aidstream.org€¦ · web viewsciaf/dfid great lakes livelihoods. programme. final evaluation. d....

SCIAF/DFID GREAT LAKES LIVELIHOODS

PROGRAMMEFINAL EVALUATION

DRAFT REPORT

1

AcknowledgementsI would like to thank and the staff from CDJP Bukavu, BDOM Codilusi, CEJP Rwanda for organising field visits and supporting the review. I would particularly like to thank CDJP Uvira for conducting the evaluation and site visits on my behalf. I would like to thank Mark Brownbridge for his support and encouragement.

As always, I would especially like to honour and thank all the women who let me ask difficult and un-comfortable questions, who shared their stories and gave up their precious time to meet with me. Acknowledgements would not be complete without sending thoughts, best wishes and prayers to the women of Mbobero who worked so hard.

It is impossible in such a short time to understand all the many issues and complexities of the pro-gramme and so I would like to apologise sincerely for any omissions or factual errors in this report.

2

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements...............................................................................................................................2

Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................3

Acronyms...............................................................................................................................................4

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................5

Introduction..........................................................................................................................................6

1. Background...............................................................................................................................6

2. Methodology.........................................................................................................................7

3. Limitations of the evaluation................................................................................................8

4. Framework for analysis.............................................................................................................9

Findings...............................................................................................................................................10

Goals, Objectives and Impact based on Indicators........................................................................10

Discussion...........................................................................................................................................21

Relevance........................................................................................................................................21

Effectiveness and results achieved.................................................................................................22

Efficiency.........................................................................................................................................24

Sustainability...................................................................................................................................24

Impact.............................................................................................................................................25

Conclusions and lessons learned........................................................................................................25

Annex I. Terms of Reference

Annex 2. Group data

3

AcronymsCBO Community Based Organisation

CDF Congolese Francs

CDJP Commission Diocese de Justice et Paix

CEJP Commission Episcopale de Justice et Paix

DFID Department for International Development

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EU European Union

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GEWE Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment

GPAF Global Poverty Action Fund

GL Great Lakes

GLOPP Globalisation and Livelihood Options of People living in Poverty

HIV/AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

IGA Income Generating Activity

MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

NGO Non-Government Organisation

RWF Rwandan Francs

SCIAF Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund

SGBV Sexual and Gender Based Violence

SHG Self Help Group

SLA Sustainable Livelihoods Approach

SLF Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

4

Executive SummaryThe Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF) Great Lakes Livelihoods Programme ended in December 2015. Implemented by SCIAF’s traditional partners in the region and jointly funded by DFID under its Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) and SCIAF, the programme was designed to im-prove the livelihoods of women affected by severe poverty and conflict in Rwanda and in DRC. The project grant was agreed in January 2013 for a three-year period. Designed collaboratively by the four implementing partners and SCIAF, the programme has built on the experience of the imple-menting partners working with extremely vulnerable and marginalised populations particularly wo-men survivors of SGBV.

The goal of the Programme was to improve the income, assets and food security of 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu, DRC and Ruhango District Rwanda. The outcome level objective was that “women 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 rela-tion to food security, income and access to justice”.

The core evaluation objectives included determining: a) the extent to which objectives have been achieved, and the submitted annual reports provide an accurate record of achievement against the log-frame; b) the extent to which the project performed well and was good value for money; c) the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the programme and d) the adequacy of the design and implementation of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) system and na-tional partner’s capacity to implement MEL system, including a test of the adequacy of indicators, means of verification, and data collection tools and methods.

The evaluation methodology consisted of a desk review of available project documents, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with the SHGs and women’s groups, Key Informant interviews (KII) and discus-sions with project and partner staff. The survey questions and topics for discussion were designed to quantitatively and qualitatively determine the progress and impact as detailed in the indicators in the Logical Framework of the project document. Much information of a qualitative nature was also collected, relating to how the beneficiaries feel about the changes in their lives as a result of the project.

The evaluation fieldwork took place in sites in Bukavu, DRC, Ruhango, Rwanda and Uvira, DRC from 8th to 24rd February, 2016. In general, the logistics and the partner support for the evaluation were solid and the efforts of partners to ensure a productive evaluation process were appreciated. How-ever, there were a few issues that negatively affected the evaluation process.

Due to the recent violence in Burundi and Bujumbura in particular, it was not possible for the consultant to travel to Uvira to conduct the field visits for the evaluation. It was agreed that the Uvira programme staff would conduct the field work with guidance from the con-sultant. Unfortunately, the team was unable to conduct the field work in the agreed period as the required permission and budget for the work were not given in time, an unnecessary bureaucratic obstacle that affected the organisational learning that the process was de-signed to encourage. In the event, the Uvira Programme staff conducted its evaluation 26 th-28th February and their data has contributed to this report.

Only three-four days were allotted to work with each implementing partner, limiting the amount of time to meet with Key informants outside of the organisation.

On the day of the visit to Mbobero parish (part of CDJP Bukavu’s livelihood programme) the military and government workers were burning fields and destroying and burning houses and a health centre. The consultant was able to discreetly witness this, however the wo-

5

men were not in a frame of mind to discuss the programme and outcomes in anything other than a cursory fashion. These two groups had been particularly successful in diversifying their IGAs and in an effort to secure their livelihoods in the longer term. This event under-lined women’s vulnerability to events outside of their control.

The findings of evaluation of the Programme concentrate on the impact and outcome indicators. The data on outputs demonstrate the incremental progress to targets, as the project was designed around the beneficiary groups increasing annually as either grants, credit and/or resources became available. The framework underpinning the evaluation was that there can be a separation and dif-ferentiation of the kinds of assets or capitals that support and constitute a rounded material and so-cial existence. This forms the basis of the thinking and design around poverty reduction program-ming: the voices of beneficiaries and their opinions about what changes they believe to be lasting and important stand equal to the measurement of changes in the structural and material ‘capitals’.

At the impact level, the Programme has surpassed its targets for the number of beneficiaries with revenue in access of $1 a day, with 1,849 direct beneficiaries and 7,369 household members. This data is supported by the findings of the evaluation, where all beneficiaries in all locations reported increased income, including beneficiaries from groups that are regarded as weak.

For Impact Indicator 1.2, the data implies that the Programme has not reached its food security tar-get of 1,920 beneficiaries who have enjoyed increased food consumption and diversity for a period of greater than ten to twelve months, with partners recording only 1,506 beneficiaries who have been food secure for that period. However, activities with a number of groups only began in the last six months of the Programme, and any beneficiaries from those groups who reported increased and improved food consumption during that short time period could not be included in the data which demanded a longer follow-up period. It is the finding of the evaluation that the programme has been highly successful in increasing food security in the short and medium-term.

At the outcome level, a review of the data collected during the project life confirms its success in in-creasing food security among all of its beneficiaries both rural and urban. A significant proportion of beneficiaries in peri-urban and rural areas were able to engage in subsistence farming as well as working on collective farmers and an increase in food security would be expected in those areas. However, urban-based beneficiaries as well as rural women with no land were all able to access at least two meals a day for the families. Focus group discussions with beneficiaries supported the data. Women consistently reported being able to provide at least two meals a day for themselves and families with many reporting providing three meals a day and volunteering information about the variety now in their diet.

To be noted here is the evident pride women demonstrated at being able to feed their families, the corollary being the immense shame they had previously experienced at being unable to feed the household. It was suggested by the groups that an improved and regular diet was the result of a number of factors and inputs, including: applying sustainable farming techniques and thus increasing yield including better agricultural planning; cultivation of a variety of crops and fruit trees; better di-etary planning; diversification of IGAs therefore an increase in income and livestock/animal hus-bandry.

Although the target of Outcome Indicator 2 (1,600 women who earn more than $50 per month) was not fully met, three of the four partners the programme more than successfully achieved the target.Although somewhat different metrics were used to calculate revenue, it appeared that the data col-lected by partners are a reasonably accurate representation of earnings given the limited numeracy and literacy capacity of beneficiaries. It was also noted that the measures used to determine liveli-

6

hood security were weak indicators of the extent to which households are able to manage and in-crease assets and earnings. In the context of a programme operating in three different locations with different markets and substantially different costs of living, monthly revenue does not well de-scribe household livelihood security. In the FGDs, the indicators that women beneficiaries used to describe and assess their improved economic status included: capacity to pay school fees; ownership and increasing numbers of livestock; land rental; capacity to pay medical expenses; independent sav-ings; home improvements, and increased consumption of non-food items.

One of the most successful elements of the programme is the adoption of sustainable farming tech-niques where the number of women farmers who reported an increase in production due to the pro-ject intervention is more than fifty percent (50%) greater than anticipated (Outcome indicators 4 and 5). All of the farmers interviewed reported considerable increases in production in a variety of dif-ferent crops. Training in improving crop production along with project monitoring appears to have created greater awareness of crop yields, crop variety and what can be expected. Staff and benefi-ciaries reported that it took one to two harvests and, in some cases, more for women to see the dif-ference in yields and to ‘get a taste for farming’. All the women asserted that they would want to continue with the communal farms because of the many benefits that communal farming offered.

The target of 128 number of SGBV court cases taken to court (Outcome indicator 6) was not achieved, with only 113 cases taken to court. Reasons given for not reaching this target were mainly financial. Legal costs were difficult to assess in advance and those costs accumulate. CDJP Bukavu, the partner providing legal support in six parishes, took the decision to commit resources to seeking financial compensation from the perpetrators of SGBV. However, this requires a second legal pro-cess for most of the cases which is both time and financially costly.

At the output level, the results can be summarised as:

Output 1 - 263 Community organisations (SHGs) and three Associations are effectively functioning and managed by members: The target of 3,000 members was not reached but a membership of 2,927 was achieved, with a very low attrition rate of drop-outs. Each of the implementing partners employed somewhat different approaches to SHG formation and to access to credit. Three hundred and seventeen women (317) were eligible for business loans, double the target of 150. However, those accessing loans was 33% below the target of 3200 women. SCIAF is committed to provid-ing funding to 193 of these beneficiaries to develop their own IGAs from April 2016 and thus speed up the process of ensuring that all project beneficiaries receiving funding to develop small businesses.The evaluation reviewed data provided by all partners on a large sample of SHGs in relation to their savings and credit record. It was hoped that the individual group data would give an indication of which groups were ‘at risk’ in relation to financial sustainability. Although there are hints as to what factors play a part in group viability, there is insufficient data for clear correlations or causal links. However, there did appear to be a correlation between the amount saved and the readiness and scale of borrowing; groups that saved more borrowed more.

There are many reasons why groups continue to retain members, one of which is the contact and counselling they receive from staff who encourage members to stay in the group despite the fact that they may be failing to either contribute, save or repay loans on a regular basis. The programme is premised on an appreciation that a person with a history of destitution, of extreme poverty may take an extended period of time to learn to manage their households and their financial affairs. All partners recognise too, that their beneficiaries face high recurring expenditures. Although the pro-gramme ended in December 2015, volunteers and extension continue to support the groups and are committed to doing so for the next while. It is, however, the view of this evaluation that the long-

7

term sustainability of groups as viable savings and loan structures is threatened by continuing to re-tain non-contributing members beyond an agreed period. It was apparent from the FGDs that non-payment becomes both individually and collectively habit forming.

Output 2; Target beneficiaries have increased and diversified livelihood opportunities: The target milestones for indicators 2.1 and 2.2 were substantially surpassed with 2,297 women now engaged in income generating activities, more than double the target of 1,000 and 1,646 women earning in-come from at least two diversified sources. Most of the women interviewed who reported greater financial security had at least two if not three IGAs. There was notable learning on the part of wo-men who were the first to receive capital for their IGAs in that the different IGAs were better and more efficiently linked. IGAs that locked up capital were dropped in favour of one’s offering faster turnover. While recognising that most of the beneficiaries have taken enormous strides in develop-ing income streams and IGAs, in all project locations many of the same women continue to struggle to cover basic living expenses. It is a concern of the evaluation that the specific context for a propor-tion of the target beneficiaries; high living costs in an urban setting; lack of government enforcement of free education; no social or familial safety net; weak markets; and general insecurity represent nearly insurmountable barriers to building secure and sustainable livelihoods. The challenge for fu-ture programmes is how to work within the limitations of the economic, political and structural en-vironment to assist women’s development of sustainable IGAs capable of meeting their material needs in urban settings.

Output 3; Capacity of target women farmers is strengthened to enhance agricultural productivity: The programme was largely successful in meeting the milestones: for the indicators for Output 3. Livestock production/animal husbandry has been highly popular with all beneficiary groups. While the introduction of livestock and animal husbandry was reported to be much appreciated, illness led to the death of a substantial number of animals, mainly pigs, and a complaint from both programme staff and groups was about the lack of affordable and accessible veterinary care

Output 4; SGBV survivors are able to access healthcare, psychosocial and legal support which is ap-propriate to meet their needs: There had been a culture of impunity among police and the military but training organised under this programme and others has resulted in a greater awareness about and sense of responsibility for the protection of human and civil rights. There was a marked im-provement in the way that women reporting instances of SGBV were treated by the police.

In summary, the standard evaluation criteria used by DFID and other agencies were largely fulfilled by the Great Lakes Livelihood Programme:

Relevance - the inputs and activities of the Programme targeted the needs of the beneficiary groups. The project addressed many if not most of the beneficiaries’ most immediate needs, with ‘training’ being cited as the most valued intervention. Even those women who reported their IGAs failing or not performing well felt more confident, more capable and more positive about their situation as a result of the project. The programme targeted women whose ex-treme poverty is partially the result of gender inequities that have prevented them from access-ing education and exercising their rights. It directly addressed through training and mentoring women’s rights and, at the most profound level women reported how the belonging to groups and the training in leadership allowed them to recover their voices. Contributing financially and in kind to the family gave women greater status and power in the family.

Effectiveness - The field visits and the findings of the FGDs corroborated the data collected by the Programme. In certain areas, such as yields, it is possible that the Programme may have un-derestimated production. The reservation of the evaluation was weakness of the outcome mile-

8

stones and indicators, resulting in reduced effectiveness around the monitoring of revenue. A greater access to markets and the value chain could also have somewhat added to project im-pact. From the perspective of the partners and SCIAF, DFID funding provided the four partners to undertake an evidence-based and integrated programme of activities to address extreme poverty. This was extremely important for partners and for institutional learning in the context of the Catholic Church’s work with the poor. The main challenges identified or barriers to signifi-cant and lasting economic improvement are political and structural. In the main these barriers do not apply in Rwanda to the same extent as they do in DRC. The Rwandan government has a specific pro-poor agenda that aligns with its political goals. Ensuring rural prosperity is a seen as the primary strategy to prevent any further conflict. DRC struggles with ongoing tensions be-tween regional and central control

Efficiency - The evaluation considered efficiency aspects of the programme only to a limited ex-tent because of limits on time and access to detailed operational plans and budgets. In general staff and beneficiaries were satisfied with project management. Concerns expressed were in re-gard to certain inputs delivered late in the first year of project activities and there were ques-tions as to the quality of the seed stock given to beneficiaries.

Sustainability - The evaluation found much evidence of economic, social and emotional trans-formation among the beneficiary groups with an accretion of a range of social, human and finan-cial capitals. The changes that women reported cover a range of external and internal shifts and increased skills set. Some of these are directly about a sense of empowerment fundamental to becoming resilient to shocks. Nevertheless, it is a finding of the evaluation that despite in-creased resilience, a percentage of beneficiaries will not be able to sustain their current liveli-hoods for any length of time due to external political and economic factors that neither they nor the project can do anything about.

In the long term, the evaluation found that the Programme had a measurable, very tangible and ap-preciated impact on beneficiaries, families and communities and, in some sites the environment. In-creased income levels have led to improved nutrition, the majority of beneficiaries’ children are now attending full-time education, many women and families are able to now manage to cover a portion of medical expenses or contribute to health insurance. Quality of life and empowerment indicators include emotional and psychosocial support, regained friendships and intimacy, better domestic re-lations, a return of dignity and pride and a sense of actively engaging in public and economic life.

All the beneficiaries canvassed in all programme locations reported a high degree of satisfaction with the programme and its outcomes. At the impact level, the programme proved highly successful and surpassed target milestones in increasing household revenue. It was also very successful in improv-ing food security and reducing hunger in all locations. It is the finding of this evaluation that given the scale of this programme, the fact that most of the partners were new to this approach to im-proving livelihood security, that the programme faced some major financial, structural and climatic challenges , the programme has been very successful both in its achievements against milestones and in institutional learning.

Recommendations

9

It is recommended that:

- Any future projects on livelihood security are designed in consultation with and include the relevant regional and or central government departments and ministries. It is import-ant to the long-term sustainability of livelihood programmes that the government takes some responsibility for ensuring an enabling environment beyond basic security. This in-cludes exploring how it can protect its citizens from exploitation by private individuals as well as by public and private service providers in health and education. The Catholic Church has considerable leverage at all levels of society and in the development of future livelihood programming, it needs to explicitly support the empowerment objectives of it s beneficiar-ies.

- DFID and SCIAF explore how they can support its partners at the diplomatic level to ensure greater protection of rights in the regions where the programme operates.

- Partners include individual and group IGA business planning and evaluation at one or more strategic points in the life of the project

- Future projects develop and build appropriate exit strategies for groups. Greater attention be given to the value chain analysis and market development. For IGAs to be viable over time closer attention needs to be given to the analysing the markets and exploring how be-neficiaries can increase the value of their products and or services.

- Partners explore how they can improve the care and health of livestock.

10

Introduction1. BackgroundThe Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF) Great Lakes Livelihoods Programme ended in December 2015. The programme was implemented by SCIAF’s traditional partners in the region:

Comite Diocesain de Lutte Contre le SIDA (BDOM Codilusi)

Commission Diocesaine Justice et Paix Bukavu (CDJP Bukavu)

Commission Diocesaine Justice et Paix Uvira (CDJP Uvira)

Commission Episcopale Justice et Paix Rwanda (CEJP Rwanda)

Jointly-funded by the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) under its Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) and SCIAF, the programme was designed to improve the liveli -hoods of women affected by severe poverty and conflict in Rwanda and in DRC. The programme supported women to increase productivity in agriculture and improve and diversify income sources via skills development, microcredit and training.

The goal of the Great Lakes Livelihood Programme was to improve the income, assets and food se-curity of 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu, DRC and Ruhango District Rwanda.

Specifically, the programme’s impact objective is to achieve “Reduction in extreme poverty and hunger in Bukavu and Uvira areas of the DR Congo and Kigoma sector and Ruhango district of Rwanda”.

At the outcome level, the objective is that Women 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.

The four programme outputs are:

Output 1; 263 Community organisations (SHGs) and three Associations are effectively functioning and managed by members.Output 2; Target beneficiaries have increased and diversified livelihood opportunities.Output 3; Capacity of target women farmers is strengthened to enhance agricultural productivity.Output 4; SGBV survivors are able to access healthcare, psychosocial and legal support which is ap-propriate to meet their needs.

The project grant was agreed in January 2013 for a three-year period. Designed collaboratively by the four implementing partners and SCIAF, the programme has built on the experience of the imple-menting partners working with extremely vulnerable and marginalised populations particularly wo-men survivors of SGBV.

The target areas were identified prior to project commencement and a baseline survey was carried out in those areas in March 2013. The process of selection of beneficiaries differed somewhat between the implementing partners but the primary criterion for selection was extremely vulnerabil -ity as result of conflict, extreme poverty, SGBV or widowhood. The core programme activities have

11

included training staff and SHGs committees in leadership, microenterprise, microcredit, market link-ages with the assistance of government extension officers training women in sustainable agriculture. Additional project inputs include the provision of seed capital for IGAs, agricultural tools and high-quality seeds, provision of small livestock and support for the establishment of seed banks. Support for the establishment and maintenance of SHGs has been provided by a cadre of volunteer facilitat -ors supported by programme staff from the four implementing partners.

2. MethodologyThe final evaluation is specifically intended to assess the extent that the programme has achieved its objectives with particular attention to be given to the extent it has achieved its overall goal and im -pact objective. The core evaluation objectives include:

1. The extent to which objectives have been achieved, and the submitted annual reports provide an accurate record of achievement against the log-frame;

2. The extent to which the project performed well and was good value for money;

3. The relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the programme;

4. The adequacy of the design and implementation of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) system and national partner’s capacity to implement MEL system, including a test of the adequacy of indicators, means of verification, and data collection tools and methods

The specific evaluation questions and the complete Terms of Reference for the review can be found in Annex 1.

As a final evaluation, it was felt to be important to ensure that there was a balance between the qualitative and quantitative data. Through the course of the three years, the programme has de -veloped and expanded monitoring tools for the collection of key output data. This data is a core component of the evaluation. However, the methodology also included the collected of additional quantitative data in relation to individual SHGs and their savings and loan status.

The evaluation methodology consisted of a desk review of available project documents, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with the SHGs and women’s groups, Key Informant interviews (KII) and discus-sions with project and partner staff. The survey questions and topics for discussion were designed to quantitatively and qualitatively determine the progress and impact as detailed in the indicators in the Logical Framework of the project document. Much information of a qualitative nature was also collected, relating to how the beneficiaries feel about the changes in their lives as a result of the project.

The evaluation fieldwork took place in sites in Bukavu, DRC, Ruhango, Rwanda and Uvira, DRC 1 from 8th to 24rd February. The consultant collected data through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) (22) in Bukavu, DRC and Ruhango, Rwanda, Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) (2). Programme staff in Uvira conducted FGDs with three groups and interviews with 6 beneficiaries. Additional data was collec-ted through desk-based research, and included project documents and quantitative data collected by project partners. Partners were asked to provide specific data on a sample of Self Help Groups. The data requested included details of savings (various) and loans, repayment and default rates, and group IGAs. These can be found in Annex 2.

1 CDJP Uvira Programme staff conducted its evaluation 26th – 28th February 2016

12

Table 1 – Timetable of the review:

Dates Groups/Persons met8th February Travel – Nairobi – Kigali – Kimembe - Bukavu9th February CDJP Bukavu Cimpunda (2 SHG)

Katundu (2 SHGs)10th February CDJP Bukavu Burhiba (1SHG)

Mbobero (2SHGs)11th February CDJP Bukavu Nguba (2SHGs)

Mater Dei (2SHGs)Meeting with programme staff

12th February BDOM Codilusi Meeting with field staff13th February CDJP Uvira Meeting with programme staff to plan

evaluation15th February BDOM Codilusi Onange Nkuange – Mosho

Mulangane/Canya16th February BDOM Codilusi Barhabazi/Kafonge

Rhukole Kuguma/KinjubaBasire Rhulwireka/Cebingu

17th February BDOM CodilusiTravel Bukavu - Ruhango

TupendaneAkiba

18th February CEJP Rwanda Bwangacumi RuhangoTuzamurane rwinkubaVisits to communal farm and IGAs

19th February CEJP Rwanda Meeting: Olive NTAHAMAJE – Execut-ive Secretary Musamo Cell.Twigiriricyizere RyanyirandaKamabare3Cana 3

20th February CEJP Rwanda Gasha BKavumu 3Butare 1Kabambatis

21st February Travel Ruhango - Bukavu22nd February CDJP Bukavu Meetings with :Maitre Nene

Com. Adjt Uvoya –Fwaling Honorata (Chief Gender and Family Unit)

23rd February CDJP Uvira Meeting with Uvira programme staff24th February Debrief - Return to Nairobi Debrief CDJP Bukavu

Meeting Constant CDJP Uvira

3. Limitations of the evaluationIn general, the logistics and the partner support for the evaluation were solid and the efforts of part-ners to ensure a productive evaluation process were appreciated. However, there were a few issues that negatively affected the evaluation process.

1. Due to the recent violence in Burundi and Bujumbura in particular, it was not possible for the consultant to travel to Uvira, which is accessed via Bujumbura, to conduct the field visits for the evaluation. It was decided instead that the Uvira programme staff would conduct the field work with guidance from the consultant. It was arranged that the Uvira team would make two trips to Bukavu; the first visit to develop and plan the evaluation process with the consultant and the second visit, after the field work was completed, to feedback and discuss the findings. Unfortunately, the team was unable to

13

conduct the field work in the agreed period as the required permission and budget for the work were not given in time. Although the team travelled to Bukavu for the planned feedback, as the field work had yet to be conducted, it was not possible to discuss and analyse the findings with the team. It was felt that these unnecessary bureaucratic obstacle affected the organisational learning that the process was designed to encour-age. However, it needs to be noted that the Uvira programme staff were eventually able to successfully conduct the field work and collate and document the findings. These findings are included in the report.

2. Although the field work covered a sixteen-day period, time with individual implementing partners was limited to three to four day tranches of time. The time was adequate to meet with programme beneficiaries but was insufficient to meet with a wide range of key informants i.e. government officials (only one was interviewed in Ruhango), school principals in programme areas, COOPEC staff. Such key informant interviews would have added depth to the findings.

3. Mbobero is one of the parishes included in CDJP Bukavu’s livelihood programme. It is the most rural of the parishes and the two women’s SHGs rely on agriculture as one of the main sources of revenue and subsistence. On the day of the visit to the parish and the groups, the military and the government contracted workers were burning fields and destroying and burning houses and a health centre. Many of the women in the SHGs were renting land from the original proprietor who had been forced to sell the land to the president. The consultant was able to discreetly witness this violence and destruc-tion. However, and very understandably, the women were not in the frame of mind to discuss the programme and outcomes in anything other than a cursory fashion. This was a shame as these two groups had been particularly successful in diversifying their IGAs and in an effort to secure their livelihoods in the longer term. This event underlined wo-men’s vulnerability to events outside of their control.

4. Framework for analysis The foci for the final evaluation are the extent to which women’s poverty has alleviated, their liveli-hoods improved and how lasting are the improvements to their livelihoods and their quality of life. An understanding of these two components of building and maintaining sustainable livelihoods be-nefits from an appreciation of the elements of a viable and rewarding livelihood and b) what makes a livelihood sustainable. Too narrow a definition of livelihood composition can tend to emphasise the material assets over other less tangible assets. The work of those working in poverty reduction in the last decades has led to broader and more nuanced definitions of “livelihoods”. The frame-work that emerged from Chambers, Scoone and others allowed a separation and differentiation of the kinds of assets or capitals that support and constitute a rounded material and social existence. This forms the basis of the thinking and design around poverty reduction programming. For the pur-pose of this evaluation a reminder of the framework gives weight and heft to the voices of benefi-ciaries and their opinions about what changes they believe to be lasting and important and stand equal to the structural and material ‘capitals’2. As an addendum Bebbington offers instead that

“peoples’ assets are not merely means through which they make a living: they also give meaning to the person’s world… (These assets are) both reflections and components of the meaning the person

2 Scoones, I (1998); Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis‟, Working Paper 72, Brighton, UK: Institute for Development Studies

14

has tried to create through their livelihood strategies. This meaning will then be one of several influ-ences in subsequent decisions people make about their livelihood strategies”3.

This characterisation of livelihoods assets connects the means and the process of asset accumulation i.e. learning to save, developing an income-generating activity, forming support mechanisms and networks, can be considered as an integral part of supporting sustainability. Thus the definition of sustainability: “A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base”4 is associated with and integral to the meaning that it gives the person and the group.

The Great Lakes Livelihood programme is supported by SCIAF and by the Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) a fund focused on poverty reduction and pursuit of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through tangible changes to poor people’s lives.

DFID’s Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) conceptually underpins the GPAF. A Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) is premised on the understanding that marginality, inequality and social exclusion is a cause and an effect of poverty exacerbated by political instability and conflict, degrada-tion of the environment and weak or limited industrial growth.5 The key components of the SLA is that it provides “the framework that helps in understanding the complexities of poverty and a set of principles to guide action to address and overcome poverty”6.

FindingsThe findings of this, the final evaluation of the GPAF Great Lakes Sustainable Livelihood programme, concentrate on the programme impact and progress to outcomes. While not strictly necessary for a final review, the output tables presented further in this section are here to demonstrate the incre-mental progress to targets as the project was designed around the beneficiary groups increasing an-nually as either grants, credit and/or resources became available.

The data in the progress tables are not disaggregated by implementing partner except where activi-ties were partner specific i.e. agricultural training and inputs, legal support service.

Goals, Objectives and Impact based on Indicators

Table 1 – Progress to impactImpact Indicator Baseline

(March 2013)Milestone 1 (March 2014)

Milestone 2 (March 2015)

Target(December 2015)

Indicator 1.1: Number of beneficiaries (target women + family mem-bers) living on more than US$1 per day (per person).

Planned 0 70 beneficiar-ies plus 280 household members

690 beneficiar-ies plus 2,765 household mem-bers

1,600 beneficiar-ies plus 6,400 household mem-bers

Achieved No reliable data

728 beneficiar-ies plus 2,912 household mem-bers

1,849 benefi-ciaries plus 7,369 household members

Indicator 1.2: Number of target population

Planned No beneficiary is having food for

320 benefi-ciaries with

1,120 beneficiar-ies with five/

1,920 beneficiar-ies with ten/

3Bebbington, A. World Development Vol. 27, No. 12, pp. 2021±2044, 1999 1999 Elsevier Science Ltd4 Chambers and Conway (White Paper1992, page 7).5edited by Joachim Von Braun, Franz W. Gatzweiler Marginality: Addressing the Nexus of Poverty, Exclusion and Ecology 6 http://www.ifad.org/sla

15

having food with in-creased quantity and food diversity.

twelve months in a year

three/four months food

seven months food

twelve months food

Achieved No reliable data

905 beneficiar-ies with five/seven months food

1,506 benefi-ciaries with ten/twelve months food

Table 1 gives the aggregated data on the two impact indicators of income and food consumption levels. The programme has surpassed its targets for the number of beneficiaries with revenue in ac-cess of $1 a day, with 1,849 direct beneficiaries and 7,369 household members. This data is sup-ported by the findings of the evaluation, where all beneficiaries in all locations reported increased in-come, including beneficiaries from groups that are regarded as weak.

For Impact Indicator 1.2, the data implies that the programme has not reached its food security tar-get of 1,920 beneficiaries who have enjoyed increased food consumption and diversity for a period of greater than ten to twelve months, with partners recording only 1,506 beneficiaries who have been food secure for that period. However, it is noted that activities with a number of groups only began in the last six months of the programme. Beneficiaries from those groups who reported in-creased and improved food consumption during the evaluation necessarily could not be included in the above data. At the outcome level 9,765 beneficiaries and members of their households re-ported accessing more than two meals a day. It is the finding of the evaluation that the programme has been highly successful in increasing food security in the short and medium-term.

Table 2 – Progress to outcomeOutcome Indicator Baseline




Indicator 1: Number of bene-ficiaries who can access at least two meals a day of vari-ety of food to meet their nu-trient adequacy.

Planned 915 (183 women + 732 family members)

1,600 (320 wo-men + 1,280 family mem-bers)

5,600 (1,120 women + 4,480 family members)

9,600 (1,920 women + 7,680 family mem-bers

Achieved 2,220 (444 wo-men and 1,776 family)

5,745 (1,149 women and 4,596 family)

9,765 (1,953 women + 7,812 family mem-bers)

Indicator 2: Number of target women who earn more than $50 per month.

Planned 070 women 690 women 1,600 women

Achieved 157 women 639 women 1,395 women

Indicator 3: Average net monthly income of target wo-men.

Planned less than $30 $50 $50 $50

Achieved Between $30 and $50

Average monthly in-come $54

Total: $58

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

Planned 0200 women farmers

500 women farmers

800 women farmers

Achieved 691 women farmers

1,052 women farmers

1,294 women farmers

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

Planned a) Cassava: 83.84 kg - b) Beans: 77.02 kg

a) Cassava: 92.22 kg - b) Beans: 84.72 kg



Achieved No reliable data a). Cassava 60 Kg. b).

a). Cassava; 184 Kg - b). Beans

16

Beans 74 Kg 93 Kg ,Indicator 6: Number of SGBV cases taken to court.

Planned 14 court cases 56 court cases 72 court cases

128 court cases

Achieved 59 court cases 73 court cases

113

Again, a review of the data collected during the project life confirms its success in increasing food security among all of its beneficiaries both rural and urban. This is an important distinction in so far as a sig-nificant proportion of beneficiaries in peri-urban and rural areas were able to engage in subsistence farming as well as working on collective farmers and an increase in food security would be expected in those areas. However, urban-based beneficiaries as well as rural wo-men with no land were all able to access at least two meals a day for the families. Focus group discussions with beneficiaries supported the data. Women consist-ently reported being able to provide at least two meals a day for themselves and families with many reporting providing three meals a day and volunteering informa-tion about the variety now in their diet.

To be noted here is the evident pride women demon-strated at being able to feed their families, the corollary

being the immense shame they had previously experienced at being unable to feed the household.

Rural communities who had received agricultural inputs and training appeared to have an advantage in relation to the variety of foods available. A core component of the success of the agricultural activities is the increase in production and yield of women’s own fields with women not only increas-ing their production but also the variety of their crops for the market but also for consumption lead-ing to an improved diet for the household.

An improved and regular diet was argued by groups in Uvira to be the result of a number of factors and inputs:

- Applying sustainable farming techniques and thus increasing yield including better agricul -tural planning;

- Cultivation of a variety of crops and fruit trees;- Better dietary planning;- Diversification of IGAs therefore an increase in income;- Livestock/animal husbandry

The data from Table 2 shows that although the target of 1,600 women who earn more than $50 per month was not fully met (Outcome indicator 2), nevertheless, the table also shows that for three of the four partners the programme more than successfully achieved the target of earnings of $50 a month or more.

From discussions with partners and programme staff somewhat different metrics were used to cal-culate revenue, with daily outgoings and earnings being the most commonly used method for as-sessing monthly revenue. Although there was some doubt about income levels during the mid-term, it appeared from beneficiary reports that the above data collected by partners are a reason-ably accurate representation of earnings given the limited numeracy and literacy capacity of benefi-ciaries.

17

We now eat three meals a day and we eat what we like –Mulangane (4 children)

Porridge every morning plus lunch and supper Gasha B (3 children)

My children have milk every day and we have fish and vegetables when we want Nguba

Now we have all kinds of food available: rice, eggs, vegetables, salt and spices, meat, fruit, maize, good quality fish, ba-nanas.. Uvira

Since the family is eating two meals a day I am seeing my children’s height and weight increase – Ryamyiranda - Ruhango

In the discussion below, attention is given to the many variables that make the two revenue out -come indicators (Outcome indicator 2 and 3) unsatisfactory measures of livelihood security. Both are generally weak indicators of the extent to which households are able to manage and increase assets and earnings. In the context of a programme operating in three different locations with different markets and substantially different costs of living, monthly revenue does not well describe house-hold livelihood security.

In the evaluation FGDs, the indicators that women beneficiaries used to describe and assess their im-proved economic status included:

- Capacity to pay school fees (Numbers of children in full-time education both school and further studies)

- Livestock – (Owning and increasing the number of livestock was one of the most popular measures both with urban and rural women’s groups)

- Land rental- Capacity to payment of medical expenses- Independent savings- Home improvements – corrugated iron for roofs etc.- Increased consumption of non-food items – (soap, salt/spices, clothing, cooking utensils)

In

the main, increased income was measured by increased and regular expenditure and consumption. Those expenditures can be separated into critical expenditures for the maintenance of livelihood and household security – school fees, medical expenses, food items – and expenditures on improve -ments in life style and quality of life. Women beneficiaries reported expenditures on additional items surplus to daily requirements as a measure of the economic improvement. However, in as-sessing their wealth rather than revenue women noted the number and kind of livestock rather than the amount that they were able to save (or in the case of urban women, other capital assets such as bicycles, sewing machines etc).

Proportionally, one of the most successful elements of the programme is adoption of sustainable farming techniques where the number of women farmers who reported an increase in production due to the project intervention has is more than fifty percent (50%) greater than anticipated with 1,297 women reporting increased production. The findings of the evaluation fully support the above data. The success of this component was not as evident during the mid-term review due to drought experienced in the sites in Uvira, DRC and Ruhango, Rwanda. The failure of the rains in 2014 af -fected both the level of production and the adoption of sustainable farming techniques in some areas of Uvira and Ruhango. The women who had received agricultural inputs: tools, training and seeds reported increased yields and multiple benefits from the inputs.

All of the farmers interviewed reported considerable increases in production in a variety of different crops. All farmers reported applying the techniques that they had learnt in their own fields as well as the collective fields. They reported the benefits as being able to subsist on their own production for a greater portion of year as well as having sufficient seed stock for replanting. There was evident satisfaction with their achievements on their group fields but even greater pride and sense of achievement when reporting significant growth in their own production either for subsistence or as

18I used to harvest 10 kg of beans now I am harvesting more than 30kgs – I’ve more than doubled my yield- Tuyarmurane - Ruhango

I’m now growing and eating vegetables that I never knew before – beetroots, red peppers

The drought affected us the first year and we weren’t applying the techniques

I bought cell phones for my husband and myself– for the first time – Kamabare – RuhangoI paid back the money I owed to people- UviraI am able to regularly visit my husband in prison – I couldn’t visit for many years - Ruhango

sale as an IGA. Training in improving crop production along with project monitoring appears to have created greater awareness of crop yields, crop variety and what can be expected.

In project locations where training in improved agricultural techniques and communal fields were operational, beneficiaries reported that neighbours and neighbouring villages witnessing the in-creased harvests were keen to join the project. Where neighbours had the agricultural tools and the means they replicated the techniques in their own farms.

In the log frame, the targets for communal farm crop production were confined to cassava and beans. From the data, those targets were not reached but, more germane, beneficiaries and groups reported diversifying their crops and making rational and market-driven decisions about crops to plant as they build their farming capacity.

Staff and beneficiaries reported that it took one to two harvests and, in some cases, more for wo -men to see the difference in yields and to ‘get a taste for farming’. Once confidence was built around farming capabilities, women wanted to explore other crops and also were learning what ve -getables and grains were selling. Hence, when for example, the peanut crop failed, women changed crops. Now a variety of different crops such as onions, sweet potatoes, rice as well as peanuts are grown in the communal farms with a total production in excess of targets.

Beneficiaries were asked whether they would continue with the communal farms when many are renting larger areas to farm themselves or even buying their own fields. All the women asserted that they would want to continue with the communal farms because of the many benefits that com-munal farming offered. These benefits included:

- Increased group cohesion;- Continuous learning about farming from each other;- A network of market information – what is selling, where to buy seeds etc.- A support network that would help each other harvest on each other’s plots i.e. access

to labour

The target of 128 number of SGBV court cases taken to court was not achieved, with only 113 cases taken to court. Reasons given for not reaching this target were mainly financial. Legal costs were difficult to assess in advance and those costs accumulate. CDJP Bukavu, the partner providing legal support in six parishes, took the decision to commit resources to seeking financial compensation from the perpetrators of SGBV. However, this requires a second legal process for most of the cases which is both time and financially costly.

Output 1: 263 Community organisations (SHGs) and three Associations are effectively functioning and managed by members.

Table 3 – Progress to Output 1Output Indicator Baseline




Indicator 1.1: Number Planned 842 members 1,400 mem- 2,100 members 3,000 members

19

I used to harvest 10 kg of beans now I am harvesting more than 30kgs – I’ve more than doubled my yield- Tuyarmurane - Ruhango

I’m now growing and eating vegetables that I never knew before – beetroots, red peppers

The drought affected us the first year and we weren’t applying the techniques

of members of demo-cratically organised sav-ings and credit units = Self Help Groups (SHGs).

bersAchieved 974 members 2,157 members 2,927 members

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

Planned 56 SHG 115 SHG 189 SHG 263 SHG

Achieved 63 SHG 101 SHG

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

Planned 639 women a) 1,400; b) 50 a) 1,800; b) 100 a) 3,200; b) 150

Achieved a). 451 b). 1 a) 1,379 b) 1 a)2,701b) 317

The community organisations represent the backbone of the programme and the programme’s suc-cess. The complex nature of the women’s groups and SHGs as the vehicles for delivery of project activities, as savings and credit structures and as the primary support network for the women bene -ficiaries cannot be over-stated. Although in most respects complementary and integrally linked, these somewhat different functions bring their own challenges.

The target of 3,000 members was not reached but a membership of 2,927 was achieved. This is an extremely low attrition rate – less than a hundred – lower than one would expect. The evaluation findings suggested that the majority of those who left did so for pragmatic reasons e.g. moving from the area. It was reported that only a proportionally small number left as a means of not repaying loans or theft of group assets. That said, the data from partners showed that some groups had par -ticularly high dropout rates of as much as 50% of the members i.e. groups losing 8 to 10 members greatly reducing not only the size but the savings and revenue potential of those groups. It is also worthy of note that that more than 5 members died during the course of the programme life.

Although it would appear according to the data that the target milestones for output indicators 2 and 3 were not met with the exception of those eligible for independent business loans, this is de -ceptive. At the end of the project a total of 305 beneficiaries supported by the implementing part -ner BDOM Codilusi remained to receive funding for IGA development either directly through the project.. However, the SHGs that they belong are committed to providing IGA funding for all their re-maining members and have a written obligation to do so. Also, SCIAF is committed to providing fund-ing to 193 of these 305 beneficiaries to develop their own IGAs from April 2016 and thus speed up the process of ensuring that all project beneficiaries receiving funding to develop small businesses. Three hundred and seventeen women (317) were eligible double the target of 150. However, those accessing loans was 33% below the target of 3200 women.

The number of SHGs capable of managing democratically elected, independent savings and credit groups fell below the target with only 164 regarded as having the necessary resources or capacity. It was noted in the mid-term review, however, that the target milestone of 263 SHGs was inappropri-ately ambitious. The result is that across the 4 implementing partners, there are a total of only 200 SHGs ate the end of the project (CDJP Bukavu 24, CDJP Uvira 25, CEJP Rwanda 85 and BDOM Codilusi 65), thus the target could not have been met

20

Each of the implementing partners employed somewhat different approaches to SHG formation and to access to credit. CDJP Bukavu works with women’s groups in each of six parishes leading to even -tual establishment of twelve SHGs. Each member received a start-up grant of $70-75 rather than a loan. The other implementing partners were less prescriptive and the groups themselves determ-ined how they would provide IGA seed capital and build a loan fund. Given that the loan capital available to partners and their SHGs was modest, groups were encouraged as part of the group formation and training to establish rotating loan funds. However, groups could and did develop their own modalities. One group, for example, divided the loan capital equally between all members with each member receiving only $20 - 25 resulting in insufficient capital to establish viable IGAs.

In another instance, the consultant met with a number of women from one group of 100 women with five SHGs. Of the twenty women present five had yet to receive loans. This was a group in a re -latively remote area with limited access to markets and establishing viable IGAs and thus loan repay-ments presented difficulties. However, it appeared that familiarity and long-standing patterns of as -sociation militated against a) those defaulting on their loan repayments feeling any pressure to re-pay and b) the groups imposing any penalties on non-repayment. This is relevant in so far as estab-lished groups may be more resistant to advice and mentoring with regard to savings and loan man-agement.

The evaluation reviewed data provided by all partners on a large sample of SHGs in relation to their savings and credit record. It was hoped that the individual group data would give an indication of which groups were ‘at risk’ in relation to financial sustainability. Although there are hints as to what factors play a part in group viability, there is insufficient data for clear correlations or causal links. For example, gross data on loans out and loans repaid are only relevant in relation to information on the IGAs themselves (i.e. 2nd loans or first loans) and how the outstanding loans are due to mem -bers defaulting or otherwise. Programme staff were equally concerned that beneficiaries were ‘risk adverse’ with regard to taking out second loans to expand businesses as they were about high loan default rates.

No conclusions could be drawn about the groups who received a loan compared to those who re-ceived grants, for example. However, there did appear to be a correlation between the amount saved and the readiness and scale of borrowing; groups that saved more borrowed more. Those groups with higher rates of saving and borrowing also had the greatest number of members with in -dependent accounts with banks or savings cooperatives. As interesting was the lack of correlation between monies in the ‘caisse sociale’ and group IGAs. Although in conversation with the groups, it was stated that a money from the group enterprise was partly to fund the ‘caisse sociale’, there was no difference between the amounts in the fund between groups with IGAs and those with not.

The ‘caisse sociale’ or welfare fund is possibly one of the better indicators of a group’s financial sus-tainability. Monthly contributions to the social fund are theoretically obligatory in most if not all groups in order to maintain one’s membership and to be eligible to attend meetings. How a group and its executive ensure that fees are paid and how it manages that emergency fund is likely to be a measure of its leadership and discipline. As data collected for the evaluation described the status of funds at a particular moment rather than over a period, it would be problematic to draw too many conclusions. Medical and other emergencies can cause a fund to be severely reduced from one day to the next. However, it was notable that there were monies in all of the emergency funds of two partners.

Approximately half of the CEJP Rwanda groups had no funds in their ‘caisses sociale’. Nearly all wo -men in Bukavu and Uvira are members of a riz-tourne (or merry-go-round) and none in Ruhango. The merry-go-around savings mechanism provides a form of additional emergency pot as each month

21

one member will receive a lump sum of all contributions. To what extent this goes some way to pro -tect drains on the ‘caisses sociale’ warrants further exploring.

From the FGDs, the disbursement of ‘caisse sociale’ funds to members is somewhat arbitrary. The fund may be used for primarily medical emergencies by one group, school fees by another and so on. One group in Bukavu, (Buriba) emptied the fund at Christmas and shared it out among mem-bers.

For the viability of group savings and credit, a 95% loan repayment rate with penalties for non-re -payment is considered the minimum for SHG banking and even then requires the support and back-ing of larger associations or savings federations.7 From the reports of the FGDs, the evaluation found that between 15%-30% of those receiving IGA loans from a revolving loan fund had defaulted on one or more repayments. .

There are many reasons why groups continue to retain members, one of which is the contact and counselling they receive from staff that encourages members to stay in the group despite the fact that they may be failing to either contribute, save or repay loans on a regular basis. The programme is premised on an appreciation that a person with a history of destitution, of extreme poverty may take an extended period of time to learn to manage their households and their financial affairs. All partners recognise too, that their beneficiaries face high recurring expenditures. Although the pro -gramme ended in December 2015, volunteers and extension continue to support the groups and are committed to doing so for the next while. It is, however, the view of this evaluation that the long-term sustainability of groups as viable savings and loan structures is threatened by continuing to re -tain non-contributing members beyond an agreed period. It was apparent from the FGDs that non-payment becomes both individually and collectively habit forming. Women admitted that once they had missed a repayment or a contribution, it became harder to restart payment and it became easier for others to default. If no pressure was exerted nor penalty was exacted, there is little in -centive to recommence payment. It is worth emphasising here that women who have already had the experience of debt and non-payment are used to the shame and discomfort of living with debt and are less likely to experience a sense of urgency or obligation to repay.

Output 2: Target beneficiaries have increased and diversified livelihood opportunities.

Table 4 Progress to Output 2Output Indicator Baseline




Indicator 2.1: Number of target group engaged in income generation activ-ities. CDJP Bukavu.

Planned 494 women 714 women 1,094 women 1,394 women

Achieved 749 women 1,668 women 2,297 women

Indicator 2.2: Number of target women who earn their income from at least two diversified sources.

Planned No or only one income source for all women

100 women 500 women 1,000 women

Achieved 691 women 1,146 women 1,646 women

7 Nair, Ajai Sustainability of Microfinance Self Help Groups in India: Would Federating Help?

22

Indicator 2.3 Number of target women who re-port having received marketing and IGA man-agement training by pro-ject staff or other benefi-ciaries through a ToT ap-proach and b) Number of beneficiaries who as a result reporting that they have taken on the training by changing their IGA management approach.

Planned 0 women a) 600 and b) 70

a) 1,500 and b) 180

a) 2,700 and b) 3000

Achieved a).0 b).0 c).0 a). 836 b). 441

a). 1,505 b). 937

The target milestones for indicators 2.1 and 2.2 were substantially surpassed with 2,297 women now engaged in income generating activities more than double the target of 1,000 and 1,646 women earning income from at least two diversified sources.

Milestone targets for Indicator 2.3 were not achieved but informal cross-learning from other groups and each other on markets and on IGA management was cited as a project benefit by women during the evaluation. However, it is the opinion of the evaluation that there was a typographical and highly error in Indicator 2.3 b). It is believed that the actual figure should have been 300 in which case, the project was extremely successful in assisting women to adapt and change their IGAs. It is also the o opinion of this evaluation that the target milestone for 2.3 a) was very high and somewhat unreal-istic.

The above findings were confirmed by the reports of beneficiaries in the FGDs. Most of the women interviewed who reported greater financial security had at least two if not three IGAs. There was notable learning on the part of women who were the first to receive capital for their IGAs in that the different IGAs were better and more efficiently linked. IGAs that locked up capital were dropped in favour of one’s offering faster turnover.

My first business was second-hand clothes. I had to store and wash the clothes and I didn’t sell enough on a regular basis. I decided that selling food items would be more profitable and anything I didn’t sell I could use to feed the family. - Nguba parish

Women had a better and more long-term vision of what was profitable and feasible. Even though relatively high risk, women expressed most interest in livestock as it provided a means of being able to monetising assets when needed i.e. school fees, medical expenses.

Staff in Bukavu and Uvira identified changes they had noted in the group dynamics and individuals that supported greater IGA success, diversity and risk taking:

- Improved household management including ability to economise- Improved organisational ability- Greater capacity to assimilate/absorb training effectively and apply lessons learned- Increased willingness to work hard- Clear vision and set of objectives i.e. all children in school, expand biz by x% etc- Access to competent sources of labour (free) i.e. children or other family members- Diversity of product range if in commerce- Level of expenditure consistent and manageable

23

One beneficiary summed up her own success in managing her IGAs: I still have many problems but now I feel equipped to deal with them. Buriba

While recognising that most of the beneficiaries have taken enormous strides in developing income streams and IGAs, in all project locations many of the same women continue to struggle to cover ba -sic living expenses. Petty trade in general does not generate sufficient income to cover household expenditures particularly for urban groups who have higher school fees and rental charges. They have fewer free or cheap resources to draw on coupled with the fact that school fees, rent, are un-manageably high and or susceptible to hikes. Many urban beneficiaries are displaced from rural areas and agricultural production and are forced to adjust to earning a living in an urban setting. Worryingly, there were a number of examples from the FGDs of women who were experiencing too great a gap between their level of earnings and profit and the level of household expenditure. Hav-ing succeeded in sending their children to school, women were finding themselves unable to meet the monthly school fees and reported progressively eating into their capital. Emergency medical ex -penses were another cause of women slowly sliding back into debt. It is a concern of the evaluation that the specific context for a proportion of the target beneficiaries; high living costs in an urban setting; lack of government enforcement of free education; no social or familial safety net; weak markets; and general insecurity represent nearly insurmountable barriers to building secure and sus-tainable livelihoods.

In contrast, rural and peri-urban groups particularly in Rwanda where the government pro-poor policies are enforced providing free education and subsidised health care, beneficiaries are able to better plan and manage their expenditures. Without pressing recurrent expenditure, there is less pressure on IGA assets and capital.

The challenge for future programmes is how to work within the limitations of the economic, political and structural environment to assist women’s development of sustainable IGAs capable of meeting their material needs in urban settings.

The consultant posed the question to a couple of groups in Bukavu as to whether, if their businesses failed and they found themselves in similar circumstances to those before they joined the group, whether they would feel demoralised and regret having been part of the programme. The groups were unanimous in their response. They felt that even if they lost the material gains made, the other programme benefits and their own transformations would outweigh any losses and those transformations would be lasting. We know we are on a long path – we have yet to complete the journey. We have to be optimistic.

To return to the framework for understanding livelihood security, it is the process that gives mean -ing to a person’s world. IGAs provide a strong sense of purpose and shape to women’s and they build capacity even if they fail. It also can be argued that the learning experience mitigates future risks.

Output 3 Capacity of target women farmers is strengthened to enhance agricultural pro-ductivity.

Table 5 Progress to output 3

24

Output Indicator Baseline(March 2013)




Indicator 3.1: Number of small scale farmers trained in sustainable agricultural practices ap-plicable to their farms.

Planned 0 550 women farmers

550 women farmers

1,400 women farm-ers


1,156 women farmers

1,375 women farm-ers

Indicator 3.2: Number of target farmers who ad-opted three key sustain-able agricultural prac-tices applicable to their farms.

Planned 0 487 women farmers

690 women farmers

980 women farmers


826 women farmers

902 women farmers

Indicator 3.3: Number of women farmers who have increased their live-stock assets (increased number of goat/sheep/pig by 1) being a direct programme receipient, 2) beneficiary who has receive livestock will pass on first livestock to someone within their vil-lage and 3) purchase from their own source.

Planned 0 90 women 210 women 520 women

Achieved 6 women a). 236 b). 96 c). 9 Total: 341

a). 372 b). 322 c). 135 Total: 829

The programme was largely successful in meeting the milestones for the indicators for Output 3. It was close to meeting targets for indicator 3.1 and 3.2 and exceeded targets for 3.3.

The success of the adoption of sustainable farming techniques is covered earlier in this section. Live-stock production/animal husbandry has been highly popular with all beneficiary groups. With all wo-men receiving livestock in Uvira and Ruhango by the group rotation earlier tension around who would receive an animal first had dissipated. The livestock, particularly the pigs, were valued for both their saleability and as a source of fertiliser. As mentioned above, women reported buying them as a highly profitable form of short-term savings which could be sold to meet expenses when necessary. This made them attractive investments for group IGAs.

In all locations, groups during the FGDs reported purchasing not only goats, sheep and pigs but also ducks, chickens and guinea pigs for IGAs.

While the introduction of livestock and animal husbandry was reported to be much appreciated, ill-ness led to the death of a substantial number of animals, mainly pigs. Although many women who decide upon livestock as an IGA were not part of the livestock rotation activity, many reported the loss of most if not all their livestock particularly in Bukavu with one woman reporting that seven of her pigs had died. Rwanda was similarly affected with heavy losses of pigs. This was a less of a finan-cial loss for beneficiaries in DRC where the meat of the dead animal could be sold. In Rwanda, how-ever, public health regulations prevent meat from sick animals being sold. As a result, beneficiaries in Ruhango were replacing their pigs with goats.

A complaint from both programme staff and groups was about the lack of affordable and accessible veterinary care. CDJP Uvira took advantage of having an intern with animal husbandry and tradition

25

veterinary treatment who came and met with all the groups. However, it is not clear that this had any measureable impact on the health of livestock.

Output 4; SGBV survivors are able to access healthcare, psychosocial and legal support which is appropriate to meet their needs.

Table 5 Progress to Output 4Output Indicator Baseline




Indicator 4.1: The num-ber of SGBV survivors who have received healthcare and/or psychosocial support.

Planned 0 110 SGBV surviv-ors

215 SGBV sur-vivors

320 SGBV surviv-ors

Achieved 119 SGBV surviv-ors

247 SGBV sur-vivors

324 SGBV

Indicator 4.2: Number of SGBV legal cases provided with the neces-sary legal support to be taken to court.

Planned 0 75 100 150

Achieved 75 110 140

Indicator 4.3: Number of police, army, other offi-cials and religious per-sonnel trained to uphold legal rights of women.

Planned 025 female + 125 male

50 female + 250 male


Achieved 33 female + 107 male

81 female + 161 males


The indicators for Output 4 were met except indicator 4.

The consultant met with a senior police woman (Com. Adjt Uvoya –Fwaling Honorata (Chief Gender and Family Unit – Bukavu police) responsible for gender and child protection. Not only had she re-ceived training through the programme herself but worked closely with the CDJP Bukavu on cases and referrals. She reported that there had been a culture of impunity among police and the military but training organised under this programme and others had resulted in a greater awareness about and sense of responsibility for the protection of human and civil rights. She argued that there was a marked improvement in the way that women reporting instances of SGBV were treated by the po-lice.

She reported that the training of tax men and enforcement of public order had substantially reduced the instances of abuse of women vendors.

Discussion

Relevance

From a design perspective, the evaluation found that the inputs and activities of the GL Livelihoods programme targeted the needs of the beneficiary groups. From the discussions with individual ben-eficiaries and with the women’s groups and SHGs as well as staff and key informants, it was agreed that the project addressed many if not most of their most immediate needs. In response to the core question of what was the most appreciated project input, nearly all the groups stated that the ‘train-ing’ was the most valued. The evaluation recognized that ‘training’ encompassed a wide-range of

26

project inputs i.e. group formation, leaderships, specific skill training such as sustainable agricultural techniques along with mentoring. Most women reported positively about the financial and physical inputs with a particularly high value given to the provision of farming tools for those groups that re-ceived them. Only two of the 22 groups canvassed identified the grant or the credit facility as the most important input. However, all the groups regarded the access to a grant or credit as a key value.

In addition, women directly or indirectly reported that they felt their coping strategies had improved and that more options were now available to them. Even among women who reported their IGAs failing or not performing well felt more confident, more capable and more positive about their situa-tion as a result of the project.

Training and capacity building activities were appreciated by law enforcement officers who received. It was felt that they are more capable of identifying and providing greater protection to women par-ticularly those affected by SGBV in a more effective and efficient manner.

All but two of the MDGs are off track for DRC while Rwanda is on track for all eight MDGs. Directly and indirectly the programme addresses and contributes to the attainment of MDG 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The programme is built around a model of empowerment and moral and social responsibility to work with the disenfranchised and the most marginalized of populations. As the findings described above demonstrate, the project has reduced hunger among a population close to 10,000. In dis-tricts in Rwanda, targeting the most destitute in districts has supported government efforts to re-duce poverty. Particularly relevant is the project is Goal 3 Gender Equality. The programme tar-geted women whose extreme poverty is partially the result of gender inequities that have prevented them from accessing education and exercising their rights. It directly addressed through training and mentoring women’s rights and, at the most profound level women reported how the belonging to groups and the training in leadership allowed them to recover their voices. Contributing financially and in kind to the family gave women greater status and power in the family.

In relation to specific project areas, the Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index “measures the roles and extent of women’s engagement in the agriculture sector in five domains: (1) decisions about agricultural production, (2) access to and decision making power over productive resources, (3) control over use of income, (4) leadership in the community, and (5) time use”8 The GL liveli-hoods programme has contributed to beneficiaries to gaining greater power and control in all the above domains particularly in relation to decision-making around agricultural production.

The mechanisms for the selection of beneficiaries varied between partners but by insisting on the in-clusion of most vulnerable, the programme particularly supported groups frequently excluded from IGA programming. Women affected by HIV/AIDS, survivors of SGBV and women with disabilities were all included in beneficiary groups. Specific support, including health care and medical expenses were provided for the above groups. During the evaluation, those affected by HIV/AIDS reported that their poor health status prior to the project was partly a function of their isolation and sense of shame and embarrassment. Being accepted, included and supported has helped improve their health. I was alone at home, I felt hopeless and didn’t know how to get out of this mess. The group saved me – Tuzamurane

The project appears to have been generally responsive to the needs and views of beneficiaries and stakeholders. However, as most of the contact with beneficiaries was via the volunteers and exten-sion workers, it is not clear how much opportunity was given for feedback. Again, different partners had substantial larger target populations than others making opportunities fewer.

8 file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/EoD_HD122_Feb2014_Livelihoods_Indicators.pdf

27

Effectiveness and results achieved

It is the view of this evaluation that the programme had made every effort to report and record re-sults accurately. Variations in the collection of data and the commitment of partners to ensure that the results reported exist. This appears to be a function of logistical, supervisory and monitoring and evaluation constraints. The field visits and the findings of the FGDs corroborated the data collected by the programme. In certain areas, such as yields, it is possible that the programme may have un-derestimated production.

The evaluation found the underlying narrative of the GL livelihoods programme to be one of pro-found attention to the principles of value for money. Purchasing locally, employing volunteers and extension workers as the primary implementers, keeping staff and overheads to a minimum to kept costs down. The reservation of the evaluation was weakness of the outcome milestones and indica-tors, resulting in reduced effectiveness around the monitoring of revenue. A greater access to mar-kets and the value chain could also have somewhat added to project impact.

SCIAF and the programme did not sacrifice the needs of beneficiaries. It is noted that in the final year of project activities money was sourced to cover the shortfall in loan funds and to accelerate the livestock rotation.

As certain partners received more flexible funding from other donors for sister projects than others, there were disparities in resources available. For example, CEJP Rwanda had proportionally fewer resources than partners in DRC. Still, it could be argued that these disparities are offset by the more enabling environment that Rwanda offers beneficiaries e.g. no hidden school fees.

The project benefits to the target group have been discussed earlier and DFD funding was an essen-tial component of these achievements. From the perspective of the partners and SCIAF, DFID fund-ing provided the four partners to undertake an evidence-based and integrated programme of activi-ties to address extreme poverty. This was extremely important for partners and for institutional learning in the context of the Catholic Church’s work with the poor. Although more widespread in Latin America in the church, an empowerment model for working with the poor is new to the part-ners and the region. It challenges the welfare and ‘alms to the poor’ model and the project allowed both the clergy and lay staff to learn new approaches.

The MEL continuous learning model was centrally part of the project design. In the first years of the project, partners were learning how to efficiently collect, analyse and share data about project indi-cators. The evaluation found that its value to partners was variable depending on the interest and the availability of staff. However, its use in improving agricultural outcomes by the systematic moni-toring of production greatly contributed to institutional learning.

CEJP Rwanda worked closely with government in the selection and the number of programme bene-ficiaries. More precisely, local government undertook the selection and thus had a strong interest in the project and its impact. From the key informant interview with the Executive Secretary of one cell, it was apparent that the project staff and local government cooperated and supported each other. The government was appreciative in so far as the project targeted 20% of the population that for them made the most demands, contributed the least and were a drain on resources. From the Rwandan government perspective, the project was effective in reducing demand, creating wealth and reducing conflict as well as demonstrating evidence of economic changes.

28

From the evaluation field visits, it was not clear the extent to which the Bukavu partners engaged with other CBOs and structures except the parishes and the women CBOs.

The main challenges identified or barriers to significant and lasting economic improvement are po-litical and structural. In the main these barriers do not apply in Rwanda to the same extent as they do in DRC. The Rwandan government has a specific pro-poor agenda that aligns with its political goals. Ensuring rural prosperity is a seen as the primary strategy to prevent any further conflict. DRC struggles with ongoing tensions between regional and central control. Corruption, lack of politi-cal will, and ongoing insecurity and conflict affect all aspects of women lives – the land grabbing in Mbobero, extortionate school fees, unstable markets and carpet-bagger exploitation of those rent-ing all detrimentally affect and limit women’s economic and social advancement and the sustainabil-ity of livelihoods. That noted these barriers are not experienced evenly and several groups in Uvira have been immensely successful in creating wealth and opportunity despite the lack of an enabling environment.

A generally well-designed and integrated programme of activities and emotional and social support is a key driver of the overall success of the programme. Equally as important as a driver of positive results is the commitment of the women to make their children’s lives better and more secure.

EfficiencyThe evaluation only considered efficiency aspects of the programme only to a limited extent – limits on time and access to detailed operational were constraints.

In general staff and beneficiaries were satisfied with project management. Concerns and resent-ment were expressed with regard to certain inputs delivered late in the first year of project activities and there were questions as to the quality of the seed stock given to beneficiaries. The original timeframe for livestock rotation and the delays in delivery of livestock were impediments to efficient delivery of project outputs but SCIAF and its partners were responsive to complaints and concerns. SCIAF was regarded as a well informed and attentive partner that understood the implementation challenges.

Sustainability

Sustainability remains the slippiest of concepts and has been one of the central discussions with be-neficiaries. A starting point for discussion is the recognition that securing sustainable livelihoods is progressively and increasingly a global problem. While there are greater rewards and opportunities available in the North, a job and a pension for life has become a fiction. Recent debate suggests that we need to go beyond the received wisdom on sustainable livelihoods “Nurturing sustainable liveli-hoods for the poor is not just about recognizing their exceptional skill at making a living, which in-cludes diversifying livelihoods, … (operating) within productive networks, but also mitigating their vulnerability to land grabs, drought and floods, natural disasters, corporate greed and venal polit-ics.’9 It would seem that a livelihoods programme partnering the Commissions of Justice and Peace require a risk mitigation strategy and engagement with the actors and stakeholders who are re-sponsible for the continued vulnerability women and their families.

The evaluation found much evidence of economic, social and emotional transformation among the beneficiary groups with an accretion of a range of social, human and financial capitals. The changes

9 Simon Batterbury, University of Melbourne review Sustainable Livelihoods and Rural Developmentby Ian Scoones 2015b

29

that women reported cover a range of external and internal shifts and increased skills set. Some of these are directly about a sense of empowerment fundamental to becoming resilient to shocks:

- I’ve developed a spirit of entrepreneurship- I know how to organise my time so my businesses are successful.- I’m not afraid anymore and I’m not afraid of borrowing money.- I’ve given up wasteful expenditures.

Other skills and capabilities include becoming more connected to people, to networks and resources along with the confidence to benefit from greater and more strategic contact. Training and the ex-perience of continuous learning beneficiaries all regarded as empowering.

Nevertheless, it is a finding of the evaluation that despite increased resilience, a percentage of bene-ficiaries will not be able to sustain their current livelihoods for any length of time due to factors that neither they nor the project can do anything about, starting with the beneficiaries in Mbobero who saw their houses torn down and were chased from their fields.

The project and SCIAF proved very effective in securing additional funding to assist beneficiaries to increase and diversify IGAs as a hedge against other risks to livelihood security and addressed the needs of beneficiary groups in Uvira and Ruhango that had experienced severe drought.

ImpactMany of the issues around project impact have been discussed. The project impact on individuals women, on groups and on their communities has been marked and likely to be lasting. The impact indicators are a reminder of the level of poverty that women were experiencing prior to the project. The extremity of that experience can only be imagine but their words speak volumes:

The evaluation found that the programme had a measurable, very tangible and appreciated impact on beneficiaries, families and communities and, in some sites the environment. Increased income levels have led to improved nutrition (anecdotally, extension workers claimed that they have seen a reduction in kwashiorkor) the majority of beneficiaries’ children are now attending full-time educa-tion, many women and families are able to now manage to cover a portion of medical expenses or contribute to health insurance. Quality of life and empowerment indicators include emotional and psychosocial support, regained friendships and intimacy, better domestic relations, a return of dig-nity and pride and a sense of actively engaging in public and economic life.

ConclusionsAll the beneficiaries canvassed in all programme locations reported a high degree of satisfaction with the programme and its outcomes. At the impact level, the programme proved highly successful and surpassed target milestones in increasing household revenue. It was also very successful in improv-ing food security and reducing hunger in all locations. It is the finding of this evaluation that given

30

The project means that I no longer have to beg - and my neighbours no longer fear I’m going to beg from them;I worried about how badly I must smell and I could see the looks on men’s faces when I came near, now I have soap.People see me now and I talk to the neighboursI am not alone

the scale of this programme, the fact that most of the partners were new to this approach to im-proving livelihood security, that the programme faced some major financial, structural and climatic challenges , the programme has been very successful both in its achievements against milestones and in institutional learning.

Key here is that the appreciation and satisfaction with the project, its inputs and activities did not de-pend upon the extent of monetary success of beneficiary IGAs or beneficiaries capacity to maintain reliable streams of revenue. The many other benefits of the project were regarded as equally or more important to women’s well-being and that of their families.

Being part of a supportive social structure (the SHG) was the basis for an infinite number of small and big changes for the beneficiaries. The groups in many ways can be compared to the conscious-ness-raising women’s groups that were popular in the North in the 1970s and 1980s in that as well as being a vehicle for the delivery of project activities they served as a safe place for individual and collective psychosocial transformation. In both individual case study instances and in collective re-ports, women were able:

- to recover their dignity,

- to no longer experience judgement and shame for their poverty, their ill-health and/or dis-abilities,

- to be included, befriended and no longer isolated,

- to believe that they were entitled to their human and civil rights.

Women beneficiaries who experienced these transformations were able to translate this into a sense of purpose and to give meaning to their lives. Sending their children to school and giving them hope for the future, having an economic role in their extended family and a voice in the com-munity had given their lives meaning.

Partners received some pressure from men in situations of extreme poverty to join groups but it is felt that the kind of transformations that occurred for many women would not have been possible in a mixed group. It is the finding of the evaluation that mixed gender groups would be at odds with the women’s empowerment model. Groups in Ruhango had begun to include men who, it was noted, dominated the focus group discussions for this evaluation. While the broader goal of improv-ing livelihoods needs to address men who are in extreme poverty, to ensure that the gender equal-ity objectives are realised requires that women operate within women only contexts and groups.

The programme was most successful where women groups were able to draw on a number of differ-ent resources to improve their livelihoods. The evaluation found that access to land for collective farming and for rental and purchase of household plots in the vicinity of viable markets for trading, increased individual and collective prosperity. Although the associations in all three locations are in their infancy and therefore difficult to assess their long-term benefit and value, the evaluation noted that progress to their establishment was greatest in areas where their was greatest group prosperity i.e Uvira.

Livestock production was a largely successful component of the programme. It was very popular among all groups both those who received livestock as part of the project and those who chose live-stock as their primary or secondary IGAs and had a number of benefits. Livestock as a group IGA was popular and where women had land the benefits of livestock for improved fertilizers was regarded

31

as important. It was valued as a tangible asset that could be monetised quickly for urgent or irregular expenses i.e. a form of savings bond. More crucially, the returns on livestock production are far greater potentially than any form of petty trading making it attractive to both urban and rural groups. However, where there is little support from government for livestock rearing and veterinary services the risks are high. In future programming, careful consideration needs to be given to live-stock care. Standards of care need to also bear in mind that animals have rights too!

Recommendations

It is recommended that :

- Any future projects on livelihood security are designed in consultation with and include the relevant regional and or central government departments and ministries. It is import-ant to the long-term sustainability of livelihood programmes that the government takes some responsibility for ensuring an enabling environment beyond basic security. This in-cludes exploring how it can protect its citizens from exploitation by private individuals as well as by public and private service providers in health and education. The Catholic Church has considerable leverage at all levels of society and in the development of future livelihood programming, it needs to explicitly support the empowerment objectives of it s beneficiar-ies.

- DFID and SCIAF explore how they can support its partners at the diplomatic level to ensure greater protection of rights in the regions where the programme operates.

- Partners include individual and group IGA business planning and evaluation at one or more strategic points in the life of the project. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to introduce financial planning, in the early stages when women are building their confidence and testing their capacity to develop and manage their household finances and their IGAs. However, systematic assessments of the state of a group finances and individual IGAs are necessary in order for women and their groups to have a realistic picture of their finances and future. This should be part of an exit strategy.

- Future projects develop and build appropriate exit strategies for groups. The development of associations that would support savings and loans and the market chain have been slow to form and have not had the traction amongst partners or groups that was expected. As the life of the project was very short given its ambitions, it was unlikely that the associations would be able to be fully functioning by project end. The partners have an opportunity to explore in consultations with the existing groups the kind of training and interventions that could be included as part of an exit strategy.

- Greater attention be given to the value chain analysis and market development. For IGAs to be viable over time closer attention needs to be given to the analysing the markets and exploring how beneficiaries can increase the value of their products and or services.

- Partners explore how they can improve the care and health of livestock. Given the import-ance and popularity of livestock production, it is key that affordable and regular veterinary support be available. It is also important that partners monitor the conditions of livestock to ensure that standards of care are acceptable and that livestock are kept well and cared for.

32

Annex 1 Terms of Reference Final Evaluation - SCIAF Livelihoods Programme in DRC and Rwanda

Improving income, assets and food security for 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu, DRC, and in Ruhango district, Rwanda

Background:

The Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund (SCIAF) Livelihoods programme aims to improve the in-come and food security of those women affected by conflict and poverty in DRC and Rwanda. The programme supports women to increase productivity in agriculture and improve and diversify in-come sources via skills development, microcredit and training.

The programme is jointly-funded by the UK Government’s Department for International Develop-ment (DFID) under its Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) and SCIAF.

SCIAF is working with four of its traditional and long-standing partners in the region:

Comité Diocésain de Lutte Contre le SIDA (BDOM CODILUSI).

Commission Diocésaine Justice et Paix Bukavu (CDJP Bukavu).

Commission Diocésaine Justice et Paix Uvira (CDJP Uvira).

Commission Episcopale Justice et Paix Rwanda (CEJP Rwanda).

The overall goal of the Livelihood programme is to improve the income, assets and food security of 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu, DRC and Ruhango District of Rwanda by providing information and skills that rural households may use to increase their income and food se-curity.

Specifically, the programme’s impact objective is to achieve a Reduction in extreme poverty and hunger in Bukavu and Uvira areas of the DR Congo and Kigoma sector and Ruhango district of Rwanda.

At the outcome level, the objective is for Women 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.

The programme outputs include:

Output 1 263 Community organisations (SHGs) and three Associations are effectively functioning and managed by members.

Output 2 Target beneficiaries have increased and diversified livelihood opportunities.

Output 3 Capacity of target women farmers is strengthened to enhance agricultural productivity.

Output 4 Sexual and Gender Based Violence (SGBV) survivors are able to access healthcare, psychosocial and legal support which is appropriate to meet their needs.

The programme is now at the beginning of its third and final year of operation. The project grant was agreed in January 2013 for a three-year period. Designed collaboratively by the four implementing

33

partners and SCIAF, the programme has built on the experience of partners working with extremely vulnerable and marginalised populations particularly women survivors of SGBV.

The target areas were identified prior to project commencement and a baseline survey was carried out in those areas in March 2013. The process of selection of beneficiaries differed somewhat between partners but the primary criterion for selection was extremely vulnerability as result of con-flict, extreme poverty, SGBV or widowhood. The core programme activities have included training staff and Self-Help Groups (SHGs) committees in leadership, microenterprise, microcredit, market linkages with the assistance of government extension officers training women in sustainable agricul-ture. Additional project inputs include the provision of seed capital for IGAs, agricultural tools and high-quality seeds. Support for the establishment and maintenance of SHGs has been provided by a cadre of volunteer facilitators supported by programme staff from the four partners.

The “Improving income, assets and food security for 3,200 women affected by conflict and poverty in South Kivu, DRC, and in Ruhango district, Rwanda” programme is jointly funded by DFID and SCIAF, and is in its final year. The project will end in December 2015.

Evaluation Objectives:

The evaluation is intended to provide an assessment of the three-year Livelihoods Programme and the extent to which it has achieved its intended objectives. The evaluation should review:

1. The extent to which objectives have been achieved, and the submitted annual reports provide an accurate record of achievement against the log-frame;

2. The extent to which the project performed well and was good value for money;

3. The relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the programme;

4. The adequacy of the design and implementation of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) system + national partner’s capacity to implement MEL system, including a test of the ade-quacy of indicators, means of verification, and data collection tools and methods.

Evaluation Questions:10

Relevance

1. To what extent did the grantee support achievement toward the MDGs, specifically off-track MDGs?

2. To what extent did the project target and reach the poor and marginalised?

3. To what extent did the project mainstream gender equality in the design and delivery of activi-ties?

4. To what extent did the project address the needs of other relevant excluded groups?

5. How well did the project respond to the needs of target beneficiaries, including how these needs evolved over time?

6. How did the project seek the views of its beneficiaries and local stakeholder organisations?

10 These are taken from the Independent Final Evaluation – Guidance for GPAF Grantees, Coffey International Development, and February 2015.

34

Effectiveness

1. To what extents are the results that are reported a fair and accurate record of achievement?

2. To what extent has the project delivered results that are value for money? To include but not limited to:

a. How well the project applied VFM principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency in re-lation to the delivery of its outcome;

b. What has happened because of DFID funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened, and

c. To what extent has the project used learning to improve delivery?

d. How did the project network and work with appropriate local stakeholder organisations in order to enhance project effectiveness?

e. How effective was the targeting of beneficiaries?

3. What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the delivery of results for the project?

Efficiency

1. To what extent did the grantee delivery results on time and on budget against agreed plans?

2. To what extent did the project understand cost drivers and manage these in relation to perfor-mance requirements?

Sustainability

1. To what extent has the project leveraged additional resources (financial and in-kind) from other sources? What effect has this had on the scale, delivery or sustainability of activities?

2. To what extent has the long-term capacity and resilience of the project’s beneficiaries increased as a result of the project?

3. To what extent is there evidence that the benefits delivered by the project will be sustained af-ter the project ends?

Impact

1. To what extent and how has the project built the capacity of civil society (i.e. implementing part-ners) and local authorities?

2. How many people are receiving support from the project that otherwise would not have re-ceived support?

3. To what extent and how has the project affected people in ways that were not originally in-tended?

35

Cross-cutting issues

1. Consider how the SCIAF cross-cutting issues of HIV/AIDS, environment and climate change have been addressed by the Programme.

Evaluation approach and methods:

These evaluation Terms of Reference (TOR) have been developed in line with the SCIAF evaluation guidelines.11 SCIAF’s approach to evaluations aims to combine the two purposes of learning and ac-countability.

These terms of reference do not intend to define the methodology in detail. Rather the evaluator will be expected, as part of the bidding process, to set out his/her proposed methodology. However, SCIAF expects the methodology to incorporate certain principles and processes, set out here.

The evaluation of the Livelihoods Programme, 2012 – 2015, will be an external evaluation, i.e. led and facilitated by an independent, external evaluator.

The evaluation should:

1. Ensure that all key stakeholder groups affected by the programme (both directly and indirectly) are consulted and their views considered in the evaluation. The level and form of active partici-pation by partner staff, beneficiaries and other stakeholders should if possible go beyond consul-tation in order to maximise learning opportunities. However, this will be determined by the final agreed methodology, but it is critical that it meets this requirement.

2. Evaluate the Programme logic, as set out in the logical framework, the theory of change and the outcome map;

3. Ensure it is in line with the BOND Evidence Principles12 of:

a. Voice and Inclusion: the perspectives of people living in poverty, including the most marginalised, are included in the evidence, and a clear picture is provided of who is af-fected and how;

b. Appropriateness: the evidence is generated through methods that are justifiable given the nature of the enquiry;

c. Triangulation: the evidence has been generated using a mix of methods, data sources and perspectives;

d. Contribution: the evidence explores how change happens, the contribution of the inter-vention and factors outside the intervention in explaining change;

e. Transparency: the evidence discloses the details of the data sources and methods used, the results achieved, and any limitations in the data or the conclusions.

The evaluation should cover both countries and all partners involved in the programme. The evalu-ation will need to include field visits to all implementing partners in (DRC and Rwanda).

11 SCIAF Evaluation Guidelines, Version 2, July 2014. These include a requirement to ensure, where relevant that donor guidelines are reflected in the evaluation. In this case the funder is the Scottish Government and there are no particular requirements for evaluations.12 Details can be obtained from http://www.bond.org.uk/principles

36

http://www.bond.org.uk/principles

Programme implementing partners will provide logistics and evaluation support, and where appro-priate staff members and beneficiaries will participate in the evaluation. The evaluator has to adhere to SCIAF’s child protection policy.

Timetable:

It is intended to issue a contract for this work in November 2015, and that the field work should be carried out in January 2016. The draft report should be completed no later than 7 February 2016, and the final report must be completed by 21 February 2016, following commentary from SCIAF and the Programme implementing partners. No extension to these deadlines is possible.

Evaluation team:

The detailed make-up of the evaluation team will be determined by the agreed methodology.

The evaluator must be independent of SCIAF and be suitably qualified and experienced. The evalu-ator should:

1. Be an evaluation specialist with a minimum of seven years’ experience in programme/project t evaluation in an international development context;

2. Have experience of results-based monitoring and evaluation;

3. Have an ability to design and plan the evaluation approaches and research methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research methods;

4. Have relevant subject matter knowledge and experience;

5. Be able to manage a potentially large-scale and complex evaluation process, including inter-preting baseline data;

6. Have an ability to design, manage and implement primary research in potentially challenging project environments, such as fragile and conflict-affected states;

7. Be able to design and manage data and information systems capable of handling large datasets for monitoring and evaluation purposes;

8. Have appropriate country knowledge and/or experience, including French language profi-ciency.

The external evaluator must ensure that the team is able to cover all countries and implementing partners within the proposed timeframe and to an adequate level of coverage and depth and rigour.

There should be adequate expertise within the team of the:

1. principle technical areas of the Programme (SGBV, legal support, livelihoods, support);

2. the two country contexts;

3. gender and poverty focus;

4. Monitoring and evaluation.

Expertise in the cross-cutting issues is desirable but not essential.

Reports:

The lead consultant will be expected to provide:

37

1. An Inception Report, no later than COB Tuesday 15 December 2015;

2. A full Draft Report, no later than COB Sunday 7 February 2016;

3. A Final Report, no later than COB Sunday 21 February 2016. The lead evaluator will be responsi-ble for writing the final report and submitting it to Programme Officer, SCIAF within the agreed time.

The evaluation report, which will be written in English language, should be clear, easy to understand, concise and useful for the organisations and beneficiaries. The main body of the report should usu-ally not exceed 40 pages (A4 pages on both sides) and will include an executive summary and recom-mendations. Technical details should be confined to appendices that should also include a list of in-formants and the evaluation’s team’s work schedule. Background information should only be in-cluded when it is directly relevant to the report’s analysis and conclusions. Recommendations should be recorded separately and should also include details as to how they might be implemented.

38

Annex 2 Data Uvira

ETUDES DES CAS

Etude de cas 1

Zaina Béatrice, une veuve intégrée et valorisée

Zaina Béatrice, 39 ans, est une veuve et mère de deux enfants: une fille et un garcon. Elle vit dans le village de Kiliba en territoire d’Uvira. Après la mort de son mari, la famille la rejeta. Alors, elle menait une vie de misère avec ses deux enfants. Ainsi, pour soulager un peu sa souffrance, elle travaillait durement pour les autres dans leurs champs à moindre frais: 1500Fc (1,6$) pour une journée. Cette somme ne lui permettait même pas de payer la nourriture pour elle et ses enfants. Et, c’est qui est pire et pénible, elle manquait souvent même ce travail dans les champs des autres. Quand elle es-sayait de louer un champ pour qu’elle diminue, tant soit peu, la famine dans son nénage, ça ne te-nait pas faute de semences et d’espace suffusant. Comme consequence: la famine sévissait dans le ménage et les enfants étudiaient dans les conditions extrêmement difficiles. Elle était negligee, mé-prisée et sous-estimée dans la famille. Elle se sentait isolée et solitaire.

“Auparavant, j’avais la difficulté d’avoir où l’on pourrait m’emprunter quelque chose. Compte tenu de mon très faible état financier, mes voisins refusaient de me donner une dette. Je me disais moi-même: “je ne mérite pas la confiance des autres car je suis vulnerable et très pauvre”. Néanmoins, grâce à l’intervention du projet, ma vie a changé. Maintenant, ma famille et mon village s’inquiètent du progrès de ma vie. Ils trouvent, alors, en moi une personne de valeur et ils me convoitent. Je manque des mots pour exprimer ma gratitude: ma vie a significativement changé, c’est le moins que je puisse dire” témoigne Maman Zaina Béatrice.

Celle-ci a reçu une chèvre de la part du projet, mais aujourd’hui elle a 6 chèvres et elle a passé 1 chèvre à une autre bénéficiaire (pass-on). En 2015, elle a vendu une chèvre pour payer les frais sco-laires de ses enfants. Dorénavant, Zaina a cessé de travailler pour les autres. Elles a créé et diversifié ses propres IGA grâce aux conseils des autres membres du groupe. Selon elle, ses IGA prospèrent parce qu’elle a les acquis des formations qu’elle a reçu de la part du projet. Elle a pris un crédit au sein de son SHG. Avec ce crédit, elle a investi dans la fabrication d’une boisson locale -très consom-mé dans le milieu- et dans l’agriculture. Elle a rapporté qu’elle sait gérer la production de ses champs: elle consommé une partie, elle réserve une autre comme banque des semences et elle vend une autre partie. Selon la bénéficiaire, cette bonne gestion de production lui a permis d’avoir, à la fois, la nourriture pour son ménage, l’argent pour louer encore les champs à la prochaine année agri-cole, l’argent pour subvenir aux autres besoins non alimentaires, l’argent pour se payer les autres aliments qu’elle ne produit pas dans ses champs et avoir les semences pour la prochaine saison culturale.

39

Noms : ZAINA BEATRICEAge : 39 ansEtat-civil: VeuveNombre d’enfants: 2 enfants (un garcon et une fille)Village : Kiliba

Actuellement, elle paie facilement les frais scolaires de ses deux enfants qui font l’école secondaire, elle n’a plus de difficulté pour payer les soins de santé, elle subvient à d’autres besoins du ménage et elle sait varier la nourriture tout en se payant certains aliments auxquels son ménage n’accédait pas avant (comme le riz, la viande, ...). Evidemment, elle ne s’endette plus couramment pour répondre aux besoins ménagers.

« Avant le projet, je comptais uniquement à l’agriculture. C’est au champ que j’amenais un peu de légumes, de manioc ou des patates douces pour le repas du jour parce que nous mangions une fois par jours. Chaque fois quand j’allais aux champs, mes enfants étaient obligés d’attendre mon retour pour avoir quoi manger. Mais, actuellement, mon revenu a augmenté. Je parviens même à faire l’épargne volontaire. Et, c’est dans cette épargne que mes enfants prennent un petit sou pour prépa-rer le repas. Ils ne mangent plus tardivement parce que notre ménage fait, désormais, une petite épargne » se félicite Madame Béatrice.

Cette bénéficiaire se sent vraiment heureuse de la vie en groupe. “Au sein du groupe, j’ai trouvé des amies, j’ai brisé ma solitude. La solidarité, l’assistance, les visites à domicile des autres membres du groupe me plonge encore dans la vie de communauté. Les autres se sont ouvert à moi, je me suis aussi ouvert à elles: j’ai appris aux autres membres du groupe comment faire le tricotage, elles m’ont initié aussi aux IGA et m’ont conseillé qu’il est possible de vendre le sombe (feuilles de ma-nioc) et les boutures des maniocs... Des choses pareilles, je n’y pensais même pas auparavant. Nous sommes devenues une famille. En plus, quand je vois comment les acquis du projet changent les vies des autres amies bénéficiaires, je me dis: “il n’y a aucune vulnérabilité, aucune pauvreté qui ne peut être vaincue par la force de la solidarité et de l’apprentissage”. Je suis convaincue que notre As-sociation (FUDEC) reste comme une pépinière pour l’amélioration des conditions de vies des autres vulnérables de notre village Kiliba” témoigne encore Zaina Béatrice.

40

Etude de cas 2

Leocadie NAKASI, mes enfants ont repris l’école

Leocadie Nakasi, 65 ans, est une veuve et mère de 8 enfants. Son mari fut mort, il y a longtemps. Avant le projet, elle cultivait le manioc et le riz. Elle consommait la production de manioc et elle ven-dait le riz qu’elle produisait dans ses champs. Mais, c’était seulement une petite production qui ne lui permettait pas d’avoir l’argent pour couvrir les besoins du ménage. « Vue mon âge, je ne suis pas capable de cultiver un grand champ. Comprenez que dans ces conditions je ne pouvais même pas va-rier les aliments et je n’avais aucune possibilité d’épargner. Parmi mes sept enfants, un seul enfant –le plus petit- allait à l’école parce que je n’avais pas le moyen pour payer les frais scolaires des autres enfants » se rappelle Madame Leocadie Nakasi.

Sur le plan social, « j’étais déjà dépassée par les innombrables difficultés de la vie. Je m’étais lancé dans l’ivrognerie. Mon ménage -dont je suis chef- était déstabilisé, appauvri davantage et tout le vil-lage me prenait comme ‘folle’, une personne sans valeur » se souvient Madame Leocadie Nakasi.

Une chose est sûr, le projet a transformé cette bénéficiaire. « Ce que je vis aujourd’hui c’est comme un miracle. Mais, ce n’est pas un miracle. C’est plutôt un fait, une transformation palpable de ma vie. Je vais essayer de l’explique par des facteurs et faits simples. D’abord, quand je suis entrée dans le SHG, la vie du groupe m’a poussé à changer mon comportement : le règlement intérieur du groupe m’a poussé abandonner l’ivrognerie, par exemple. Je ne me sens plus dépassée, ma vie n’est plus de misère et j’ai compris, maintenant, qu’avec notre union, je peux faire quelque chose pour changer ma vie et celle de mon ménage. Ensuite, les formations que j’ai reçues du projet m’ont permis de professionnaliser un peu mon travail d’agricultrice : je sais, maintenant gérer mes productions des champs à tel point que je trouve de quoi payer ceux qui cultivent pour moi, parce que je n’ai plus de force pour cultiver un vaste champ. J’ai investi les crédits que je reçois dans l’agriculture. Ça m’ap-porte un plus pour la vie de mon ménage. Puis, un autre fait, j’ai commencé l’élevage. J’ai reçu une chèvre de la part du projet. Quand celle-ci a mis bas, j’ai donné une chèvre à une autre membre du groupe. Mais, aujourd’hui, j’ai cinq chèvres. D’ailleurs, ma maison est en chaume et elle suinte déjà.

41

Noms : Leocadie NAKASIAge : 65 ansEtat-civil: VeuveNombre d’enfants: 8 enfants (1 fille et 7 garçons)Village : Kiliba

Mais, je ne m’inquiète pas beaucoup car je sais que dans peu de mois je vais vendre deux ou trois chèvres, une partie de la production de mon champ et je vais m’acheter des tôles pour replacer la toiture de ma maison. J’ai l’espoir car j’ai vu certaines collègues de nos SHG qui ont essayer cela et elles ont réussi à reconstruire leurs maisons. En fin, Actuellement, mes enfants ont repris le chemin de l’école. C’est grâce à la diversification des IGA que j’ai appris à travers la formation sur le choix d’une bonne IGA. Bref, ma vie a changé, en commençant par mon comportement » a témoigné Ma-man Leocadie devant ses collègues bénéficiaires.

Etude de cas 3

Mamichu Lumembe sauve son père : la fierté de toutes les membres de l’Association

Veuve et mère de 6 enfants, Mamichu Lumembe, 45 ans, vit à Kiliba. Parmi, les multiples change-ments que le projet a apportés dans sa vie, elle garde deux grands souvenirs récents. « Je suis veuve. Avant le projet, j’étais misérable. Je ne pouvais rien. Mais, en août 2015, j’ai payé les soins médicaux de mon père qui est aussi veuf. Egalement, je n’habite plus une maison en chaume. J’ai acheté des tôles avec lesquels j’ai remplacé la toiture de ma maison » se vante Madame Mamichu Lumembe.

Comment Maman Mamichu est-elle parvenu à réaliser ces exploits ?

A partir des formations et des crédits que cette bénéficiaire a reçu de la part du projet, elle a diversi-fié les IGA et a renforcé et rentabilisé son travail des champs. Elle fait le petit commerce et élève, dé-sormais des chèvres.

« Mon père, chômeur et veuf, était déjà dans l’agonie l’hôpital de Kiliba. Elle souffrait de l’hernie. Comme il n’avait pas d’argent, les médecins ne l’administraient aucun soin. Voyant cela, j’ai pris un peu d’argent sur mon épargne à la maison pour payer la caution à l’hôpital. C’est ainsi que mon père a connu une intervention chirurgicale. On l’a facturé 120$. Je ne savais pas comment obtenir cet ar-gent. L’hôpital a, alors, retenu mon père comme un ‘prisonnier’ jusqu’à ce que je paie cette facture. Or, ici à Kiliba, c’est vraiment une humiliation quand quelqu’un est détenu par l’hôpital à cause du manque des frais médicaux. Pour résoudre ce problème, le SHG m’a soutenu. Mon SHG m’a donné 10$ d’assistance solidaire. En plus, le groupe m’a emprunté 50$ dans la caisse solidaire (je l’ai rem-boursé sans intérêt) et j’ai ajouté un peu d’argent que j’avais en épargne et que j’ai obtenu en ven-dant la production de mon champ. J’ai totalisé ces 120$. J’ai payé et mon père est sorti de l’hôpital.

42

Noms : MAMICHU LUMEMBEAge : 45 ansEtat-civil: VeuveNombre d’enfants: 6 enfants Village : Kiliba

Mes voisins qui commençaient à se moquer de moi ont été inquiets et jaloux. C’est une fierté pour toute l’Association. Tout le temps que mon père était détenu à l’hôpital, il recevait les visites de mes collègues membres des groupes. J’ai été abandonnée par les membres de ma famille mais les col-lègues ne m’ont pas abandonné.

Pour l’achat des tôles pour ma maison, j’ai vendu une partie de la production de mon champ et j’ai utilisé l’épargne volontaire. J’ai maintenant une maison convenable » reconnaît Maman Mamichu Lumembe.

Etude de cas 4

Safi, la réussite des activités génératrices des revenus grâce aux formations

Safi, 32 ans, femme mariée et mère de quatre enfants. A part l’amélioration sur le plan alimentaire, elle a vu un changement dans le management des ses activités génératrices des revenus et a recou-vert sa valeur auprès de son mari.

« Mon mari n’a pas d'emploi. Il se débrouillait ça et là pour la survie de notre ménage. Moi, je n’avais pas de valeur à ses yeux. Il m’injuriait chaque fois, car je n’apportais rien au ménage. Je n’avais au-cune occupation à par la cuisine.

Cette situation ne me plaisait pas. Je me demandais comment m’en sortir, mais en vain. Je n’avais pas d’argent pour créer une IGA et je n’avais pas l’idée de l’IGA qui peut être rentable dans notre mi-lieu. Mais, après la formation sur l’agriculture durable, j’ai été intéressée par l’agriculture. J’ai com-mencé à cultiver un champ. Quand j’ai vendu la première production du champ, j’ai commencé un petit commerce en vendant les assiettes. Un temps après, j’ai constaté que la vente des assiettes n’était plus rentable, j’ai changé la marchandise. Actuellement, je vends les produits cométiques et les produits vivriers. Cela est plus rentable que la vente des assiettes. Auparavant, je ne pourrais pas avoir cette idée de changer l’IGA. Mais, je suis parvenu à prendre cette initiative grâce à la formation que j’avais suivi sur l’éducation à l’épargne et sur le choix d’une bonne IGA. Aussi, j’ai ouvert un compte dans une Coopérative de la place pour l’épargne. Désormais, je prends ma famille en charge. Mon mari ne m’injurie plus. Elle me traite, maintenant, avec respect. En plus, nos SHG sont inter-viennent pour résoudre les conflits au sein de nos ménages. De fois, quand nous avons un problème

43

Noms : NGEZI SAFIAge : 32 ansEtat-civil: Mariée, femme chef de ménageNombre d’enfants: 4 enfantsVillage : Kavimvira/Uvira

avec mon mari, il recourt au SHG pour demander à mes collègues de me conseiller » témoigne Ma-man Safi.

Etude de cas 5

Apprentissage au sein du groupe, un plus pour le bien-être du ménage

Sangani Mabungu, 50 ans, mariée et mère de huit enfants. Son mari est maladif et dépourvu de force pour effectuer les activités génératrices des revenus. Madame Sangani supporte ainsi le poids de son ménage.

Cette femme courageuse s’est alors jeté dans le travail d’enseignante. Là où elle est institutrice elle reçoit seulement 6000Fc (6,45$) le mois. Elle faisait l’agriculture mais la production du champ ne lui permettait pas de payer les frais scolaires pour ces enfants et pourvoir aux besoins du ménage.

Lorsque le projet est intervenu, elle a, vite, intégré le SHG. Au sein de son groupe, ses collègues lui ont conseillé de commencer à fabriquer la patte de manioc (rowé : aliment trop consommé dans le milieu) et lui ont appris à fabriquer les beignets. Désormais, elle fabrique et vend des rowé en utili-sant une partie de sa production de manioc. Quand elle a reçu un crédit de 22$ de la part du SHG (en juin 2015), elle a commencé à fabriquer les beignets. Aujourd’hui, son revenu mensuel net est de 71$. « Dès lors, j’ai toujours un peu d’argent dans en épargne pour prévenir les situations inatten-dues. J’ai commencé aussi l’élevage des chèvres. C’est une économie. Je paie maintenant les fais scolaires de mes enfants sans difficulté. D’ailleurs, j’ai déplacé mes deux enfants qui étudiaient dans une école moins préférable vers une école où il y a formation de qualité. C’est un grand pas pour moi, par rapport à la situation dans laquelle je me trouvais avant. Ma famille est vraiment recon-naissante à cet apport significatif dans la vie. Je vous assure, dès lors, c’est mon mari qui me rappelle les jours de nos réunions. La solidarité et l’entraide au sein de notre association attire beaucoup de vulnérables veulent aussi entrer dans notre Association. Souvent, quand je veux m’approvisionner en farine pour la fabrication des beignets, j’envoie seulement une collègue du groupe qui va à Uvira pour ne pas gaspiller des frais de transport.. » reconnaît Madame Sangani Mabungu.

QUESTIONNAIRE D’EVALUATION

44

Noms : SANGANI MABUNGUAge : 50 ansEtat-civil: Mariée, femme chef de ménageNombre d’enfants: 8 enfants Village : Ake

Qu’est-ce qui a changé dans votre vie (personnellement) et dans la vie des membres de votre mé-nage ?

J’apporte ma contribution aussi pour le bien-être (survie) du ménage

Changement de comportement

J’ai recouvert ma dignité et ma valeur sociale

J’ai développé la culture de proposer mon idée en publique : j’ai compris que mo idée compte aussi le développement (parler en publique)

Nous partageons les informations et les expériences avec les autres

L’apprentissage des activités

En cas d’approvisionnement en marchandises, j’envoie souvent les collègues de groupe qui vont au marché pour ne pas gaspiller des frais de transport

Les autres membres du ménage s’approprient les activités du groupe et les IGA (ce sont les enfants qui gardent les chèvres, les maris nous rappellent les jours des réunions, …) : ça crée et ça maintien la joie au foyer

J’ai une diversité d’IGA

Nous appliquons les matières apprises lors des formations dans nos activités

J’ai développé la solidarité, la sympathie envers les autres

J’ai vaincu la solitude et mes stress

J’ai adapté la production de mon champ et mon IGA à la taille de mon ménage

J’ai renouvelé ma maison

Les acquis du projet contribuent à mon autonomisation socio-économique

Je reçois des conseils au sein du groupe et chaque fois quand il y a des disputes avec mon mari, ce-lui-ci recourt au groupe pour que mes collègues du groupe s’impliquent dans la recherche de la solu-tion

J’ai développé l’esprit d’initiative/ entreprenariat et de management

Nous devenons une référence dans le village

Je reçois régulièrement les visites et l’assistance des autres membres du groupe

Je n’ai plus beaucoup de dettes comme auparavant car j’ai commencé à faire l’épargne volontaire régulière

J’ai abandonné les dépenses inutiles

45

Nous prenons, désormais, deux ou trois repas par jours avec une variété alimentaire acceptable (de qualité) et les fruits

J’ai payé la dot pour mon fils (résolution des problèmes familiaux)

J’obtiens le savon de lessive

J’ai accru ma production de champ et mon activité commerciale prospère grâce aux enseignements appris dans les formations

Je sais gérer mon temps pour rentabiliser toutes mes IGA (champ, commerce, élevage)

Quels sont les aliments que vous consommez aujourd’hui alors que vous n’aviez pas accès à ça avant le projet ?

Nous avons accès aux aliments comme : le riz, les œufs, les légumes, les épices (ingrédients), la viande, les fruits, les maïs, les poissons de qualité, bananes)

Facteurs ayant favorisé cette amélioration : 1) Association des cultures (techniques d’agriculture du-rable), 2) Planification alimentaire, 3) Une bonne gestion des productions des champs, 4) Planter les arbres fruitiers (techniques d’agriculture durable) 5) Diversification d’IGA, 6) Elevage, 7) Accroisse-ment de revenu

Actuellement, qui sont capables de payer les frais scolaires de leurs enfants grâce aux acquis du pro-jet ? Qu’est-ce que vous leur achetez de nouveau ? Comment partagez-vous, maintenant, les charges de scolarité avec l’autre responsable du ménage (votre mari, par exemple) ? Les autres membres de votre ménage perçoivent aussi ce changement ?

Nous sommes maintenant capables de payer les frais scolaires pour nos enfants

Certaines bénéficiaires ont déplacé leurs enfants des écoles moins préférables à celles offrant un en-seignement de bonne qualité

Facteurs ayant favorisé cette amélioration : 1) Une bonne gestion des productions des champs, 2) Di-versification d’IGA, 3) Elevage, 4) Accroissement de revenu

Avant le projet, vous aviez beaucoup de dettes auprès de vos voisins et amis. Etes-vous capables, au-jourd’hui, de subvenir à vos besoins fondamentaux sans recourir couramment aux emprunts? Quels sont les facteurs et les faits qui favorisent cette amélioration de votre situation ?

L’apprentissage des activités

J’ai une diversité d’IGA

Je recours aux crédits auprès des SHG

46

J’ai adapté la production de mon champ et mon IGA à la taille de mon ménage


Je reçois régulièrement les visites et l’assistance des autres membres du groupe

Je n’ai plus beaucoup de dettes comme auparavant car j’ai commencé à faire l’épargne volontaire régulière

J’ai accru ma production de champ et mon activité commerciale prospère grâce aux enseignements appris dans les formations

Je sais gérer mon temps pour rentabiliser toutes mes IGA (champ, commerce, élevage)

Il y a collaboration dans le busness

J’ai abandonné les dépenses inutiles

Actuellement, êtes-vous capables de payer les soins de santé de vos enfants ? Comment obtenez-vous cet argent ?

Oui, actuellement, capables de payer les soins médicaux

Nous utilisons l’argent d’épargne volontaire (nous faisons l’épargne volontaire pour attendre les ur-gences, comme nous avons appris lors de la formation sur la microfinance)

Nous vendons les bétails

Nous vendons les productions agricoles, car la production a accru

Nous bénéficions avec une assistance solidaire de la part de nos SHG

Nous bénéficions des aides individuelles des nos collègues membres des SHG

Nous recourons au crédit auprès des nos SHG

Quel est, selon vous, le grand bénéfice que vous, les autres bénéficiaires et les membres de votre ménage tirez de ce projet ?

Harmonie, joie dans le ménage


J’ai recouvert ma dignité et ma valeur sociale

J’ai développé la culture de proposer mon idée en publique : j’ai compris que mo idée compte aussi le développement (parler en publique)

Accroissement du revenu du ménage

47

Selon vous, quelles sont les activités de ce projet qui vous ont paru les plus importantes ?

L’organisation des groupes solidaires (SHG) :

Les crédits financent les autres IGA (pour louer les champs, créer une IGA, …)

Favorise la diversification d’IGA

Il y a des structures permanentes (les Associations : FUDEC et SOFEBEC)

Les autres membres du ménage se sont, vite, appropriés de l’initiative

Les formations

C’est un acquis pérennes et facilement transmissible

Montre la complémentarité qu’il y a entre différentes IGA

Créent et développent l’intérêt envers une IGA quelconque

Nous permettent de mieux cerner l’objectif de toute notre action

Agriculture

Elève rapidement le niveau d’alimentation familiale

Favorise la variation alimentaire

Elevage

C’est une des moyens que nous utilisons pour épargner (surtout là où il n’a pas de Coopérative proche)

La démultiplication des bétails

Selon vous, quels sont les acquis durables de ce projet pour vous et votre ménage/votre communau-té ?

Les formations

L’organisation en SHG (Association)

Tout au long du projet, combien de pertes des chèvres avez-vous enregistré ? Etes-vous parvenu à améliorer la santé de vos bétails grâce aux informations sur les soins des bêtes que vous avez bénéfi-ciées de la part des animateurs du projet ?

48

12 chèvres sur 254 chèvres sont mortes. Certaines bénéficiaires dont les chèvres sont tombées ma-lades ont appliqué les techniques traditionnelles de soin des bétails et leurs bétails sont guéris. Elles ont appris ces techniques lors des formations sur l’agriculture durables.

L’importance du travail en groupe pour les bénéficiaires

Oui. Nous sommes vraiment liées dans notre groupe. Et, avec notre solidarité, nous espérons que nous allons aider les autres qui sont encore plus vulnérables dans notre milieu.

Quels sont les facteurs et les faits qui vous motivent à vous mettre/de rester ensemble (en associa-tion)?

Le groupe valorise toute une chacune dans notre milieu

Le groupe favorise et maintien notre intégration sociale

Nous apprenons beaucoup d’activités dans le groupe

Ça nous facilite l’épargne, surtout dans notre milieu où il n’y a pas de Coopec

Nous sommes conscientes et convaincues que rester en groupe nous facilite de mener des plai-doyers réussis (pour obtenir une machines agricoles (Kiliba), pour obtenir des parcelles (Ake), pour obtenir des crédits auprès des grandes institutions de microfinance, attaque contre les maladies des plantes, …)

Les conseils et l’échanges des informations tant sur les aspects sociaux que sur les aspects écono-miques

Les assistances solidaires

Le groupe nous aide à résoudre les conflits au sein de nos ménages

Activités communes

Dans vos activités quotidiennes, comptabilisez-vous l’énergie, l’argent et le temps que vous investis-sez dedans ? Combien font ce calcul parmi vous ?

Oui, nous comptabilisons notre énergie et notre temps. D’ailleurs, nous avons commencé à capitali-ser notre temps en le gérant intelligemment. Nous savons maintenant comment répartir notre temps pour ne pas pénaliser l’une ou l’autre IGA que nous avons.

En tant que bénéficiaires de ce projet, qu’est-ce que vous désiriez que ce projet fasse mais qui n’a pas été fait ? Comment avez-vous trouvé l’approche utilisée par ce projet ? Qu’est-ce que vous pou-vez suggérer qu’on améliore ?

Apporte l’aide aux autres vulnérables qui n’ont pas été pris par le projet

49

Fournir les soins vétérinaires pour les bétails

Disponibiliser les machines agricoles pour les champs communautaires

Concevoir un projet pouvant prendre en compte toute la chaîne des valeurs : la production, la trans-formation et la commercialisation

L’eau potable

Apporter une aide pour le développement des autres métiers : tricotage, fabrication des nattes, fa-brication des paniers, …

50

GROUPES SOLIDAIRES

en Fc (1$ = 900 Fc)

N° Nom de Groupe

Nombre de membres du groupe

Nombre de ceux qui ont quitté le groupe

Ristourne – com-bien de membres contribue

Montant en caisse d'épargne de groupe

Montant dans la caisse de solidarité

Nombre de membres qui épargnent de l'ar-gent indépen-damment

Prêts rem-boursés

Prêts im-payés

Le groupe a une AGR d’en-semble ? Oui/non

Si oui, genre d’AGR

Nombre des membres ayant un compte à la Coopec ou à la banque

Axe : KILIBA

01UMOJA 25

025 201 500 57 300

25 2 317 500 94 000 Oui Artisanat et beignets

2

02MWANGAZA 25

025 500 000 28 200


1

03MAPENDO A 25

025 200 000 67 800


1

04MAPENDO B 25

025 165 800 16 400

22 915 360 41 440 Oui Artisanat et beignets

1

05 AMANI 25 0 25 329 600 102 800 19 1 978 800 86 800 Oui Artisanat et 1

51

beignets

06MATUMAINI 25

025 68 400 45 300


2

07MUUNGANO 19

019 6 400 14 800


1

08MAENDELEO 19

019 10 700 8 400


1

Axe : AKE

01 MAKELELECHO I 18 0 18 47 000 4 000 10 231 688 342 632 Oui Champ 0

02 KUJISAIDIA 20 0 20 42 000 8 500 15 376675 19825 Oui Champ 0

03 UMOJA 15 0 15 74 000 6 000 8 373 350 27 000 Oui Champ 0

04 UMOJA NI NGUVU 20 0 20 100 000 5 000 17 360 000 40 000 Oui Champ 0

05 MAPENDANO 21 0 21 125 000 2 600 16 336 000 25 000 Oui Champ 0

06 IMANI 13 0 13 30 000 6 600 6 169 500 221 800 Oui Champ 0

07 MAKELELECHO II 13 0 13 20 000 7 000 9 291 000 15 000 Oui Champ 0

08 EMO 19 0 19 15000 7 000 11 177 500 23 000 Non Rien 0

09 TWABYU'A 14 0 14 40 000 8 000 9 332 000 19 000 Non Rien 0

10 BAMAA TOYE 15 0 15 70 000 4 000 10 300 000 52 000 Non Rien 0

11 TUFURAHI 19 0 19 31 000 8 000 8 107 350 345 200 Non Rien 0

52

Axe : UVIRA

01 UMOJA NI NGUVU 20 0 20 146 000 4 000 12 429 000 20 400 Oui Champ 0

02 HATUTA ACHANA 20 0 20 86 500 8 00 9 417 900 52 500 Non Rien 0

03 TWENDELEE MBELE 20 0 20 10 000 19 000 10 418 800 24 900 Non Rien 0

04 TUPENDANE 20 0 20 20 000 9 000 15 457 500 32 500 Non Rien 1

05 FURAHA 19 0 19 23 400 10 000 7 219 700 179 860 Non Rien 0

06 TUJENGE PAMOJA 19 0 19 20 000 10 000 10 260 000 147 560 Non Rien 2

53

CDJP Bukvu Tableau n°1 : BENEFICES DU PROJET DFID (2013-2015)

Paroisses

Bénéfices

Cimpun-da

Kadutu Burhiba Mbobero Nguba Mater Dei

Femmes au dé-but du projet

15 15 20 18 15 15

15 15 15 20 15 15

Femmes jus-qu’en février

2016

14 15 14 18 13 15

14 15 14 20 15 14

Femmes ayant un compte indi-

viduel

10 7 8 0 0 8

14 2 0 0 4 6

Nombre qui co-tisent plus que 75% dans la ris-

tourne

100% 42,8% 59% 100% 100% 100%

100% 60% Pas de ris-

tourne

100% Pas de ris-

tourne

45,5%

Nombre qui co-tisent plus de 75% dans la

caisse sociale

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Montant dans la caisse so-

ciale

41$ - 15,2$ 20$ 12$ 30$

72$ 28$ 7$ 13$ 35$ 20$

COMMENTAIRES

- La cotisation pour alimenter la caisse sociale est obligatoire, chaque membre doit cotiser.

- A Cimpunda chaque groupe fait la ristourne, cela est obligatoire

- A Kadutu, l’argent cotisé dans le groupe 1 pour alimenter la caisse sociale, cet argent est directement orienté dans leur com-

merce en groupe pour renforcer ce dernier.

- A Mbobero, la caisse sociale est alimentée par les récoltes de leurs champs par saison.

54

Tableau n°2 : Complément des éléments manquants

Nom du groupe NGUVU et USHI-

RIKA (Cim-

punda)

TUWE UMOJA

et UMO-JA NI

NGUVU (Kadu-

tu)

TU AMKE et UPEN-

DO

(Burhiba)

BAZIRE RHUZI-SANYE et RHU-DERHE KUGU-

MA (Mbobe-

ro)

TUUN-GANE 1

et 2 (Ngu-ba)

WAMA-MA KA-ZINI et

TU-JENGE

(Mater Dei)

Nombre de membres du

groupe

15 et 15 15 et 15 20 et 15 18 et 20 15 et 15

15 et 15

Nombre de ceux qui ont quitté le

groupe

1 & 1 0 et 0 1 & 1 0 et 0 2 & 0 0 & 1

Ristourne: com-bien de membres qui contribuent

15 et 15

6 et 9 9 et non ristourne

18 et 20 13 et pas de

ris-tourne

7 et pas de

ris-tourne

Montant en compte d’épargne

de groupe

193$ 182$ 132$ 104$ 154$ 100,5$

Montant de la caisse sociale

41$ et 72$

0 et 28$ 15,2$ et 7$

20$ et 13$

12$ et 35$

30$ et 20$

Nombre des membres qui

épargne de l’ar-gent indépendam-

ment

10 et 14 7 et 2 8 et 0 0 et 0 0 et 4 8 et 6

Prets remboursés 200$ 220$ 180$ 240$ 140$ 180$

Prets impayés 0$ 0$ 25$ 30$ 20$ 0$

AGR de groupe Oui ou Non

Non Oui Oui Non Non Non

Si Oui, genre d’AGR

Cantine (vente

des vivres vivres

champs

55

et braises)

Commentaire :

- lors des descentes sur terrain pour l’évaluation du projet, plu-sieurs membres bénéficiaires étaient empêchés, vu que nous fai-sions l’évaluation pendant les heures de faire leurs activités, c’est pourquoi vous trouverez les données du tableau n°1, sont actuali-sées.

- Pendant la durée du projet, nous avons perdu 7 membres, parmi lesquels 5 morts et 2 ont abandonné les groupes.

56

DATA CEJP RWANDA

Nom de Groupe Kabere 3 Cana 3 Ryanyi-randa 3

Musamo 3 Rwinkuba 3 Cinama Gaseke3

Mwari 3 Kamabare3 Jokoma 3


12 13 10 9 9 11 8 9 11


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Riztourne – combien de membres contribue

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Montant en compte d'épargne de groupe

38000 111250 5400 330000 50000 35000 24000 28000 45000

Montant dans la caisse sociale

0 20000 0 0 0 0 0 42000 0

Nombre de membres qui épargnent de l'argent in-dépendamment

0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 1

Prêts remboursés 0 7000 0 10000 10000 0 0 110500 0

Prêts impayés 129500 96550 150000 102000 105000 152230 64000 82000 83000

AGR de groupe Oui/non Oui Oui Oui Oui Non Oui Oui Non Non

57

Si oui, genre d’AGR agriculture agriculture agriculture Agriculture non agriculture agriculture Non non

Nom de Groupe Abahuje Mabera

Abajya-mugambi Bumbogo

nyamugari Ruhango1 Abishyize-hamwe

Ruhuha Bumbogo Nshore-nunguke

Bwan-gacumi Ruhango

Ntungamo murinzi

Gataka 1


17 10 6 20 6 20 10 8 8


3 3 0 10 1 4 1 1 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


20540 174335 50030 166250 10000 100300 151440 54000 15240


0 5750 9550 0 900 17000 7000 10000 0


4 4 0 8 3 5 5 3 5


58

Prêts impayés 50000 27000 5000 315000 24750 150000 165000 179000 57000

AGR de groupe Oui/non non non non non oui non oui oui non

Si oui, genre d’AGR non non non non agriculture non agriculture Agriculture non

Nom de Groupe Kamabare Mujyejuru Ngurukizi 2 Butare1 1 Nyaru-sange 1 Mujyejuru2

Mabera 2 Ngurukiz1 Mujyejuru 1 3

Gataka 3


10 7 10 20 9 10 20 15 7


0 0 1 8 0 1 6 0 0


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


110000 50000 211300 41700 18200 220000 18000 21500


10000 0 0 0 13000 0 15000 0 0


1 5 3 6 4 0 7 0 3

59


Prêts impayés 200000 50000 93000 261000 124000 180000 325250 10100 70000

AGR de groupe Oui/non oui oui oui oui oui oui oui oui oui

Si oui, genre d’AGR Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Agrucul-ture

Nom de Groupe Twisun-gane gasharu B

Gasharu A Itsinda Kavumu

Duteraninkunga Rwoga

Twiyubake twikura mu bukene

Abahuje Rwoga

Kibiraro duteraninkunga

Kangoga Duteraninkunga

Nyabisindu Abisun-ganye


10 10 17 10 10 7 8 6 9


2 1 5 0 3 0 3 0 3


0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


117000 46300 98000 3100 4500 29000 21000 3500 2700


0 0 12000 1000 0 0 1500 0 0

60


6 5 7 5 6 4 5 3 4


Prêts impayés 294055 91900 326500 7100 25500 32000 2500 25800 100000

AGR de groupe Oui/non Oui Non Non non Oui oui non non non

Si oui, genre d’AGR Agriculture non Non non agriculture Agriculture non non non

Nom de Groupe Mabera 3 Nyabi-hanga 3

Kamabano 3

Nyaru-sange 2 3

Ruhango 3 Butare 1 3 Ngurukizi 3 Ntungamo 3


10 10 12 10 7 7 10 12


1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1

Riztourne – combien de 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

61

membres contribue


18000 6900 11000 58500 14000 31200 17000 12250


4000 0 5000 0 0 2000 6000 0


0 0 0 4 1 3 1 0

Prêts remboursés 0 750 0 0 0 0 7500 0

Prêts impayés 105000 105000 96000 97000 70000 50000 115500 160000

AGR de groupe Oui/non oui non oui oui oui oui oui oui

Si oui, genre d’AGR agriculture non agriculture agriculture agriculture agriculture agriculture agriculture

62

aidstream.org€¦ · web viewsciaf/dfid great lakes livelihoods. programme. final evaluation. d....

Documents