A total of 919 beneficiaries have developed new IGAs in the reporting period. The March 2015 of 1,094 milestone has been exceeded, with a total of 1,668 beneficiaries engaging in developing IGAs since the start of the project. The number of beneficiaries developing IGAs for the first time over the reporting period is greater than the total number of beneficiaries developing IGAs in year 1 of the project. The reason for this difference is likely due to the fact that the amount of capital available from within the SHGs progressively increases as reimbursed funds build up in the SHGs and are made available for additional SHG members to develop their own IGAs.Indicator 2.2: Number of target women who earn their income from at least two diversified sources.

A total of 455 beneficiaries over the reporting period have developed at least 2 diversified income sources. The cumulative total for output indicator 2.2 is 1,146, as found in the annual income and income source survey, substantially over meeting the March 2015 milestone of 500. A central component of the training that the implementing partners have provided to beneficiaries has been focused on the importance of spreading one’s risk and ensuring that the as far as possible beneficiaries invest in more than a single enterprise, thus have greater resilience against potential threats to the viability of their enterprises. This has been understood well by beneficiaries, hence the substantial numbers of beneficiaries developing at least two enterprises.

Also, developing at least two diversified enterprises is to some extent a natural response to the limitations associated with a single enterprise. A common example is seasonal enterprise, such as the purchasing and selling of seasonable vegetables or fish which are only available at certain times of the year necessitates the development of additional income source(s) in order to allow the beneficiary have access to year round income sources.Indicator 2.3: a) Number of target women who report having received marketing and IGA management training by project staff or other beneficiaries through a ToT approach and b) Number of beneficiaries who as a result reporting that they have taken on the training by changing their IGA management approach in a specific way (i.e. record keeping).

Quantifying the delivery of output indicator 2.3 is complicated by the fact that the indicator was changed in August 2014, thus there are no figures for this indicator from the first year of the project. Over the reporting period the project has been able to support a). 836 beneficiaries reporting that they have been trained by project staff or other beneficiaries in marketing and IGA management and b). 441 beneficiaries have reported that they have taken on the training through changing their IGA management approach. The results from the reporting period indicates that the number of beneficiaries receiving training (836) is only slightly less than the 900 hoped for during the reporting period, and the 441 who reported to have utilised the training to change their management approach to their business is far greater than the milestone for delivery during the reporting period (110).Indicator 2.4: Not applicable

A.2.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output in the reporting period. Describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged. N.B. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description Nature of engagement

0 919 0 0 919 Not known Women Development of IGAs

0 455 0 0 455 Not known Women Have 2 diversified income sources.

0 836 0 0 836 Not known Women Beneficiaries trained

0 441 0 0 441 Not known

Women Beneficiaries improving management of IGAs

A.2.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

The above data has been sought through discussions with beneficiaries. These discussions have been conducted either at an individual beneficiary level, when project staff and volunteers meet with beneficiaries at their homes, or, more often, while beneficiaries are meeting as a group, including at the same time that the annual survey was carried out. The information is accurate in the sense that the beneficiaries have been asked to respond to these questions but to some extent there is a challenge with beneficiaries’ understanding of the questions and judgement decisions on what constitutes the delivery of the above indicators. For example, sometime beneficiaries find it challenging to understand the measure of ‘two diversified sources of income’ and exactly what constitutes being trained by other

beneficiaries who were trained directly by project staff or volunteers, through a ToT approach, rather than merely having a brief conversation on the training topics, is subjective.

Output 3A.3.1 Output 3 Write in full Capacity of target women farmers is strengthened to enhance agricultural productivity.

A.3.2 Output 3 score (A++ – C)A+

A.3.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

The March 2015 milestones for the three output indicators have been exceeded.

An additional 606 beneficiaries were trained in sustainable agricultural practices over and above the milestone for output indicator 3.1.

Output indicator 3.2 has exceeded the March 2015 milestone of 690 by 136 additional farmers adopting sustainable agricultural management practices.

Output 3.3 has exceeded the March 2015 milestone, with a further 96 beneficiaries receiving livestock through some of the 244 beneficiaries receiving livestock being able to provide offspring to other beneficiaries through a pass-on mechanisms. A further 9 beneficiaries have reported that they have purchased livestock from the additional income that they have generated as a direct result of the project.A.3.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved

logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if required).

Indicator 3.1: Number of small scale farmers trained in sustainable agricultural practices applicable to their farms. (Note: This applies only to the beneficiaries of CDJP Uvira (500) and CEJP Rwanda (900) = Total 1,400 beneficiaries over three years.)

An additional 606 beneficiaries were trained in sustainable agricultural practices over and above the milestone of 550 women farmers. In the reporting period a total of 338 farmers received sustainable agriculture training (plus 500 formers through CDJP Uvira, who as existing beneficiaries also received training in 2013-2014), in addition to the 818 farmers that had received the training in the previous year. The total number trained since the start of the project is thus 1,156. The milestone was exceeded as a natural consequence of CDJP Uvira, CEJP Rwanda and CDJP Bukavu (in one parish only) providing training sustainable agriculture training to their beneficiaries. In the final year of the project only CEJP Rwanda and CDJP Bukavu will train additional beneficiaries, CDJP Uvira’s beneficiaries in the final year are the existing beneficiaries. Thus the target for this indicator remains valid.Indicator 3.2: Number of target farmers who adopted three key sustainable agricultural practices applicable to their farms. (Note: This applies only to the beneficiaries of CDJP Uvira (500) and CEJP Rwanda (900) = Total 1,400 beneficiaries over three years).

413 beneficiaries have adopted three key sustainable agricultural practices (output indicator 3.2) in the reporting period, with the March 2015 milestone of 690 farmers being exceeded by the achievement of 862 farmers managing their private or communal plots with at least 3 sustainable farming practices. The indicator has been exceeded due to the fact that beneficiaries have embraced the sustainable approaches to agricultural management that they have been trained in. The reasons for this appear to be 1). There is an acceptance from beneficiaries that soils are being degraded, with a resulting loss of crop production and a different approach is necessary 2). The implementing partners have a long history of working in the target communities and are well respected by beneficiaries. There has therefore been a tendency to accept the approaches suggested by the implementing partners 3). CDJP

Uvira’s beneficiaries are farming communally and thus all farm together, with a single approach. In all cases the communal farms have adopted the sustainable agricultural practices that project staff have trained beneficiaries in, as this was the consensus of the members of the groups.Indicator 3.3: Number of women farmers who have increased their livestock assets (increased number of goat/sheep/pig by at least two and chickens by five. (Note: Beneficiary can increase their livestock assets by 1) being a direct programme recipient, 2) beneficiary who has receive livestock will pass on first livestock to someone within their village and 3) purchase from their own source.)

236 beneficiaries have received livestock through the project since the start of the project, thus exceeding the March 2015 milestone of 210. A further 96 beneficiaries have received livestock through some of the 244 beneficiaries receiving livestock being able to provide offspring to other beneficiaries through a pass-on mechanisms. A further 9 beneficiaries have reported that they have purchased livestock from the additional income that they have generated as a direct result of the project. Thus in total the number of beneficiaries with an increased number of livestock is 341.

However, the implementing partners have considered the numbers of beneficiaries who have increased their livestock numbers (of goats and pigs only, which are the most significant livestock in the target areas), rather than collected the precise measure that was stipulated in the indicator - ‘the number of beneficiaries that have increased their livestock assets (increased number of goat/sheep/pig by at least two and chickens by five’. This indicator was considered to be too complicated to collect from beneficiaries and thus has been simplified as described. The proposed revised log frame will contain this requested amendment, with an increase in the target figure.Indicator 3.4: Not applicable

A.3.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output in the reporting period. Describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged. N.B. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description Nature of engagement

0 338 0 0 338 Not known Women Agriculture training received.

0 413 0 0 413 Not knownWomen Adopted 3

agriculture practices.

0 341 0 0 341 Not knownWomen Increase

ownership of livestock.

A.3.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

The evidence in support of output indicators 3.1 and 3.2 is strong. Evidence for output 3.1 is through lists of beneficiaries who have attended the sustainable agricultural training. Output 3.2 is evidenced through direct observation of the crop production practices that are being implemented on the private and communal plots that the project is supporting. Data for output 3.3 is collected through the annual livestock census and pass on survey carried out by CDJP Uvira and CEJP Rwanda. The survey is carried out for all beneficiaries that are supported by the above named partners but sometimes the beneficiaries forget how many additional livestock they have since the previous reporting period (hence the proposal to change the indicator to only consider an increase in livestock rather than a minimum increase of 2 goats/pigs).

Output 4A.4.1 Output 4 Write in full

SGBV survivors are able to access healthcare, psychosocial and legal support which is appropriate to meet their needs.A.4.2 Output 4 score (A++ – CAA

A.4.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

The March 2015 milestones for output indicators 4.1 and 4.2 have been exceeded. The March 2015 milestone for output 4.3 has been partially met, with the number of female personnel of target agencies for the training being exceeded, but the number male staff members from these agencies has not met the milestone (achieved – 161; milestone 250). The implementing partner – CDJP Bukavu – will focus on training male personnel in the last 9 months of the project, but is unlikely to achieve the target of 400 male personnel. A.4.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved

logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if required).

Indicator 4.1: Number of SGBV survivors who have received healthcare and/or psychosocial support.

Output indicator 4.1. A total of 128 beneficiaries received medical and/or psychosocial support, bringing the total since the start of the project to 247, which exceeds the March 2015 milestone. Indicator 4.2: Number of SGBV legal cases provided with the necessary legal support to be taken to court.

Output indicator 4.2. A total of 35 beneficiaries have received legal assistance sufficient to take their case to court, bringing the total since the start of the project to 110, which exceeds the March 2015 milestone.Indicator 4.3: Number of police, army, other officials and religious personnel trained to uphold legal rights of women.

Output indicator 4.3. A total of 54 males and 48 females received training, bringing the total number since the start of the project to 161 males and 81 females. The number of females that have received training has exceeded the milestone but the number of males receiving training has missed the milestone. The implementing partner plans to continue this training before the end of the project, with additional training provided to priests but it likely that the target of 400 males to be trained will not be delivered. Indicator 4.4: Not applicable

A.4.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output in the reporting period. Describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged. N.B. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description Nature of engagement

0 128 0 0 128 Not knownWomen beneficiaries

Healthcare and psychosocial support

0 35 0 0 35 Not known Women beneficiaries

Legal support

54 48 0 0102

Not knownPolice, military and tax officials

Training

A.4.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

For all three output indicators the implementing partner, CDJP Bukavu, maintains records of those attending the trainings, records of court cases and beneficiaries receiving legal advice and hospital admission records that pertain to the project beneficiaries receiving treatment that is funded through the project. All of these records are accurate and constantly updated.

Output 5A.5.1 Output Write in fullNOT APPLICABLE

A.5.2 Output 5 score (A++ – C)

A.5.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

A.5.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if required).

Indicator 5.1:

Indicator 5.2: Indicator 5.3:

Indicator 5.4:

A.5.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output in this reporting period. Describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged. N.B. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description Nature of engagement

A.5.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

Output 6A.6.1 Output 6 Write in full NOT APPLICABLE

A.6.2 Output 6 score (A++ – C)

A.6.3 Justify the score: The score is based on an aggregate of actual achievement against output indicator milestones in the logframe. Please explain how you determined this score.

A.6.4 For each of the indicators: Write in full each indicator as included in most recently approved logframe and provide a narrative clarification of progress achieved against the relevant indicator milestone, including an explanation of any over or under achievement (add extra rows if required).

Indicator 6.1:

Indicator 6.2: Indicator 6.3:

Indicator 6.4:

A.6.5 Disaggregate the number of citizens engaged with this output in the reporting period. Describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged. N.B. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years.

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

ChildFemale Total

How many of the total given are people with disabilities (if known)?

Brief description Nature of engagement

A.6.6 State the evidence used to measure the progress described and comment on its strength. Please refer to the preceding guidance on how to complete the section effectively.

A.7 Methodological ToolsThe table below should be used to provide the details of the specific tools that you or your implementing partner uses to measure project indicators, particularly any bespoke tools you have developed for yourself but also details of any industry standard tools you have used. Please include sufficient information to describe the methods and to enable the reader to understand how the data was derived. There is an example of a response to this section of the report in the FAQ guidance.Method Purpose of Tool Summary of methodology

1. Annual dietary diversity survey)

2. Annual income and income source survey

3. Annual livestock census and pass on survey

4. Annual sustainable agricultural practices survey

5. Annual agricultural yield survey

6. Wealth ranking

To indicate what types of foods beneficiaries eat and the quality of foods consumed

To indicate the types of income sources and value of incomes sources

Illustrating the numbers of livestock owned by beneficiaries before they were supported by the project, compared to the present situation

To indicate the level of understanding and acceptance/adoption of sustainable agricultural practices by beneficiaries

To aid calculation of the productivity of the 3 most significant crops for each beneficiary

To gauge the perception beneficiaries have of the relative wealth of their fellow beneficiaries

30% of beneficiaries randomly sampled. The types of nutritious foods consumed over the previous 24 hours were documented.

30% of beneficiaries randomly sampled (same as annual dietary diversity survey). Annual income from agricultural, livestock and small business sources of income

CDJP Uvira and CEJP Rwanda’s beneficiaries. Comparing numbers of livestock owned by beneficiaries at end of year, compared with beginning of the year. Indicating the source of livestock acquisition

CEJP Rwanda and CDJP Uvira’s beneficiaries and 1 SHG supported by CDJP Bukavu (the only rural based SHG). Showing the numbers of beneficiaries that a). understand sustainable agricultural practices b). implement at least 3 sustainable agricultural practices

CEJP Rwanda and CDJP Uvira’s beneficiaries and 1 SHG supported by CDJP Bukavu. Indicating crop production for each beneficiary.

30% of beneficiaries randomly sampled (same as annual dietary diversity survey).

ANNEX B: CONSOLIDATED BENEFICIARY TABLE:To be completed by all grant holders (Up to 2 pages)

You will need to use the beneficiary figures for the outcome level in Annex A to arrive at a consolidated total number of people benefitting at outcome level.

If the same beneficiaries are represented in more than one of the outcome indicators and therefore benefit in more than one way, ensure you do not double count them when calculating the consolidated total.

B.1 Consolidated Beneficiary Table Gender and Age Disaggregation

OVERALL TOTAL Adult Male(18 years +)

Adult Female(18 years +)

Child Male(under 18 yrs)

Child Female (under 18 years)

i) Consolidated total number of project beneficiaries achieved in this reporting year

913 54 859 0 0

ii) Consolidated total number of project beneficiaries achieved since the project began

2,293 161 2,132 0 0

iii) Consolidated total number of project beneficiaries anticipated by the end of the project

3,232 241 2,991 0 0

Please explain how you have arrived at the figures given in row (i) - beneficiaries reached this reporting year- with reference to the figures reported in the outcome section of Annex A (A.0.5).BDOM Codilusi has reported that 265 beneficiaries have access to at least two meals per day. The beneficiaries for outcome indicator 2 and 4 are the same individuals as those who benefit from outcome indicator 1. 70 of CDJP Bukavu’s beneficiaries have an income above $50 per month, and the beneficiaries also include those in outcomes 1 and 4. 6 of the 14 beneficiaries supported through court cases (outcome 6) are not included in these figures, so 6 is added to the number of beneficiaries from CDJP Bukavu that have benefited directly from the outcomes during the reporting period. All 500 of CDJP Uvira’s beneficiaries have increased crop production/yield (outcome 4). Of these 236 were included in the other outcomes (1 and 2) or were included in the beneficiary total in the reporting year 2013-2014, so the remainder of 210 beneficiaries are included in this year’s figures. 260 of CEJP Rwanda’s beneficiaries have increased yield (outcome 4), and all of these beneficiaries are included in outcome 1’s beneficiaries.

The number of direct women beneficiaries is augmented by 47 women from the military, police and tax authorities, and 54 men from the same organisations. Please explain how you have arrived at the figures given in row (iii) - beneficiaries anticipated by the end of the project. It is anticipated that approximately 80 additional male personnel from the army, military, tax officials and priests will receive training before the end of 2015. It is anticipated that approximately 650 women beneficiaries will be supported to achieve the outcomes by the end of the project. The reason why this figure is less than in the preceding years is 1). As CDJP Uvira is working with the same 500 beneficiaries, this total is not added to the total in year 3 as almost all have been included in the calculation in the first two years’ of the project 2). The beneficiaries included in the project in the final

GPAF Annual Report Template 2015 34

year (April 2015 to December 2015) will have less time to demonstrate progress in delivering on the outcomes. Provide a clear summary description of your outcome level beneficiaries in the box below (e.g., people living with HIV/AIDS; disabled children; soapstone workers; child labourers). Women affected by poverty and conflict

Indicate or estimate the percentage or number of disabled beneficiaries reached to date in the box below. During the reporting period approximately 45 direct beneficiaries are disabled.Have you disaggregated your data collection any further to better understand your beneficiaries? (Examples might include extreme poor; widows; orphaned children; older men and women, ethnic groups, socio-economic status) NoWhat challenges and difficulties have you encountered in collecting and reporting disaggregated data (including particularly by disability)? A key difficulty has been the definition of disability. At the start of the project, staff perceived disability to be only obvious physical disability, with mental illness, sensory disability and chronic debilitating illnesses not included in the classification. Sensitisation of the staff working for the implementing organisations has helped to improve awareness of a wider understanding of disability but within the target communities disability is still considered to be merely concerned with limitations to the physical activities that can be carried out by the individual. How has collection and analysis of disaggregated data (including by gender and disability) influenced project design, approach, delivery or learning?The project is almost exclusively targeting women, with men only included in advocacy and training component of the project. The gender of beneficiaries is recorded but has not influenced project design and approach given the focus on women only. Disability and HIV were not included in the data collection at the project design stage but this has been introduced in order to monitor the extent to which women with HIV/AIDS and disabilities are included in the project. This is enabling SCIAF to monitor the extent to which the different implementing partners including these groups and this will enable us to target our support accordingly.

GPAF Annual Report Template 2015 35

ANNEX C: PORTFOLIO ANALYSISTo be completed by all grant holders (Up to 3 pages)

DFID aims to capture and compare performance and results across the whole GPAF portfolio based on the information provided in the Annual Reports.

Please answer each of the following questions.

C.1 Which of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is your project contributing to directly? You may choose up to 3

Please indicate their order of importance in relation to this project (1/2/3):

How much does the project contribute to the selected MDGs? (sum of entries should = 100%)

MDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty 1 70 %MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education %MDG 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

2 30 %

MDG 4: Reduce Child Mortality %MDG 5: Improve Maternal Health %MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases

%

MDG 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability %MDG 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

%

C.2 What is the main methodological approach being used to bring about the changes envisaged? Please select up to three factors and prioritise them as 1, 2 and 3 (with 1 being of highest significance).

a. Rights awarenesse.g. making ‘rights holders’ more aware of their rights so that they can claim rights from ‘duty bearers’

2

b. Advocacy e.g. advocating publicly for changes in policy and/or practice on specific targeted issues

c. Modellinge.g. demonstrating best practice / approaches / behaviours which can be adopted or relicated by others to bring wider improvements in policy or practice

1

d. Policy engagemente.g. building relationships with decision-makers behind the scenes, pragmatic collaboration on policy development to achieve incremental improvements

e. Service provision in collaboration with government e.g. working with government to enhance the services already provided 3

f. Service provision in parallel to government e.g. providing an alternative service

g. Monitoring of government policye.g. monitoring budget-making or enforcement of rights

If you are using other methodological approaches please note in the box below.

GPAF Annual Report Template 2015 36

C.3 Whose capacity (in the main) is being built through the project? Select (by mark with an “X” in the appropriate boxes) a maximum of 3.

a. End-beneficiaries (poor and vulnerable groups) Xb. Local leaders / change agents Xc. Local community-based organisations d. Civil society organisations / networkse. Local governmentf. National governmentg. Local implementing partner(s) Xh. Trade unionsi. Private sector organisationsj. Other (Please name below)

C.4 Environmental Impact and Climate Change Mitigationa. How would you describe the environmental impact of the project? (Mark with an “X” as appropriate)

Negative Neutral Positive XProvide a brief justification for your choice of ranking: The project contributes to environmental sustainability principally through supporting beneficiaries to understand and adopt sustainable farming practices which are more environmentally sensitive, conserve soil and water resources and other natural resources and reduce the reliance on food transported from its region of production, where it may have been produced under less environmentally sensitive production practices. b. Describe actions the project took to reduce negative environmental impact (use bullet points)

Promote and train farmers in sustainable agricultural practices such as inter-cropping, crop rotation, compositing, soil erosion control systems, etc.

Development of micro-businesses by beneficiaries can reduce the distance over which goods and services need to sourced, thus having positive a positive impact on the environment.

c. Describe any activities taken by the project to build climate change resilience (use bullet points) Not applicable

d. Does the implementing organisation have an environmental policy in place?Yes In preparation No X

GPAF Annual Report Template 2015 37