ADRA DRC JENGA JAMAA Final Evaluation Eastern DRC MYAP FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 LOA: July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2011 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page i Acknowledgements This evaluation report combines the inputs of a qualitative study team and a quantitative study team. The two phases of the evaluation were carried out quite smoothly in the context of the significant challenges that JENGA faces on a daily basis, including poor transportation routes, long distances, and ever-present security concerns. This work was made possible through the concerted efforts of many individuals and for that, TANGO is grateful for the cooperation and good spirit shown. ADRA/Africare staff are owed many thanks for ensuring that the many logistical challenges faced by the enumeration team were minimized through timely and careful planning and execution. The MYAP Director, Joseph Menakuntuala was primarily responsible for the coordination of these efforts, and the team which worked with TANGO to plan and implement the work included staff from ADRA and Africare, Benjamin Babunga, Adolphe Muwawa, Hugues , Augustin , Charles Mtee, De de de, Charles Kapalata, Jean Yves Alimasi, Moses Mudege. Thanks are also owed to ADRA International staff Dawit Habtemariam, Mark Castellino and Milton McHenry. Without their management and coordination efforts at the international level, this study would not have been possible. Last, but by no means least – a debt of gratitude is owed to all the communities in which JENGA JAMA was implemented and surveyed. Without their generosity, honesty and welcoming the survey team into their homes, this survey would have been impossible. For this, the entire survey team owes their heartfelt thanks. Darren Hedley John Magistro Brad Sagara TANGO International, Inc. 406 S. Fourth Ave. Tucson, Arizona 85701 Tel: (1)-520-617-0977 Fax: (1)-520-617-0980 info@tangointernational.com ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... i Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................vi 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 2 Quantitative survey methodology ............................................................................................. 2 Sampling .................................................................................................................................. 2 Survey instrument .................................................................................................................... 3 Enumerator training ................................................................................................................ 4 PDA-based data collection ...................................................................................................... 4 Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 4 Qualitative methodology ........................................................................................................... 4 Study Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 6 3 FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................. 7 Interpretation of SO 1 IPTT Global Impact Indicators ................................................................ 7 Intermediate Result 1 - Resettlement Support Provided ........................................................... 8 Relevance and Effectiveness of IR#1 Project Performance Indicators ..................................... 9 Output 1.1: Community Development Committees .............................................................. 10 Output 1.2: Early Warning Systems....................................................................................... 13 Output 1.3: Shelter Construction ........................................................................................... 14 Output 1.4: Land Tenure Advocacy ....................................................................................... 17 Output 1.5: Home Administration Meetings ......................................................................... 19 Output 1.6. Integrated Radio Programs (including Gender, Peace, Agriculture) .................. 20 Intermediate Result 2 – Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Practices ............................ 21 Relevance and Effectiveness of IR2 Project Performance Indicators ..................................... 21 Analysis of IR2 Activities and Output Indicators .................................................................... 24 Output 2.1: Development of Action Plans ............................................................................ 24 Output 2.2: Technical Training on Improved Agricultural Practices ..................................... 26 Output 2.3: Training of Farmer Field Schools at Community Level ...................................... 28 Output 2.4: Farmers Provided with Improved Seeds ............................................................ 31 Output 2.5: Small-Scale Irrigation Systems Rehabilitated .................................................... 33 Intermediate Result 3 – Improved Market Linkages................................................................ 35 Relevance and Effectiveness of IR3 Project Performance Indicators ..................................... 35 Analysis of IR3 Activities and Output Indicators .................................................................... 37 Output 3.1: Value Chain Analysis Study ............................................................................... 37 Output 3.2: Formation of Farmer Associations .................................................................... 38 Output 3.3: Seed Producers Identified and Trained ............................................................. 39 Output 3.4: Market Information Shared by Radio Programs ............................................... 40 Output 3.5: Storage Facilities Rehabilitated ......................................................................... 41 Output 3.6: Feeder Roads Rehabilitated .............................................................................. 42 Intermediate Result 4 – Improved Soil Fertility Practices ........................................................ 43 Relevance and Effectiveness of IR4 Project Performance Indicators ..................................... 43 Output 4.1: Improved soil fertility practices .......................................................................... 44 Output 4.2: Tree planting ...................................................................................................... 45 Output 4.3: Agroforestry Techniques .................................................................................... 47 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page iii 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 48 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 48 Resettling and Rebuilding Community Structures (IR 1)........................................................ 48 Improved Agriculture and Market Linkages (IR 2 & 3) .......................................................... 51 Enhancing Soil Management and Promoting Tree Planting (IR 4) ........................................ 55 Appendix I - Evaluation Scope of Work ........................................................................................ 56 Appendix II - IPTT Monitoring Indicator Matrix ............................................................................. 61 Appendix III - Qualitative Evaluation Work Schedule ................................................................... 64 Appendix IV - Characteristics of Communities Sampled for Qualitative Field Work .................... 66 Appendix V - Contrasting Development Models of Direct Service Provision versus Market Facilitation ..................................................................................................................................... 69 Appendix VI - FGD and KII topical outlines (English) .................................................................... 70 Appendix VII - FGD and KII topical outlines (Kiswahili)................................................................. 78 Appendix VIII – Household Questionnaire (English)...................................................................... 87 Appendix IX - Household questionnaire (Kiswahili) .................................................................... 105 Appendix X – JENGA Staff Focus Group SWOT Exercise Findings ............................................... 124 Appendix XI – List of people met ................................................................................................. 130 Appendix XII – Documents consulted .......................................................................................... 131 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page iv List of Tables Table 1: IPTT Global impact indicators: Increased access to food for returnee households .......... 8 Table 2: IR1 project performance indicators ................................................................................... 9 Table 3: Achievement of output 1.1 indicators ............................................................................. 10 Table 4: Achievement of output 1.2 indicators ............................................................................. 13 Table 5: Achievement of Output 1.3 indicators ............................................................................ 14 Table 6: Achievement of Output 1.4 indicators ............................................................................ 17 Table 7: Achievement of Output 1.4 indicators ............................................................................ 19 Table 8: Achievement of Output 1.6 indicators ............................................................................ 20 Table 9: Achievement of IR2 project performance indicators ...................................................... 22 Table 10: Achievement of Output 2.1 indicators .......................................................................... 24 Table 11: Achievement of Output 2.2 indicators .......................................................................... 26 Table 12: Achievement of Output 2.3 indicators .......................................................................... 28 Table 13: Achievement of Output 2.4 indicators .......................................................................... 31 Table 14: Achievement of Output 2.5 indicators .......................................................................... 33 Table 15: Achievement of IR3 project performance indicators .................................................... 35 Table 16: Achievement of Output 3.1 indicators .......................................................................... 37 Table 17: Achievement of Output 3.2 indicators .......................................................................... 38 Table 18: Achievement of Output 3.3 indicators .......................................................................... 39 Table 19: Achievement of Output 1.4 indicators .......................................................................... 40 Table 20: Achievement of Output 3.5 indicators .......................................................................... 41 Table 21: Achievement of Output 3.6 indicators .......................................................................... 42 Table 22: Achievement of IR4 Project performance indicators .................................................... 43 Table 23: Achievement of Output 4.1 indicators .......................................................................... 44 Table 24: Achievement of Output 4.2 indicators .......................................................................... 45 Table 25: Achievement of Output 4.3 indicators .......................................................................... 47 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page v Acronyms ADRA Adventist Development Relief Agency AP Action plan BDS Business development services CARG Rural Agricultural Management Council CBO Community-based organization CDC Community development committee CEWS Community Early Warning System CMD Cassava Mosaic disease CSI Coping strategy index CTB Belgian Technical Cooperation DIP Detailed Implementation Plan DSRP Document for poverty reducation FFP Food For Peace FFS Farmer Field Schools FFW Food for Work FGD Focus group discussion GBV Gender Based Violence INERA National Institute for Agricultural Research IPAPEL Institut Provinciale de l’Agriculture, Pêche et Elevage IPM Integrated pest management IPTT Indicator performance tracking table IR Intermediate Results IYCF Infant and Young Child Feeding practices KII Key informant interview LOP Life of project MAHFP Months of adequate food provisioning MOA Ministry of Agriculture MYAP Multi-Year Assistance Project SENASEM Service National de Semences TANGO Technical Assistance to NGOs USAID United States Agency for International Development ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following report is an evaluation of a Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP) carried out over a three-year period (June, 2008 – May, 2011) under the auspices of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) International is partnered with Africare under a cooperative agreement to reduce food insecurity among vulnerable populations in Fizi and Uvira territories in South Kivu province of the eastern Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). After years of conflict and civil unrest, a peace accord was signed in January 2008 between the Congolese government and combatant forces. Individuals displaced by conflict are being repatriated from refugee camps in neighboring countries (Burundi, Tanzania, Rwanda, Zambia) under the sponsorship of the UNHCR to their home communities or nearby areas of resettlement. The project, JENGA (‘to build’ in Kiswahili), aims to improve the food security and resiliency of 92 vulnerable communities in the Fizi and Uvira territories, and focuses on repatriated individuals and female-headed households. ADRA is implementing activities in 60 communities in Fizi, while Africare is working in 32 communities in Uvira. The objectives of this evaluation are to carry out the following, as stated in the TANGO SOW:  Evaluate the impact of JENGA on the food and livelihood security of the population living in targeted regions of the DRC; and  Provide insight and guidance for any future MYAP programming in targeted communities.  Provide ADRA with information on the relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and lessons learned through the implementation period from August 2008 to December 2010 of the JENGA project.  Document lessons learned during the life of the MTAP as well as make specific recommendations so that corrective action can be taken to enhance future ADRA food security programming. The overarching goal of the project, to reduce food insecurity among vulnerable populations in Fizi and Uvira territories, is supported by one strategic objective (SO) and four intermediate results (IRs). The strategic objective is to increase crop productivity and improve access to markets by means of the following intermediate results: 1) IR 1: Resettlement support provided; 2) IR 2: Increased use of improved agricultural practices; 3) IR 3: Improved market linkages; and 4) IR 4: Improved soil fertility practices. Key Findings of Global Impact Indicators Six tracking indicators provide a measure of the overall impact of the project on increased access to food among returnee households. These include: 1) Average household dietary diversity score; 2) Coping strategies index; 3) Average number of months with adequate food provisioning; 4) Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions; 5) Number of individuals who have received USG supported short term agricultural sector productivity training; and 6) Number of rural households benefiting from activities to maintain or improve household access to food during the FY. Performance results of these impact indicators are measured against baseline data collected by ADRA in September 2008, targeting 980 households across 23 communities in Uvira and Fizi. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page vii The figures on performance of the tracking impact indicators must be qualified by several salient observations. First, this evaluation is being completed nine months prior to completion of the three-year MYAP. Therefore, figures presented to date in this report do not reflect full achievement of project results. Also, delays in project start up and implementation have some bearing on performance results to date as some project activities, such as sensitization on gender-based violence, have only been carried out for five months while other agricultural activities, particularly in the Uvira territory, have been implemented for only about one year. Findings from the final quantitative survey reveal a trend of reduction in dietary diversity and the coping strategies index (CSI), while a significant increase has occurred in the months of adequate household food provisioning (MAHFP). A significant decline is noted in the household dietary diversity score, from 3.9 at baseline to 3.2 as of the end of September 2010. This figure is also nearly 50 percent below the target score of 7. Conversely, while dietary diversity has declined, there has been a slight improvement in the CSI (from 43.4 to 38.9) and the MAHFP has risen significantly, from 3.9 to 8.4 months. Since dietary quality and diversity have decreased while food access has increased, one plausible hypothesis of these countervailing trends may be the prominent role of food aid throughout the region. The marked emphasis on mosaic-resistant cassava cultivation by donors, and the lack of diversity in food aid rations distributed by NGOs which relies heavily on three rations (vegetable oil maize flour, and peas) suggests that food aid programs may actually be lowering nutritional diversity while paradoxically improving food security (availability) through the use of food rations and improved crop productivity with widespread adoption of the new Sawa-sawa cassava variety. It may also be possible that with the massive destruction of cassava due to mosaic disease, communities were forced to adapt by diversifying their food regime by consuming wild edible plants and other crop cultivars. Thus, it is possible that more dietary diversity exists in the broader population. Finally, it should be noted that the sharp increase in the MAHFP may not be attributable exclusively to JENGA, as other NGOs have also distributed improved cassava cultivars in some of the areas of project coverage. Focus group sessions have documented an extensive presence of other international NGOs in the beneficiary communities of JENGA, thus contributing to the overall welfare and food security of the population1 . The other impact indicators on numbers of beneficiaries participating in the project, receiving agricultural training, and improving their food security status reveal that the project is well on its way to reaching the numbers of beneficiaries targeted in the project. Key Findings of Intermediate Results Four intermediate results are examined in detail in this evaluation. Each IR entails several outputs that are measured by activity indicators. A summary of the key findings by IR include the following: IR 1: Resettlement Support Provided 1 Among the NGOs mentioned in FG discussions that have contributed to the general food security of the region through introduction of mosaic-resistant cassava, school feeding programs, and FFW activities such as road rehabilitation include ACTED (French NGO), UWAKI (local NGO from Bukavu), ACF, Caritas, NRC, and the Congolese Red Cross. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page viii The project monitoring data for the overall performance of IR 1 includes the three indicators presented below:  MI 1: 11 communities developed early warning systems, with committees that were monitoring for the possible onset of shocks that were typical for the region, such as disease and social unrest, and helping the community prepare and have mitigation procedures in conjunction with government.  MI 2: 1,100 shelters/ houses were constructed for returnees and other vulnerable groups, through a collaborative effort including beneficiary households and other community members, with technical support and materials mostly provided by the project.  MI 3: 534 home administration meetings were held among the 92 communities, fostering dialogue among women and men on issues of gender equity and peace￾building, nutrition and other household matters. IR 1 is to be achieved through six outputs, each of which comprised several discrete activities. The most salient findings for the six outputs include: Output 1.1: Operations were commenced in 92 communities, where Community Development Committees (CDCs) were elected and began playing roles in selecting beneficiaries and managing JENGA operations in the community. Training was minimal and though the CDCs showed signs of independent activity, there has been little done to build on that potential. The CDCs had generally satisfactory relationships with chiefs, but a more careful start-up procedure could help strengthen community democracy capacities and build a basis for reliably unbiased beneficiary selection. CDCs’ linkage with other actors was not specified, and development of exit strategies was only just beginning. Thus while there may be sustainability in some communities, much work remains to maximize that potential before the end of the project. Output 1.2: The development of the early warning system was at a relatively early stage, and the relevant community groups were enthusiastic, formulating their own action plans. More specific exploration was needed on the triggers related to local conditions (such as situations of conflict and social change) to help create and demonstrate what will be a worthwhile pilot experience. Linkages with territorial and other levels of government were weak, unsurprising given the challenges that government faces at this time. Output 1.3: The houses built provide assets of undeniable value to the beneficiaries, and numerous aspects of the process could be considered valuable practice to apply elsewhere, such as the community partnership arrangements and capacity-building generated by the project. The question arose about the validity of selection for this substantial benefit, because there were many more people who fulfill the criteria than there were resources available, whether it might be possible to benefit larger numbers of beneficiaries. The experience raises issues that should be dealt with in housing projects, such as how to build houses stepwise such that beneficiaries can take responsibility for building their own houses, and how to empower the local private sector for greater sustainability. Output 1.4: Land tenure is a challenge issue which JENGA had begun to grapple with, and while land for houses and farms had been provided by village chiefs, legal recognition of this land by the state was an expensive and complex matter. The project needed to study the issues of land tenure in greater depth, connect with other actors, and make some efforts towards advocacy, ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page ix while acknowledging that fundamental change will likely take longer than the span of one project. Output 1.5: Home administration meetings with men and women separately were meant to promote discussion of gender equity, nutrition etc. Considerable work has gone into this, but as yet it hadn’t generated meaningful results or enthusiasm among participants. JENGA staff were lacking training and linkages with other specialized agencies needed in order to establish a more dynamic approach. While GBV is an important focus for Eastern Congo, a broader effort to promote gender equity for all households could help build a better basis for increasing food security. Output 1.6: Radio programming has begun in 2010, and the team has already largely surpassed its targets. Integration with other parts of JENGA and related agencies is still minimal, but the component is poised to considerably strengthen dialogue on gender and related subjects. IR 2: Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Practices The project monitoring data for the overall performance of IR 2 includes the four indicators presented below:  MI 1: The majority of project beneficiaries (93.1%) have adopted at least four sustainable agriculture technologies; among these, beneficiaries interviewed noted row planting, separation of field crops, turning under of crop residues, and identification and removal of cassava mosaic as the most useful techniques.  MI 2: Just over half (53.7%) of 3,897 total project beneficiaries have received agricultural extension services to date; more than one-half of the participants are women.  MI 3: A total of 413.9 hectares have been cultivated using improved agricultural technologies and management practices to date, surpassing the target (380 ha) by 108.9 percent.  MI 4: Beneficiary monitoring data collected by JENGA staff reveal significant gains in cassava and peanuts yields, surpassing baseline yields by 167.8 percent and 105.2 percent respectively; conversely, maize and bean yields have been low, at about 50 percent of baseline figures. These findings contradict the results of the final quantitative survey for cassava and beans, which show slight declines in cassava yields (baseline = 994.1 kg/ha; final = 935 kg/ha) and an increase in bean crop yields (baseline = 511 kg/ha; final = 731 kg/ha). This disparity between monitoring and final survey data may be explained in part by the differences used in data collection, as JENGA monitoring data is based on measured field samples of crop yields, while the final survey is based solely on farmer recall, a much less reliable method to accurately confirm crop yields, particularly when dealing with cassava crops which are continuously harvested rather than at one or two distinct times per season. IR 2 is to be achieved through five major outputs, each of which is comprised of several discrete activities. The most salient findings of the five outputs include: Output 2.1: The project completed one territorial Action Plan in Fizi, but none in Uvira; issues of donor dependency to finance Action Plans pose underlying structural problems in the capacity of local government authorities to effectively plan and coordinate development interventions among a host of foreign donors and INGOs. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page x Output 2.2: A total of 65 JENGA and Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) field agents (61.9 % of target) have been trained to date on the use of improved agricultural practices; six out of ten training modules, based on an FAO-supported Farmer Field School (FFS) model, have been completed to date. Output 2.3: A total of 142 Community Development Committees (CDCs) with 30 beneficiaries per group have cultivated 142 communal field plots using the FFS model; over 2,000 training sessions have been held by JENGA field agents and over 4,000 farmers have been trained in the use of improved agricultural methods using the FFS approach; to date, the project has been highly effective in mobilizing communities to improve their food security status through the robust adoption of improved agricultural practices, the most important of which has been the cultivation of mosaic-resistant cassava; evidence obtained from focus group interviews suggests that significant gains in cassava production are taking place, thus increasing the period of household food provisioning. Output 2.4: The project has distributed mosaic-resistant cassava cuttings, improved seed for peanuts, maize, and beans, and basic farm implements to nearly 60 percent of the targeted beneficiaries to date; it has also been highly successful in implementing a Food For Work (FFW) component to the FFS program that is designed to assure that project beneficiaries plant, rather than consume, the seed sets they receive for the FFS plots as well as their individual fields; a major constraint has been that the project has underestimated the size of individual fields and the quantity of seed needed to farm them. Output 2.5: Using FFW as a labor modality, JENGA has targeted the rehabilitation of 16 kilometers of irrigation canals (6.4 km in the Uvira region, 9.6 km in Fizi). The project has now achieved 15.56 km (5.58km Uvira, 9.98 Fizi) of canal repair, involving 40 beneficiaries; in one community, canal repair has substantially increased crop production from one to three crop cycles. IR 3: Improved Market Linkages The project monitoring data for the overall performance of IR 2 includes the five indicators presented below:  MI 1: Seventy communities of the 92 targeted communities (76.7%) have been assisted to improve or develop infrastructure (irrigation, road repair, crop storage) to mitigate against natural hazards and extreme climate shocks.  MI 2: A total of 15.56 kilometers of irrigation canals have been repaired to date.  MI 3: Only 16.5 percent of all beneficiaries have received improved crop storage containers to date.  MI 4: 27 kilometers of feeder road has been rehabilitated, surpassing the target by 135 percent.  MI 5: The project has surpassed or attained target numbers of recipients for shelter, seed and harvest protection, and irrigation canal repair, but still remains below target numbers for road rehabilitation, tree nurseries, and tree plantings. Progress toward IR 3, improved market linkages, is measured by six outputs. The key findings of the six outputs include: ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page xi Output 3.1: A value chain analysis has been conducted of key crops with market potential (manioc, peanuts, maize, rice, sweet potatoes); however, the study is not successful in operationalizing any elements of value addition or processing of these crops to increase economic returns to local farmers and producers. Output 3.2: 88 farmer associations have been trained in commercial micro-enterprise farm activities; while this figure exceeds the project target by 117.3 percent, there has been little formal application of the value chain study and formal micro-enterprise development activities under JENGA support to date; Output 3.3: JENGA has trained slightly over one-half of the targeted seed producers (8 individuals, 37 peasant associations) in the propagation of mosaic-resistant cassava, peanuts, beans, and sweet potatoes; however, none of the producers have been certified by SENASEM to date, due to unforeseen fees to be charged for the certification process; JENGA administrators and SENASEM are presently under negotiation to resolve this key issue. Output 3.4: JENGA has trained local field-based agents to collect weekly market price data on farm crops and agricultural commodities (meat, dairy, etc.) in 17 village markets; the information is aired on four radio stations in the region and is accessed by an estimated 85 percent of project villages; the service is highly appreciated as it is the only radio transmission of local market data in the region. Output 3.5: The project has reached about 17 percent of all beneficiaries in distributing clay storage containers that are locally produced to store and protect seed against insect infestation, animal predation, and theft; some problems exist with breakage of the pots during transport, and delays in implementation of this component of the project which will be scaled up in the remaining nine months. Output 3.6: A total of 20 beneficiaries have received Food for Work (FFW) for the repair of 27 kilometers of road to date; the activity has been effective in mobilizing labor in the short term to carry out basic infrastructural improvements, however it is not yet apparent whether ongoing long term maintenance of roads and other key infrastructure (eg, irrigation) will be undertaken in a sustainable manner, without external donor support, by local community groups. IR 4: Improved Soil Fertility Practices The project monitoring data for the overall performance of IR 4 includes the four indicators presented below:  MI 1: 79 percent of farmer beneficiaries have adopted practices to enhance soil fertility, mainly as a result of training imparted during the FFS.  MI 2: Six nurseries have been developed, which are providing seedlings for replanting in target communities throughout the two territories.  MI 3: Over 35,000 trees have been planted, surpassing targets for moringa and citrus, but also including large numbers of other species as demanded by the communities IR 4 is to be achieved through three outputs, each of which comprised several discrete activities. The most salient findings for the three outputs include: ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page xii Output 4.1: Enhancing land management practices in South Kivu is crucial, in view of the widespread deforestation and soil deterioration exacerbated by the movement of various military groups through the area, and the growing population in the project areas. Soil fertility materials and training had been provided to 100 FFSs and 3000 farmers, though it was unclear how this was measured and how difficult it would be to extend this training. Participants frequently reported simple practices of soil management like mulching as well as more complex interventions like terracing, and these methods are easy to integrate with agriculture promotion, though they are mainly valued for their benefits for immediate consumption more than their environmental value. Output 4.2: Tree planting activities were well-received, with six reasonably viable nurseries established by the project. There are some sustainability prospects for tree planting, though specific plans and support partnerships with government had not been arranged, and expansion of tree planting should be addressed at a regional level and with sensitivity to land tenure issues. Many trees have been distributed but there is little confirmation that they were well￾planted and have survived, and Moringa might be in need of additional promotion as a tree species with particular value for food security. Output 4.3: The promotion of agro-forestry has already advanced as a result of tree planting and agriculture promotion activities, though JENGA has planned to pursue it more specifically during the final nine months of the project. Summary of Recommendations Overall, the JENGA project has achieved or surpassed many of the target indicators in the IPTT and DIP documents, even with nine months remaining in the project. Qualitative interviews in approximately 20 percent of the beneficiary communities confirm that food security of many of the most vulnerable segments of the population has improved, largely due to the introduction of mosaic-resistant cassava, which is significantly boosting crop yields and being adopted universally throughout the region. The project has introduced improved farming techniques that are gaining hold and slowly changing the way in which land management and environmental stewardship is perceived, as beneficiaries increasingly recognize the advantages of adopting more sustainable natural resource practices that avoid the customary practice of extensive field clearing by means of bush fires. The current phase of MYAP programming has directly focused on improving food security and building resilience among the most vulnerable – female headed households and others repatriated in the region after years of prolonged civil conflict. It will continue to be important to consolidate communities as they re-establish themselves, fostering capacities of Community Development Committees and other organizations to take leadership and promote a range of developments, in conjunction with NGOs and other supporters. A new round of MYAP programming will need to continue to expand social safety nets among the most food insecure by boosting agricultural productivity and fostering initiatives to improve village infrastructure through the use of FFW activities. Efforts to build capacity for early warning should be built on and scaled up, and advocacy for securing land tenure for the vulnerable should be continued, seeking to increase awareness and linkages and thereby make incremental changes. Housing can be included as an element in future food security programs if there is continued expression of need by communities, but should be reviewed in terms of possibilities of reducing investment ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page xiii per beneficiary and increasing capacity-building of local constructors and suppliers of building materials. The program approach to gender equity needs to be strengthened, with the radio communications team taking a lead, and the home administration meetings should be revived. This work would be greatly assisted through stronger partnership with local NGOs and other agencies actively addressing gender-based violence and other aspects of women’s empowerment. Consolidating the approach in JENGA will yield valuable lessons for future projects, in how to address the broader range of gender challenges which include not only GBV but control over resources and health and nutrition, among other issues. A more multifaceted and hybridized model of food security should now be introduced that begins to move the beneficiary population from their current state of post-conflict relief and recovery, to one of graduated asset accumulation based on promotion of pro-poor market development principles and the introduction of micro-enterprise activities that boost family income. Communities benefiting from JENGA interventions have already begun to demonstrate entrepreneurial initiative by spawning nascent, market-oriented cooperative activities within both formal and informal local associational structures. Thus, these spontaneous initiatives need to be strengthened and reinforced through capacity building activities that move participants in small, well-designed increments through the relief to development continuum. In conjunction with agriculture extension, the development of tree nurseries should be continued, with greater attention to their sustainability through such means as charging for trees. Improving soil fertility and promoting tree planting are important challenges in South Kivu, given the environmental destruction and trends of increasing population, and they will require stronger coordination with territorial government administration to address concerns such as wide-scale burning which go beyond the scope of an individual project to address. A number of recommendations are presented in a two track model, and are intended to assist JENGA management in preparation for a new phase of MYAP program design that builds upon the strengths of current project initiatives, while phasing in new activities that graduate beneficiaries from basic needs requirements in food and shelter, to participation in individual or collective income generating activities that enable communities to build assets and move toward a path of greater self-reliance. Both tracks would be implemented simultaneously, with Track One emphasizing a scaling up and expanding of the numbers of new beneficiaries under a program relief and recovery model, while Track Two would build upon the momentum of current project beneficiaries by beginning to introduce new training activities with a smallholder market development focus. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 1 1 INTRODUCTION In August 2008, the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) International signed a cooperative agreement with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to finance the Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) in Fizi and Uvira, South Kivu province of eastern Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). Historically the region has experienced years of conflict and instability, though with the signing of a peace agreement in January 2008, the region became a major destination for repatriation of displaced refugees from Tanzania, Burundi, Zambia, and Rwanda. Returnees and host communities alike continue to be faced with major challenges to food and livelihood security as this region struggles to rebuild following years of violence and atrocities. The continuing activity of isolated rebel groups still threatens the efforts of communities and development agencies, and highlights the need for continued development of social cohesion and tangible improvements in people’s livelihoods, to prevent a loss of the advances made so far. The desire to enhance food security and resiliency of targeted communities is reflected in the project name JENGA, a Kiswahili word meaning ‘to build’. Project activities commenced in August 2008 and will come to a close in June 2011. ADRA implemented project activities in both territories, while Africare focused on agricultural activities in Uvira. Project Goals and Objectives The overarching goal of JENGA is to increase livelihood resiliency among vulnerable populations in Fizi and Uvira territories, focusing on returnees and female-headed households. To this end, JENGA has the strategic objective of increased agricultural crop production and market access with the following intermediate results:  IR 1: Resettlement support provided  IR 2: Increased use of improved agricultural practices  IR 3: Improved market linkages  IR 4: Improved soil fertility practices Evaluation Objectives TANGO International was contracted by ADRA to conduct the final evaluation with the following specific objectives:  Evaluate the impact of JENGA on the food and livelihood security of the population living in targeted regions of the DRC  Provide insight and guidance for any future MYAP programming in targeted communities.  Provide ADRA with information on the relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and lessons learned through the implementation period from August 2008 to December 2010 of the JENGA project.  Document lessons learned during the life of the MYAP as well as make specific recommendations so that corrective action can be taken to enhance future ADRA food security programming. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 2 First and foremost, this evaluation was designed to assess the impact of the JENGA JAMA project on the communities in which it was implemented, using a mixed method approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis. As such it is worth noting several key factors that influenced the impact of the project and consequently, the evaluation. JENGA JAMA in its inception was designed to be a full MYAP focusing on food and livelihood security, agriculture, water and sanitation (WATSAN) and health issues. However, funding of the project was contingent upon the elimination of WATSAN and health components and limited to primarily agricultural activities. As such, this project should not be viewed with the same lens as a ‘comprehensive’ MYAP in which food and livelihood security is addressed in a holistic perspective through a multitude of interventions. Secondly, the life of the project and timing of the evaluation have significant ramifications for the measurement of the impact of the project. JENGA JAMA was approved as a three-year MYAP and the evaluation took place late in the second year of the project. Some project activities (gender sensitization in particular, under Outputs 1.5 and 1.6) had only been implemented for five months at the time of evaluation while other agricultural activities had been implemented in some communities for just over a year. It is imperative therefore to put the evaluation findings in this context. 2 METHODOLOGY As stated above, the final evaluation utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to measure the impact of JENGA on targeted communities. For this reason, the evaluation team consisted of three external consultants: a survey specialist for the quantitative survey, and a gender specialist and agricultural specialist for the qualitative data collection. Given the difficult working environment and the limited program implementation time, qualitative data proved indispensible for measuring project impact, arguably more so than quantitative data. Quantitative survey methodology Sampling The sampling strategy for the final evaluation was designed to measure any change in the average number of months of adequate food provisioning using the formula below. KEY: n = required minimum sample size per survey round or comparison group D = design effect X1 = the estimated level of an indicator at the time of the first survey X2 = the expected level of the indicator either at some future date or for the project ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 3 area such that the quantity (X2 - X1) is the size of the magnitude of change or comparison-group differences it is desired to be able to detect sd1 & sd2 = expected standard deviations for the indicators for the respective survey rounds or comparison groups being compared Zα = the z-score corresponding to the degree of confidence with which it is desired to be able to conclude that an observed change of size (X2 - X1) would not have occurred by chance (statistical significance), and Zβ = the z-score corresponding to the degree of confidence with which it is desired to be certain of detecting a change of size (X2 - X1) if one actually occurred (statistical power). The baseline average number of months of adequate food provisioning was 3.9 with a standard deviation of 2.552.2 With a desire to measure approximately 5 basis points change, the expected level of MAHFP would be 4.4 with a standard deviation of 2.832. Plugging these values into the equation yields: Therefore the minimum required sample size to measure this change would be approximately 960 households. The evaluation team over-sampled by ten percent for a target of 1,055 households of which 1,046 complete records were obtained. Since the baseline survey visited 983 households, statistically valid comparisons of these indicators can be made. The quantitative team visited 37 villages selected using probability-proportional to size (PPS). Twenty-five households selected at random were interviewed per village, with the exception of three large villages (selected twice) in which 50 households were interviewed. Survey instrument The survey instrument was essentially drawn from the baseline questionnaire (see Appendix VIII and IX for English and Kiswahili questionnaires). However, it should be noted that several modifications were made. The most significant changes were made to the wording of questions regarding food security, particularly months of adequate food provisioning and coping strategies. These revisions were made to comply with accepted international standards of these questions. Robust comparison is expected to be made with MAHFP, though comparison with regard to the coping strategies index (CSI) is not possible. Due to the lack of baseline CSI data, statistical comparisons will instead be made with assessment data collected from these regions by ADRA/TANGO in 2007. Since the assessment sampling frame covered a wider geographic area than the final evaluation survey, the CSI analysis should only be considered as suggestive rather than definitive of the situation on the ground. In addition to these changes, question order was modified slightly to enhance the logically flow of the questionnaire. 2 This number was recalculated from the baseline data and differs slightly from the baseline report. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 4 The final evaluation questionnaire was organized as follows: - Introduction/consent - A. Demographics - B. Food security - C. Agriculture - D. Soil and water conservation - E. Household economy - F. Health - G. HIV/AIDS - H. Gender - I. Health and immunization status of children under five - J. Maternal health - K. IYCF Enumerator training All quantitative data was collected by locally-hired staff trained as either enumerators or team leaders. Five teams of five enumerators carried out the household data collection from 29 August to 8 September. Twenty-five enumerators and five team leaders participated in a one￾week training event held in Uvira, DRC from 23 August to 27 August. The workshop included survey objectives, interview techniques and pre-testing of the questionnaire. PDA-based data collection All household data was collected on Pharos Traveler 535 PDAs. PDAs are hand-held computers and were used to facilitate data collection and eliminate the need for data entry personnel and facilities. Use of PDAs made the data available immediately after it was collected and thus allowed analysis and write-up to proceed immediately. Analysis All data was exported from the PDA software directly to SPSS v13.0 for analysis. Baseline data was procured from ADRA International to allow for statistical comparisons between baseline and endline. Qualitative methodology The qualitative portion of the project evaluation was carried out over a 20 day period, from 26 September to 15 October, 2010, by the two external evaluators for this report. Four days were devoted to review of project documentation and preparation of a thematic guide with an exhaustive list of questions to be translated in Swahili and used for the focus group discussions and key informant interviews. These questions were then refined and condensed into more concise interview guides after a pre-test of the questionnaire was carried out in two villages near the ADRA project headquarters in Baraka3 . Three days were devoted to project orientation, meetings with senior staff and field agents, and preparation of the field calendar and logistics to carry out focus group discussions and key informant interviews (see Evaluation Work Schedule, Appendix III). The two consultants conducted focus group interviews in separate teams with three staff members per team. Each team had a balance of ADRA and Africare field agents who served as focus group facilitators, interpreters and recorders. Focus group sessions were conducted 3 Several iterations of the original thematic guide were drafted after initial focus groups were conducted. The original and subsequent draft versions are found in Appendix VII. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 5 according to the thematic areas of project activity under each Intermediate Result (IR). Mr. Hedley was responsible for IRs 1 and 4 (Resettlement Support, Improved Soil Fertility Practices), while Mr. Magistro was responsible for IRs 2 and 3 (Improved Agricultural Practices, Improved Market Linkages). Of 92 beneficiary communities covered in the JENGA project (60 Fizi, 32 Uvira), the evaluation team conducted focus group sessions in 18 (12 in Fizi, 6 in Uvira), in addition to one pre-test village. Thus, the sample represents roughly 20 percent of the total project sites. Almost all villages chosen were taken from a sub-sample of those also interviewed for the quantitative survey (see Appendix IV). The majority of focus group sessions were conducted in mixed groups of men and women. However, gender segregated groups were interviewed around the topic of gender-based violence (GBV) due to the sensitive nature of the topic. Women were generally more at ease to discuss the topic alone or in groups of women only. Villages in the qualitative sample were stratified according to their relative degree of participation and engagement in the project (strong, average, weak) as perceived by project staff. It was also necessary to stratify according to the range of project activities carried out in each community. Some activities have been carried out in only a few villages (e.g. canal and road repair, tree nurseries, seed multiplication, farm associations). Therefore, some villages were selected purposively to assure that all activities were addressed in focus group discussions. Finally, sampling was also shaped purposively due to the geographical accessibility of communities, and limitations in time to visit and return to the field based after interviews each evening. Focus group sessions were complemented by key informant interviews with senior project administrators, and government and NGO stakeholders closely associated with the project. Finally, a group exercise was conducted with all staff in Baraka (ADRA) and Uvira (Africare) to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project, and to propose recommendations for consideration in preparation for the new round of MYAP solicitations. Upon completion of all group and individual interviews, the evaluation team synthesized field notes and data collected to present their findings (achievements, challenges) and recommendations (in Power Point format) to JENGA staff in a half-day session on the last day in country, 15 October. In summary, activities undertaken by the evaluation team included:  Systematic review of project documents provided by ADRA and Africare, including project background, baseline data, and impact results from progress reports;  Interviews with JENGA senior staff about the history and evolution of the project, the relationship between the two key partners – ADRA and Africare, perceived strengths and weaknesses of the project, and aspects of financial administration, management, monetization, and monitoring and evaluation;  Semi-structured interviews with key female and male informants and focus group discussions with project beneficiaries in the two regions of Fizi and Uvira;  Direct field site observations of shelters, Farmer Field Schools, individual farmer fields, brick making, crop storage (clay pots), irrigation canals, and roads under reconstruction; ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 6  Formal presentation and discussion of preliminary findings and recommendations to JENGA senior staff.  ADRA provided logistical support and transportation for the evaluation teams which included staff from ADRA and Africare. Study Limitations A major limitation to this study was notable differences between the findings of the baseline and final quantitative surveys of this project. The quantitative portion of this evaluation consistently found declines in many areas of project activity, particularly with respect to agricultural extension services, adoption of improved agricultural techniques, and crop yields, generally contradicting project monitoring data evaluated for this report. The evaluation team met with JENGA senior staff to discuss the negative trends observed and to ascertain why findings of the quantitative survey often do not correspond with observations generated from the qualitative findings and the monitoring impact indicators evaluated in this study. The evaluation team believes major contributors to disparity between baseline and endline data are:  Limited coverage of the project – on average JENGA touched about five percent of households within targeted communities. For smaller villages this proportion was larger, but in larger communities the impact was much less. As both surveys are population-based, changes in time are more difficult to detect when so few households have received project benefits.  Limited timeframe of project implementation – as stated above, the quantitative survey took place nine months prior to project phase out, limiting the measurable impact of JENGA.  The final evaluation questionnaire made slight modifications to the baseline questionnaire to improve data quality, most notably the coping strategies index, months of adequate household food provisioning, and improved variety seed use.  Gender bias in response to questions during the baseline and final survey – A notable change in the demographic composition of respondents between the baseline and final survey; with the proportion of males interviewed dropping from 55.6 percent to 41.9 percent, while that of females increased from 44.4 percent to 58.1 percent. As noted above, this shift in the gender composition of respondents between the baseline and final surveys may have influenced the responses given. FGD participants noted that more women are now present in the beneficiary villages and in the population at large as men have remained behind either in refugee camps or in their native villages, while women have relocated to more secure communities in the project zone, which may explain this demographic shift.4  Discrepancies in crop yields between the baseline and final survey for cassava (935-994 kg/ha) and those collected by JENGA staff for project monitoring purposes (12,000 kg/ha) may be attributable to several factors; including confusion in dry versus wet weight of cassava, and issues of farmer recall since cassava harvests are ongoing (done progressively, not at one time) and hard to accurately record; also, responses may involve farmer recall for harvests over a one month period rather than for an entire agricultural season; finally, 4 Women in FGDs noted that some husbands have remained behind in refugee camps as a way to maximize access to food and other resources under the UN sponsored camps, while the women return to establish a home base, sometimes with a newly constructed shelter, for the eventual return of their spouses and children. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 7 inconsistencies in harvest figures in general may be the result of confusion about the use of local measures, such as baskets, and their equivalent conversion to kilograms. 3 FINDINGS Findings are presented first in terms of impact, with reference to the IPTT and then in terms of each of the four intermediate results (IR). Each IR section presents the main monitoring indicators, followed by the outputs with their process indicators, and the levels of achievement reported by the project. Evaluation comments then focus on achievements and challenges, which forms the basis for recommendations provided in the final section. The discussion on impact is framed by the global impact indicators as contained in the Indicator performance tracking table (IPTT). Interpretation of SO 1 IPTT Global Impact Indicators A trend of reduced dietary diversity and coping strategies index (CSI) has been reported in the quantitative study (see Table 1) while a significant increase has occurred in the months of adequate household food provisioning. These findings, particularly the drop in the dietary diversity score, require some contextual qualification drawing on observations from focus group discussions, and key informant interviews with JENGA staff. A significant decline is noted in the household dietary diversity score, from 3.9 at baseline to 3.2 as of the end of September 2010. This figure is also nearly 50 percent below the target score of 7. Conversely, while dietary diversity has declined, there has been a slight improvement in the CSI (from 43.4 to 38.9) and the MAHFP has risen significantly, from 3.9 to 8.4 months. Since dietary quality and diversity have decreased while food access has increased, one plausible hypothesis of these countervailing trends may be the prominent role of food aid throughout the region. The marked emphasis on mosaic-resistant cassava cultivation by donors, and the lack of diversity in food aid rations distributed by NGOs which relies heavily on three rations (vegetable oil maize flour and peas) suggests that food aid programs may actually be lowering nutritional diversity while paradoxically improving food security (availability) through the use of food rations and improved crop productivity with widespread adoption of the new Sawa-sawa cassava variety. It may also be possible that with the massive destruction of cassava due to mosaic disease, communities were forced to adapt by diversifying their food regime by consuming wild edible plants and other crop cultivars. Finally, it should be noted that the sharp increase in the MAHFP may not be attributable exclusively to JENGA, as other NGOs have also distributed food aid rations in the areas of project coverage. Focus group sessions have documented an extensive presence of other international NGOs in many of the beneficiary communities of JENGA, thus contributing to the overall welfare and food security of the population. Impact indicators 4-6 indicate that the project is well on its way to reaching the numbers of beneficiaries targeted in the project. Numbers of participants benefiting from JENGA interventions to improve access to shelter, improve agricultural productivity, and strengthen access to markets is discussed in detail in the report sections below on each IR. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 8 Table 1: IPTT Global impact indicators: Increased access to food for returnee households Indicator Baseline Target Achieved (Sept 30, 2010) Percent M F Total Achieved Impact Indicator 1: Average Household dietary diversity score 3.9 7.0 - - 3.2 45.7% Impact Indicator 2: Coping strategies index* 43.4 37.0 - - 38.9 95.1% Impact Indicator 3 : Average Number of months with adequate food provisioning 3.9 5.0 - - 8.4 168% Impact Indicator 4: Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions 0 7,000 3,165 3,338 6,503 92.9% Impact Indicator 5: Number of individuals who have received USG supported short term agricultural sector productivity training 0 7,260 1,903 2,447 4,350 59.9% Impact Indicator 6 : Number of rural households benefiting from activities to maintain or improve household access to food during the FY 0 7,260 2,600 2,849 5,449 75.1% * Data from TANGO Vulnerability and Livelihoods Assessment, October 2007 Intermediate Result 1 - Resettlement Support Provided Compared to the baseline, the JENGA target communities are currently much more settled. Just over half (54.4% at final; 70.8% at baseline) of households consider themselves to be returnee households and the majority of households (61.0% at final; 31.9% at baseline) have resided in their community for more than two years. As a project aiming to promote a transition from relief to development, IR#1 was articulated as a set of activities to be addressed before beginning longer-term development activities. These activities formed the leading edge of JENGA’s intervention, by initiating a relationship with communities, forming a working institution in each site, helping to establish physical living arrangements, and facilitating improved gender relations and community awareness. This was a crucial foundation for livelihood enhancement, because the way the project is introduced will largely determine whether people are stimulated to augment their household and community efforts for sustainable development. Building the community capacity to harness local resources and incorporate new resources is a crucial ingredient of the development process, even though project indicators usually focus on more measurable physical results. We take as a starting point that some form of organization in the community should fulfill such functions as coordinating initiatives and spearheading new developments, monitoring and responding to emergencies, and managing community infrastructure (in conjunction with government officials). In the conflict context of the Eastern Congo, this component of the program has relevance in strengthening the foundations of peace, by building cohesion and stability, and aligning communities with national development efforts. CDC's were the main institutional form chosen by the project to coordinate development, but there are others which were also important. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 9 Relevance and Effectiveness of IR#1 Project Performance Indicators Three performance indicators from the project IPTT are used to gauge the overall impact and effectiveness of the activities under IR#1 (see Table 2). These indicators provide some insights into the process of foundation-building for food security, but do not really capture all the concerns included in IR#1. Gender equity and local institution-building are two important areas which need to be developed in order to derive sustainable development progress, so other indicators could have been included to reflect this. Table 2: IR1 project performance indicators Indicator Baseline Target Achieved (Sept 30, 2010) Percent M F Total Achieved MI 1: Number of communities assisted in developing early warning systems 0 10 - - 11 110% MI 2: Number of shelters provided to returnee households 0 1,100 646 454 1,100 100% MI 3: Number of beneficiaries who have attended meetings held on GBV (disaggregated by gender)5 0 1,500 - - 534 35.6% Monitoring Indicator 1 Early warning systems were developed in 11 communities, easily surpassing the modest target set, and JENGA has done well to achieve this much. This is an important capacity for communities to be able to adapt to change, as they have obviously had their livelihoods devastated by such shocks as the cassava brown stripe disease, and the armed conflict and related ongoing threats. As discussed below, this component is in its early stages, and the indicator doesn’t clearly show how much these “systems” have been digested and actually implemented to make a difference in the communities. It would be advisable for the team to document the experience so as to more tightly define this indicator by the end of the project. Monitoring Indicator 2 The construction of shelters, which are well-built, permanent houses, has proceeded very well and has been completed ahead of schedule, which is a notable accomplishment in view of the difficult operating environment of Eastern Congo. While the indicator could be misunderstood as being a handout of a simple package, the construction process for houses is relatively complex, involving a strong self-help and community support component. For the beneficiaries, it represents an important enhancement to their livelihoods and facilitates them engaging actively in agriculture and economic activities. Monitoring Indicator 3 This is a crucial marker for the critical activities related to gender empowerment, which was listed in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for 2010 but was not included in the DIP reporting. The figure of 1,500 is given as the LOA target for Output 1.5 (monthly meetings), and against this target, the total of 534 meetings has been held all in 2010. The momentum which has built up in 2010 will need to be sustained until the end of the project if this target is to be met. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 10 Under its objectives, JENGA lists a cross-cutting theme of empowering women, particularly female-headed households, in program interventions and including gender-sensitive training topics. This indicator is the only one which really tries to capture that, so it is important to retain. While it is valuable to get gender-disaggregated data for other monitoring indicators, this in itself may not be an unambiguous sign of positive impact, because agriculture is traditionally women’s work and they would be expected to figure prominently among the “beneficiaries”. Assisting women (as with men) with agriculture should logically help improve household food security, but it also may add to women’s considerable workload. The final quantitative evaluation survey found that for almost 40 percent of households in communities it is the man who makes decisions regarding the wife’s earnings, which doesn’t mean that these earnings will not benefit the entire family, but in some households the men may still be taking the proceeds for their own benefit. Thus, unless the project can help households and communities begin to address such issues as unequal workloads and decision-making, it runs the risk of augmenting existing inequitable tendencies in gender relations rather than transforming them. Output 1.1: Community Development Committees As reported in the September 2010 Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP), out of an original goal of 100 communities, JENGA has operated in 92 communities, including 60 in Fizi and 32 in Uvira. The latter figure was reduced from 40, a decision made early in the project to focus the program and double up FFSs in some communities. The entry into these communities was carried out in two main phases: in Fizi, Sept-Nov. 2008 and Sept. 2009; in Uvira, Feb. 2009 and Jul. 2009. At least two introductory meetings were to be held in each community. Table 3: Achievement of output 1.1 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 1.1 Community development committees trained Identify existing committees/form new CDCs in communities # of CDCs identified 100 92 92% Train CDCs on issues such as GBV, peace-building, early warning systems and data collection for trigger indicators # of CDCS trained 100 92 92% Achievements ADRA and Africare have mobilized JENGA fairly quickly after the August 2008 project signing, to begin initial field operations within a few months, and scale up to 92 communities mostly during the past 18 months. Conditions in South Kivu are very challenging, from the poor roads which deteriorate markedly during the rainy season, to the often life-threatening security concerns. Introductory meetings were held in each community, for people to build a vision of the development work they would be involved with, identify their leadership and select their beneficiaries. In some cases this work was quite accelerated, in order to form FFS groups in time ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 11 for a growing season6 . Building capacity is challenging when levels of education are very low, with approximately 60 percent of the population illiterate7 . The CDCs immediately had the challenge of leading the analysis of vulnerability in their communities, choosing beneficiaries in some kind of participatory process. This is never a straightforward task for a community institution, and it was carried out in JENGA without many observable problems. The CDCs then played a key role managing food rations and seeds, mobilizing community participation in agriculture, house construction and in some cases conservation and tree planting. Concrete examples were stated by focus group discussion participants and committee members of how these committee members managed resources and conveyed communications. The fact that such activities were carried out without major conflict is a positive sign and augurs well in terms of the somewhat understated objective of contributing to peace building. JENGA and the CDCs struck up a generally satisfactory relationship with the traditional village and district (groupement) chiefs, an important issue that any development project in Africa has to maneuver around. The chiefs generally convened the meetings, and supported the identification of CDCs and FFSs, and in most communities visited the project achieved a balance of working with the well-established traditional authorities while adding a more modern and democratic elements of committee leadership. A positive sign was that some CDC's were able to carry out additional projects beyond the scope of the project design, which contribute to sustainable livelihood improvement, and give a glimpse of the future evolution of the CDCs and affiliated CBO's. For example, a number of villages were able to save money from their collective FFS plots to be used for investments such as animal production or food processing equipment, both for community benefits and the livelihood enhancement of CDC members. One community had deposited this money in a bank account. Many CDCs were offering assistance to needy community members to cover health costs and funerals. Such independent initiatives by CDCs should not be seen as isolated examples, as there were also reports of initiatives taken prior to the project, so clearly there were capable leaders in many communities who would be able to sustain the momentum of development. In some cases, there was a positive broadening of focus beyond the CDC and FFS. Working with local associations to increase the multiplication of seeds is a positive approach to expand the benefits potentially to the whole community. Challenges JENGA’s approach to community institution building and governance is fairly light, as compared with some other Food-for-Peace projects, which may be due to the post-conflict context and the streamlining of the initial project design which took place before project startup. The project design did not provide for training of CDCs in leadership, facilitation, project appraisal and 6 ADRA for example carried out this intensive work out during Aug-Oct 2008 while still without a full staff and equipment complement, trying to get the FFS set up with seeds in time for the rains which normally start in October. 7 According to the Fizi Agriculture Inspector, M. D. Panda. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 12 management, and they were pressed into service quite quickly in selecting beneficiaries/participants and implementing the agriculture and housing activities. While CDCs have developed their capacities through these activities, community institutions would develop more if they had the opportunity to independently plan projects as well. The representativeness of CDCs could be questioned, because of their reliance on the chief to mobilize community members to participate in introductory meetings. There were comments in some of the communities of how the chiefs had favored their own family members and supporters into the project, and it may be that this was an unspoken concern in other communities. Those meetings were often rushed, and while the original plan was to hold three meetings, this effectively was shortened to two meetings, in the second year elections were reportedly held in the first meeting. The best practice for formation of community institutions is before a group of concerned citizens to consult and develop a shared understanding, after which they select their leadership. This concern relates both to the project’s ability to foster transparent and democratic decision-making processes, but also in terms of providing the foundation for community targeting. While the JENGA approach gives the responsibility to "the community" to select the most vulnerable and meritorious households, this is not easy for a new group dealing with populations into the thousands. Wealth ranking exercises are often used for participatory community targeting in such situations, but these were not employed in JENGA. Though there were efforts at validation and this considerably improved transparency, this may be awkward to do in a public forum and without more objective criteria. While it is natural that there could be some mild jealousy on the part of other community members in such situations, there were signs in several communities of more serious conflict, such as non-beneficiaries stealing seeds from the beneficiary fields.8 JENGA carried out a standardized approach of forming new CDCs, even in communities where there were already committees doing very similar functions but liaising with different NGOs. JENGA staff explained that this avoids overburdening the individuals involved, which may be a valid argument, but there should be a clearly understood relationship between these committees and division of their shared future. This is also related to a narrow vision regarding the relationship of CDCs to territorial administrations. JENGA itself seems to have considerable credibility with government (in conjunction with ADRA’s other projects), but the direct line of communication of community to government is very faint. While the communities received some support in JENGA from extension agents from the Ministry of Agriculture, there was little other linkage developed with government bodies. The traditional recourse for village chiefs to intervene is often not adequate for complex and sometimes dangerous situations. There was an example in Uvira of potentially explosive conflicts between farmers and herders, which were only referred to the village chief, who seemed unable to do anything. Another example was a village in Fizi which saw outsiders logging at a rapid pace, and the chief was apparently to question how forestry department permits were being issued. 8 This was in the case of a community which by all assessments had one of the strongest CDCs. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 13 JENGA is beginning to consider how to implement its exit strategy, and the project t document contains some useful elements for this including criteria for graduation of various actors in the project. The project ideally should update such strategies in the earlier stages of implementation, in accordance with modifications in project approach, and the future of project-inspired community institutions should be under more active discussion throughout the project. As the apparent governing body of the FFS, the CDCs are managing funds and have possession of lands, and it is unclear what form of title they have over these. Output 1.2: Early Warning Systems Table 4: Achievement of output 1.2 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 1.2. Community Early Warning System established Train JENGA agents, NGOs and government on CEWS (TOT) # trainings 1 1 100% Train CDCs on early warning systems and data collection for trigger indicators # CDCs trained 10 11 110% Development of CEWS tools by JENGA agents # tools developed 10 11 110% Put in place CEWS in the communities # communities with CEWS 10 11 110% Achievements Establishing the Community Early Warning System (CEWS) in JENGA was a positive indicator of how the project oriented itself to meet the unique needs of Eastern Congo, and maintain a capacity for dynamic response if and as conditions changed. The approach developed by ADRA and Africare derived from best practice and their international experiences, and was based on a careful analysis of the likelihood and potential severity of the main types of shocks in Eastern Congo – such as conflict and displacement, disease, social unrest, pest attacks, drought and flash flooding. Three main sets of trigger indicators were to be monitored, under conflict (including GBV), food prices, and coping strategies. The project displayed a good general understanding of these dynamics, and they played a role in their daily work, such as the case with conflict information. Eleven communities were trained and began developing the systems, Focus groups in communities with one EWS group revealed that they had an appropriate level of understanding of the concepts. They had a high level of motivation, they hold monthly meetings with the community, monitor food shortages with households, are planning to have a communal farm to raise food for the most vulnerable people, and our planning other income generating activities. They don’t seem to have had the situations that have been trained for, such as large new movements of IDPs or massive acute malnutrition, otherwise would probably see more evidence of its impact. While it could be regarded as at the initial phase, the experience can be consolidated and it may be an important part of the sustainability of this type of function. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 14 Challenges While this component has been carried out, its intention is not completely clear and the component seems to have received less attention. It is not clear whether it could have been expanded beyond the initial communities targeted for this component. Additional work may have been required to fully operationalize the system as conceived in the project document. For example, market prices were collected to assist in the proactive planning of farmers, which is good, but this information was not systematically used as an early warning of the onset of food emergencies. Coping strategies was meant to be another category of need monitored, but this information was apparently not being collected and analyzed in terms of possible response options by the project. The integration of early warning with different levels of government and development partners has been partially carried out, though perhaps not as explicitly and comprehensively as suggested in the project document and this is probably mostly outside the control of JENGA. The impression is that agencies are fully engaged in meeting their main objectives, and the framework of an early warning system per se may have represented an additional layer of work. Emergencies affect whole regions, not just isolated communities. A village in Uvira illustrates the need to roll out the EWS approach. The village had not been targeted for EWS support and a situation had emerged that posed a potential security threat to the community. The conflict regarded pastoralists’ cattle encroaching on cultivated land, and the warning signs were apparent during field visits, that called for some kind of response from the project and/or authorities. There appears to be a need to update the analysis and realign JENGA procedures in keeping with emerging realities. While the most severe and overt conflicts are now a number of years in the past, lower-level conflicts were developing and though perhaps not amenable to the kinds of interventions originally anticipated under this component, something should be done. Output 1.3: Shelter Construction Table 5: Achievement of Output 1.3 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achiev ed Output 1.3 Support for shelter construction provided to returnee families Identify and select returnee households for support # selected 1,050 1100 105% Purchase of construction material # materials kits purchased 1,050 1100 105% Provide inputs for shelter construction # houses supported 1,050 1100 105% Construction Training of drudges # trainings 1 1 100% Construction of shelters # houses built 1,050 1100 105% Achievements JENGA has constructed 1,100 shelters/houses, exceeding the project target, and completing this activity ahead of schedule. It is difficult to measure the impact of JENGA’s housing activity with the quantitative survey, as the beneficiaries comprised only a small percentage of the ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 15 community. Most surveyed households live in a home that they own, though the percentage of ownership had decreased from 84% to 71% since the baseline. One in five rent their domicile, up from 13% during the baseline. Of the eight percent of households living in a shelter provided by an NGO, 53% of them were provided by ADRA. These houses are visible in all the target communities in Fizi territory, and by all outward appearances appear to be well constructed. The basic formula for constructing them is well￾balanced, with the beneficiary households taking the larger part of the responsibility to mobilize labor and complete the construction but with significant expression of solidarity by other community members to assist with labor-intensive parts of the work such as bringing firewood, water, and stones. A number of skilled carpenters and masons received training and experience through the process, and this has led to the formation of a valuable human resource in the communities. The beneficiaries usually feed a number of community members who come for several days of intensive work, and the food for asset rations provided by ADRA enabled the beneficiaries to procure the services of the skilled builders who are working for longer periods of time. The standard design - prepared by ADRA DRC technical staff - seems largely appropriate, and with the uniform “pack” of building materials provided, this helps reduce confusion among beneficiaries and partners. ADRA did well to procure and transport materials for such a large scale and widely distributed construction effort, considering the poor road conditions and the need for boat transport for some areas. These houses make an undeniably large impact on the community. There was a clear expression of desired need from beneficiaries and partners such as UN and government, and the need was largely explained in terms of the repatriation of refugees and their need for shelter after having been dislocated for many years. The houses provide a visible marker of progress in the communities and can help strengthen the roots of stability and peace. The sustainability of these houses can be demonstrated as being very high, as a well-constructed home can easily last for 20 years or more. When the investment cost is spread out over this time frame, as an enduring material asset it appears to be a relatively cost-effective intervention. This type of housing intervention is appropriate in some circumstances, and for these situations JENGA provides a number of examples of good practice to be drawn on. Challenges The main question about the shelter/housing intervention is whether it is appropriate to provide such a large asset to a relatively small number of beneficiaries, when there is not an easily￾justifiable reason for selecting those individuals. This is a challenge that also applies to membership in the FFS, in that the primary beneficiaries in JENGA comprise only a small percentage of the population of the targeted village. Staff and community members sometimes justify the intervention in terms of the selection criteria (a commendation of returnees, female￾headed households, the elderly, other vulnerable households) that ostensibly direct these resources to those most in need. In every village we visited, however, there were many more people who fill these criteria then there were spaces available. So those community members involved in making the selection need to use their judgment as to those most in need, and as discussed under 1.1, this was often a difficult process. One of the concerns that arises from this situation is that there may be a perception of unfair allocation of the substantial benefits, which could lead to irreparable conflicts among community members. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 16 ADRA should question whether - beyond the undeniable value of these houses for the 1100 beneficiaries - there is a potential for scaling up, any way of eventually resolving the housing shortages in the area. ADRA has been able to continue building houses for community members through a series of different projects, but it is unlikely that they would ever catch up with the number of needed households in South Kivu with these housing packs. It would be ideal if there could be a government supported housing program that could draw on the model (including design, procedures, etc.) and will reach a wider target group, but this does not look very likely in the short to medium term. The policy of providing housing is bound up with considerations of resettling refugees, who are often provided with housing in refugee camps, and there is a need to create pull incentives for them to return to their home communities. This could be a valid justification, but without entering into a lengthy discussion on the matter, there is also the logic of development which suggests that project investments into private assets should be very carefully selected and oriented towards longer-term solutions that could ultimately benefit all relevant target group members. Also it should be noted that there may some degree of drift in the concept of what is being provided, because while the term shelter for refugees gives the image of low-cost and temporary facilities, the JENGA shelters are very permanent houses and to call them shelters does not seem quite fitting. It is almost as if the relief objective of providing shelter for refugees was partly transformed into a more permanent development objective, but without adapting other concepts which should be inherent in a development intervention. In the somewhat more stable environment which now obtains in South Kivu, it would make more sense for a project to look more carefully at the various categories of the vulnerable, leverage more contribution from beneficiaries in such an intervention which benefits their personal livelihoods, and try to use the intervention to build the capacity of male project beneficiaries to become local carpenters and masons who can sustain house construction into the future. Although significant capacity has already been built in working closely with local carpenters and masons in shelter construction, the evaluation team believes male project beneficiaries themselves could receive training in the form of an apprenticeship program to become carpenters and masons who can then expand the base of skilled artisans in shelter construction. This approach could be developed and further expanded in the follow up MYAP proposal design strategy. While these questions relate to the advisability and basic approach of any housing intervention, other issues are more operational, such as the selection of beneficiaries. For example, the original criteria were slanted towards returnees, and there were numerous complaints in communities about that; as a result, UNHCR (with ADRA, in another project) had begun to modify this by incorporating a fixed percentage of other vulnerable groups. This was also effectively done in some JENGA communities, but it might have been ideal to articulate a policy about that. Another issue is that when housing beneficiaries were also members of the FFS, it seems to be excessively concentrating already limited resources. One of the comments mentioned during several community visits was regarding the transport of large stones, which is particularly burdensome for the vulnerable individuals and households who were targeted for this intervention. Although JENGA’s insistence on beneficiary contributions was reasonable, some flexibility may be desirable for particularly vulnerable individuals which the community might be able to help identify. Also, it had appeared at project ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 17 initiation that housing could be a vehicle for enabling land tenure, but the project did not seem to fully capitalize on this opportunity. A final concern was with the environmental impact of the project, in that the method used for fabrication of bricks requires burning them at high temperatures, such that the house construction is inadvertently contributing to deforestation. JENGA intended to forestall this threat by promoting reforestation, and while no specific analysis was available for the evaluation, in theory the number of trees planted through JENGA’s intervention could compensate for those cut down. Also, in FGDs, participants frequently mentioned using mango trees for the brick fabrication, and it is unfortunate that a food security project is contributing to the loss of an important source of dietary diversity. Alternative means of producing bricks have been piloted by ADRA in other projects, using pressurized equipment, but these were found to be much too slow for the scale of operation. For this type of issue, it is advisable to carry out an environmental impact assessment in which the strengths and weaknesses of alternatives are weighed. Output 1.4: Land Tenure Advocacy Table 6: Achievement of Output 1.4 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 1.4 Advocacy for land tenure issues provided for vulnerable groups Provide land tenure advocacy for households # houses supported 85 0 0% Community-level meetings on relevant resettlement issues # of meetings held 100 0 0% Liaise with territory and community authorities # meetings held 12 9 75% Achievements Land tenure can be notoriously complex to address because land is a highly sought-after resource which has many other meanings associated with it and the rules and practices of land management are rarely straightforward and free from contestation. It is therefore to the credit of JENGA that it explicitly has sought to tackle the issue. This output was established largely with returnees in mind, to help ensure they would access land. Because of the house construction and the FFS collective farms, participants have gained access to land as allocated by the village chiefs. These demonstration farms needed to be on land close to the village, so in this case the land was relatively valuable in terms of other competing claims for it. While the project does not claim to have advanced land tenure discussions with authorities very much, it has held discussions with USAID present, to try to work out land titling for participants. In the case of land tenure, it is an achievement to make attempts, clarify the issues, deliver arguments, and build a sense of shared understanding and commitment among those actors who share the mutual concern of securing land for the vulnerable. Challenges There has been little impact of the project on land tenure, to date, and the challenges of land access for the poor continue to be a major livelihood constraint. While the majority of ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 18 households are continuing to use their own land for agricultural production, the amount of households using their own land has decreased from 79% to 69% since the baseline. It is not possible for this evaluation to analyze the issues involved in land tenure advocacy in DRC, other than a cursory examination to draw a conclusion about JENGA’s approach and generate several ideas about how to proceed. The project is at early stages of developing its tenure advocacy strategy, and though it would not be realistic to expect JENGA to resolve the issues, but the project should be studying the issues and staff should have a shared understanding of its approach. By working in collaboration with other development agencies and actors who are interested in rationalizing land tenure, JENGA can make a contribution to moving policy a more favorable direction. Land tenure is of immediate concern to JENGA for several reasons. First, there are numerous poor people in target communities who are renting land. Findings from FGDs suggest that some of the poorer JENGA participants do not have usable land and lease of land is a major expense for them. Most of the effort of the project has been in encouraging negotiations with chiefs, but the chiefs do sometimes ask for payment above and beyond the normal levels of expected tribute. Land has been allocated by chiefs for the FFS collective farms and for shelter/house construction, but there is some question as to the reliability of this arrangement, which the project needs to study and make a decision about. The core issue which affects assets invested by JENGA, and which is central to resolving the broader tenure issues for the vulnerable in DRC, is in how to balance traditional and state authority in decision-making. While the law states that all land is under the jurisdiction of the formal organs of the state, and this was clearly stated during the consultant’s visit to the land office, the reality on the ground is that chiefs are effectively managing land at community level. If the project is to have the land titled by the state, it will cost additional funds which were not budgeted for, and the discounted fee being asked for these poor beneficiaries is $150 each, which would in total cost approximately $165,000, though the project has thus far taken the position that nothing should be paid for this procedure. The project document referred to ADRA’s previous experiences negotiating with government on behalf of beneficiaries to allocate land, so apparently this is a new requirement. JENGA faces a challenge of two systems which do not fit together in a defined, hierarchical relationship, and the project needs to work out how to balance these and deal with each system in its own terms. One place where problems are likely is in areas lying outside of any one village, and this is part of the challenge of the conflict situation described above between farmers and pastoralists who bring their animals to graze on any land, including both communal and private. Also, the way that Chiefs allocate land is not very transparent, and unfortunately there is a good chance that within the 92 communities where JENGA is working, there will be some who are corrupt. There are other dimensions to the land tenure challenge which have not yet been well-analyzed or addressed. One is the gender dimension relating to conflicts either overt or latent involving women who rarely obtain title to lands. Tenure is also implicated in key environmental issues, in that land which has been over-cultivated, overgrazed, and overused should be considered for rehabilitation with tree planting. Land may well need to be designated for the use of pastoralists who are currently disturbing private farm lands. There could well be increasing conflicts over inheritance of land, and though urbanization may be removing some of this pressure, ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 19 community members spoke of challenges with people going to the city and then needing to come back to the village to support themselves. New developments in the DRC may well perturb the existing system and exacerbate problems, and this may affect the poor inordinately, such as was observed in a village in Uvira with new sugar plantations. Output 1.5: Home Administration Meetings Table 7: Achievement of Output 1.4 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieve d Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieve d Output 1.5 Home Administration meetings held with men and women separately to discuss topics of GBV, nutrition education, etc. Training materials developed # of training materials developed 4 4 100% Monthly meetings held alternating months between men and women audiences. # of meetings held 600 499 83% Achievements The project has reportedly held many meetings with groups of men and women separately to discuss GBV, nutrition education and other matters, and in recent months this has been loosely linked to sessions to listen to JENGA-produced radio programs (see below). The term home administration arises from other ADRA experiences, in which it has been an effective way to attract the interest of men as well as women to discuss gender issues and other issues of household functioning. There appears to be an impact of women’s empowerment arising from JENGA, judging from their active participation in the project and in the focus group discussions. Women have become leaders within CDCs, usually forming a majority of members, though men are usually presidents. Women also served as leaders of other associations. As indicated in one community, “development work” may be seen as women’s work, so it might seem more natural for women to get involved. Undoubtedly, however, women have built their capacities through such experiences, and gender is more firmly on the agenda. Challenges JENGA reports that its gender and development activities have only picked up momentum during 2010, with home administration meetings the radio programming began in 2010. Response by community members to these meetings has not been enthusiastic. Only a few communities during FGDs recalled JENGA discussing gender issues, and these were generally related to radio programming. Evidently, this activity has not had a clear direction, and there is neither a guideline for it, nor training for the agronomists who were facilitating it. While in principle it can be a good approach to integrate gender training in this manner, in JENGA it is likely that agronomists saw the activity as an added burden on top of their considerable program of agriculture extension. Worldwide experience suggests that gender training is essential for non-specialist staff to effectively engage learners. It was not clear who was expected to provide the technical backing to effectively engage staff and community members on gender issues. There were no specific partnerships with other agencies for training or establishing protocols to deal with such issues as cases of (gender-based violence) GBV. Gender ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 20 equity is an obligatory and pivotal component of USAID programming, and should always receive careful attention. Another challenge with JENGA’s gender intervention is that the main focus is GBV, while community members frequently brought out a wider range of gender-relations challenges, including household and community decision-making, control over finances, control over sexual relations and related health issues (such as HIV/AIDS), time management and allocation of responsibilities, and children’s education. It is understandable that GBV was given priority in the Eastern Congo context, but GBV is a manifestation of behavior which has other causes and associated effects, and a food security program could probably have more impact with a wider gender focus. Also, the project document highlights female-headed households, but a focus on female-headed households as the poorest and most food insecure is often misplaced, because they are sometimes able to better allocate their smaller pool of resources. The more central issue is that women are worse off than men, and those in male-headed households often fare worse than those in female-headed households because of their lack of control over resources. Part of the concern over female-headed households in East Congo is their lack of secure land tenure, but in the FGDs for the evaluation there were marked differences among both female and male￾headed households, and the picture is rather complex. The baseline survey did not analyze women’s status, but from all indications gender relations have improved in the area. It is difficult however to separate out the influence of home administration meetings from other meetings that take place with the CDC and FFS, and from the radio sessions. The nutrition education component of home administration meetings has been minimal. Community members do not mention having any discussions on this, and their knowledge of nutrition may well be lacking, since the household survey showed poor dietary diversity in targeted communities. This activity would have provided an excellent opportunity to increase people’s knowledge, share experiences between community members, and complement the agriculture promotion with nutrition education. When the project design was modified to leave out the original health and nutrition component, it would have been advisable for the project to modestly strengthen this small nutrition component. Output 1.6. Integrated Radio Programs (including Gender, Peace, Agriculture)9 Table 8: Achievement of Output 1.6 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Radio programs produced # of programs produced 24 41 171% Radio Programs aired # of program airings 48 79 165% 9 This output is concerned with gender, peace-building and related themes, while market information and agriculture practices are discussed under Output 3.4. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 21 Community discussion groups discuss radio programs # of meetings held 50 42 84% Achievements The radio program unit was set up in early 2010, and has already produced 41 radio programs which have been aired on many occasions. The participatory approach of researching for appropriate topics seems to have paid off in gaining an interested following of project participants. The topics have indeed taken a wider focus because of this, incorporating health issues, family planning, and HIV/AIDS. In FGDs, the consultants confirmed that groups are meeting to listen to the project-donated radios and discussing with interest what they hear, so that the radio programs stimulate the discussion at community level. The radio programs include market information as well as gender and health themes, and indications so far are that it is addressing a real need and is well-received. To some extent the radio programs have provided a focus for gender and related issues that did not gain momentum with Output 1.5. Challenges The radio programming is still relatively new (even compared with other components of the project), so it is early to assess its impact. Several challenges are apparent in the way that the intervention is structured. First, as discussed above, JENGA’s radio production is not well￾integrated with other organizations, and the staff themselves expressed their need for more training and protocols for dealing with cases violence, HIV etc. Second, the research that the radio program is carrying out is very useful for the project as a whole, and undoubtedly the project teams have a great deal of knowledge which could be shared, but there is not as yet a strong integration between the radio department and others. Third, the list of radio emissions prepared is very good, but does not seem to provide a balanced coverage of the topics envisioned for it. Intermediate Result 2 – Increased Use of Improved Agricultural Practices Relevance and Effectiveness of IR2 Project Performance Indicators Four performance indicators from the project IPTT are used to gauge the overall impact and effectiveness of the agricultural objectives of JENGA. Each indicator is an accurate and relevant measure of project impact under IR2 and indirectly serves as a proxy measure that has some bearing on the overall goal of reducing food insecurity among the most vulnerable segments of the population in Uvira and Fizi territories, namely repatriated and female-headed households. Annual performance targets and figures achieved are summarized in the IPTT (Appendix II). However, analysis and discussion here focuses solely on overall performance to date, rather than the evolution of progress from Year 1 to Year 2 which was hampered by delays in project start up.10 Figures presented here are derived from recent reporting on progress to date at the end of Year 2 on data obtained by the JENGA M&E staff. 10 Figures on LOA Achieved date from the period of project inception, July 2008, to the end of Fiscal Year 2 of the project, September 30, 2010. Therefore, some target benchmarks may not yet be achieved due to nine more months that remain of project implementation. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 22 Table 9: Achievement of IR2 project performance indicators Indicator Baseline Target Achieved (Sept 30, 2010) Percent M F Total Achieved MI 1: Percentage of beneficiaries (individual farmers) using (at least four) sustainable agriculture technologies 41% 70% 61.7% 68.7% 65.2% 93.1% MI 2: Number of farmers (individuals) that received extension/outreach services during the FY 0 7,260 1,918 1,979 3,897 53.7% MI 3: Number of additional hectares under improved technologies or management practices as result of USG assistance 0 380 - - 413.9 108.9% Fizi Uvira MI 4: Annual yield of target crops (kg) Cassava 12,000 16,200 36,200 18,179 167.8% Maize 1,200 1,680 - 930 55.4% Peanuts 800 1,200 1,691 833 105.2% Beans 700 1,050 533 - 50.8% Sweet Potatoes 3,000 4,050 - - - Monitoring Indicator 1 With nine months remaining in the project, 93.1 percent of beneficiaries are employing at least four agricultural techniques transmitted and learned through the Farmer Field School system (to be discussed further below). Those techniques most frequently cited and appreciated among beneficiaries during focus group interviews include row planting, the separation of field crops, weeding and turning under of crop residues to reduce field burning, and identification and removal of crops exposed to plant disease, most importantly cassava mosaic. Improved agricultural techniques have been enthusiastically adopted and appreciated, and the overall rate of adoption of such techniques should easily surpass the target benchmark of 70 percent of beneficiaries by the end of project. Agricultural techniques introduced in the project thus far have proven to be highly relevant and appropriate to the agro-ecological and socio-economic context of rain-fed farming in the region, as the improved techniques require few capital outlays or inputs other than access to improved seed, and are easily learned and absorbed by an impoverished population of relatively low literacy. Findings from the quantitative survey indicate that only about one-quarter (27.8%) of those households surveyed are using improved agricultural techniques. On average, they are only using about one (1.2) improved practice. Information drawn from focus groups consistently revealed that beneficiaries were employing new improved techniques introduced by JENGA. The survey also notes a significant increase among those farmers using row planting, from only one percent at baseline to just over 16 percent now. This finding is corroborated by FG ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 23 discussions in which respondents consistently cited row planting as one of the new techniques learned in the FFS. A drop noted in the survey in nearly all other improved farming methods is inconsistent with the responses obtained in the FG sessions in which beneficiaries described the use of many of the techniques noted above. Monitoring Indicator 2 To date, roughly one-half of the total beneficiaries targeted have participated in agricultural training activities through the FFS. Slightly more than one-half of the participants (50.8%) have been women, who constitute 56.3 percent of total beneficiaries in the project to date. Thus, women appear to be actively attending the Farmer Field Schools relative to their overall representation in the project. The quantitative survey finds a drop in the percentage of farmers using agricultural extension services, from just over 20 percent at baseline, to about 15 percent now. This finding was not consistent with FG interviews in which virtually all FFS beneficiaries have received agricultural training under the project. Monitoring Indicator 3 The project surface area under cultivation (413.9 ha) has already exceeded the target of 380 hectares set for the life of project (LOP). With slightly more than one-half of the targeted beneficiaries reached to date, the project could easily double the targeted surface area under cultivation originally anticipated for the project. JENGA staff has observed that on average, beneficiaries are cultivating significantly larger field plots than the project had originally anticipated. This may also indicate, indirectly, the level of enthusiasm and appreciation of the beneficiaries who have responded very positively to the introduction of the new mosaic￾resistant cassava variety (Sawa-sawa). Monitoring Indicator 4 Crop yield data is based upon measured yields of representative plot samples carried out by JENGA staff over the course of the past two years. These figures have also been compared with crop yield data reported by the local Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) to serve as a cross-reference, assuring relative accuracy of the figures obtained. Figures show significant improvements in cassava (167.8%) and peanut (105.2%) yields, which are corroborated by qualitative interviews with project participants during focus group sessions. Maize and bean yields are significantly lower, roughly 50 percent, of the target figures set for the project. The precise reason for the weak results was not clearly discernible during the course of qualitative interviews. Numerous respondents noted during group sessions that delays in seed distribution, particularly during the onset of the rainy season, may have had some effect on the yield of crops such as maize and beans. Beneficiaries spoke frequently of problems with the quality of peanut seed (discussed further below), but did not raise the same concern with maize or bean seed quality. Monitoring data on cassava and bean yields is inconsistent with the results of the final quantitative survey for cassava and beans, which shows slight declines in cassava yields (baseline = 994.1 kg/ha; final = 935 kg/ha) and an increase in bean crop yields (baseline = 511 kg/ha; final = 731 kg/ha). This disparity between monitoring and final survey data may be explained in part by the differences used in data collection, as JENGA monitoring data is based on measured field samples of crop yields, while the final survey is based solely on farmer recall, a much less reliable method to accurately confirm crop yields. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 24 Analysis of IR2 Activities and Output Indicators IR 2: Increased use of improved agricultural practices Output 2.1: Development of Action Plans at territory-level facilitated Output 2.2: Technical training on improved agricultural practices for JENGA agents, MOA staff, and local NGOs provided Output 2.3: Formation and training of farmer field schools at community level to promote improved agricultural practices, including integrated pest management practices Output 2.4: Farmers provided with improved seeds (including resistant varieties of cassava seeds) and tools Output 2.5: Small-scale irrigation systems rehabilitated IR 2 is to be achieved through five major outputs, each of which is comprised of several discreet activities. This section discusses the achievements and challenges in each output area, based upon both a quantitative assessment of the activity indicators achieved, and a qualitative analysis of the contextual background of each activity carried out to date. A discussion of achievements takes into account the degree to which activities are sustainable over time and can continue to be assumed by the beneficiary population after the LOP. A discussion of challenges addresses the extent to which activities may not be sustainable or may have fallen short of the desired impact on project beneficiaries. Lessons learned are integrated into the final section of this report by informing upon the conclusions and proposed recommendations in preparation for an extension or second phase of MYAP programming. Output 2.1: Development of Action Plans Table 10: Achievement of Output 2.1 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 2.1: Development of Action Plans at territory￾level facilitated Liaise with MOA, FAO, NGOs, other stakeholders # of meetings 5 5 100% Facilitate 2 workshops to develop plan # of workshops facilitated 2 1 50% Write action plan # of action plans developed 2 1 50% Distribution of approved action plans # of plans distributed 2 1 50% Achievements The first output under IR2 was designed to provide two territorial-level Action Plans (AP), one for Fizi and one for Uvira, that are to be harmonized with other higher level government strategic planning processes and consistent with the objectives of the national Strategy ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 25 Document for Poverty Reduction (DSRP) instituted in 2005. The DSRP stresses the importance of fostering environmental sustainability in the context of poverty in a conflict prone zone. In order for poverty alleviation and livelihood security to be achieved over the long term, the natural resource base must be sustainably managed and protected. At a regional level, a DSRP was completed for South Kivu in 2006. The Plan elaborates on the nature of poverty in each province and proposes a broad outline for poverty reduction in South Kivu. Thus the project APs for the agricultural sector should be consistent with and integrated into the overall DSRP process. Of the two Action Plans to be drafted, only the plan in Fizi was completed. The AP was funded by ADRA, and covers a strategic plan for agricultural development in Fizi Territory from 2010- 2012. Each AP is to be spearheaded by a Rural Agricultural Management Council, or CARG (Conseil Agricole et Rural de Gestion). The CARG falls under the leadership of the office of the Secretary of Agricultural Inspection, or IPAPEL (Inspection Provinciale d'Agriculture, Pêche et Elevage). A participatory planning session for Fizi Territory was held March 21-25, 2010 in which 17 representatives from government administrative offices, ADRA, local CBOs, and one FAO representative attended. The plan outlines the geo-climatic and socio-economic features of the region, as well as the physical infrastructure (hospitals, schools, clinics, etc.). It provides a SWOT analysis summarizing the opportunities and constraints within the agricultural sector, and includes analysis of the livestock and fisheries sectors. Features of environmental degradation are addressed and actions to be taken in the short term are proposed. These include improvements in seed quality and variety through local nursery production, the introduction of Farmer Field Schools for diffusion of improved agricultural practices, expanded training of agricultural inspectors, the strengthening of local farm associations, road rehabilitation, diffusion of local market price data, development of low-lying water sources, and improved livestock production and veterinary services. In essence, the Fizi AP echoes many elements and agricultural objectives of the JENGA project as funding of the Plan was provided solely by ADRA and no other NGOs or donor sources. Challenges A key constraint in carrying out systematic strategic planning at the provincial level in eastern DRC is the heavy reliance of local government institutions and administrative structures such as CARG on outside donor funding in order to achieve effective program coordination and the articulation of local development priorities. Thus, critical strategic planning tends to be ad hoc in nature and highly dependent on the financial vagaries of external donors and foreign NGOs who may or may not be well positioned to play a leading role in defining the development priorities for the region. In the case of Uvira Territory, a strategic planning activity was financed by the Belgian Technical Cooperation (CTB). According to JENGA staff, the plan only outlines broad axes of program intervention and lacks specificity in terms of elaborating development priorities and activities as well as the key actors to be involved. Africare staff became aware of the CTB planning exercise with the local CARG recently in June 2010 and found the report to be of little utility in terms of harmonization of JENGA project activities with other donor and NGO development initiatives in the region. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 26 Thus, this brings to light the structural inefficiencies in government planning and coordination of donor program interventions in the Uvira Territory. No proactive planning has been carried out by IPAPEL which is to lead the donor coordination and planning process with the CARG. A donor round table session, led by the CARG, should be held to mobilize and coordinate donor support and to identify the roles of strategic partners, including the MOA, NGOs, local CBOs, and other government authorities in the Uvira region. Output 2.2: Technical Training on Improved Agricultural Practices Table 11: Achievement of Output 2.2 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 2.2: Technical training on improved agricultural practices for JENGA agents, MOA staff, and local NGOs provided Develop training materials and curriculum based on existing sources # curriculum developed 2 2 100% Meet with CP3 program to determine best practices in working with cassava mosaic disease (CMD) # of meetings 1 1 100% Conduct 10 bi-annual training sessions for agriculture extension workers, MOA, and local NGO workers # of training sessions conducted 10 6 60% Train field agents, JENGA staff and MOA staff in improved agricultural practices # of people trained 105 65 61.9% Exchange visits with FAO in other projects # of visits 1 1 100% Achievements In order to introduce improved agricultural practices to project beneficiaries, JENGA field agents, MoA representatives, and local NGO partners attended a series of training sessions held by an FAO representative, based on a participatory community hands-on training model known as the Farmer Field School. To date, JENGA staff has been trained in six modules based on the FFS approach. Curriculum development, based on the FFS model, was initially to have been carried out by the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA). However, due to the high cost for IITA services, curriculum development and training was conducted instead by a local FAO agent based in Bukavu. The curriculum integrated training information on lessons learned from a previously funded OFDA project (C3P) on the identification of cassava mosaic. The first training session was held in Baraka in February 2009 involving a four-day orientation to the FFS concept. Training sessions have alternated between Baraka and Uvira and generally ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 27 cover a five-day period that involves three to four days of classroom theory, and one to two days of field observation. Training sessions completed to date include:  February 2009 (Baraka) – introduction to FFS, and training on maize, manioc, peanuts, beans, and sweet potatoes  Mar 2009 (Uvira) – repeat training in all crops, plus agro-forestry  March 2010 - INERA visit to see all crop varieties, and harvest measurement methods  September 2009 (Rwanda) – anti-erosion techniques for terraces, crop storage technology  June 2009 (Baraka and Uvira) - crop pest training  Nov 2009 (Baraka)– crop storage technology  Five more training sessions are planned between October 2010 and May 2011. The remaining schedule includes the following sessions:  Oct 2010– review of agro-forestry training from March 0209, terrace planting and anti￾erosion methods in the hill regions  Dec 2010 – Integrated pest management (IPM) and control of animal pests (goats, rats, birds, monkeys, wild boars), and cassava mosaic resistance training on diagonal spacing  Feb 2011 – severity of crop diseases, and calculation of mixed cropping density for manioc and maize  April 2011 – training of agents in PRA methodology, organization of farmer associations, communications techniques for development  May 2011 – soil conservation methods, and transformation/processing of manioc and peanuts. A total of 65 field agents from ADRA/Africare, the MOA and local NGOs have been trained to date, with 40 more agents to be trained in 5 remaining sessions. To date, 6 field agents and 2 coordinators have been trained in Africare, and 15 field agents and 1 coordinator trained from ADRA. Among MOA agents attending FAO training, 16 were from Uvira and 8 were from Fizi. A total of 10 NGO representatives from Fizi (plus 22 not yet formally registered) and 4 in Uvira also attended the first FAO training session. JENGA staff also attended one FAO exchange visit to Rwanda to see various field components of an ADRA project (DAP) on the diffusion of FFS, improved agricultural techniques of composting, anti-erosion terrace farming methods, agro-forestry practices, crop storage and post-harvest technology. A total of 7 JENGA staff attended the field exchange session (5 ADRA, 2 Africare). Challenges While overall training and capacity building of JENGA field agents, MOA, and local NGO participants has been largely positive, the nature of the timing and sequencing of FAO FFS training modules may be called into question. Due to delays in project start up, training of JENGA staff did not begin until February 2009, roughly eight months into the project. The FAO training curriculum, involving ten sessions, is extended over approximately a two-year period (February 2009 – May 2011). Many key sessions on PRA methodology, value addition and processing of manioc and peanuts, and focused support to farmer associations would be of significant benefit to carry out earlier in the project cycle, yet these sessions will only be held in the remaining months of the project. Sessions being held as late as May 2011 would seem to be too late with only one or two months of project implementation remaining. Thus, the FAO training curriculum could have been of greater benefit to project participants if staff had been ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 28 trained in a more intensive and truncated manner, as opposed to a protracted training schedule drawn out over a two-year period. Training has also at times conflicted with periods of peak labor demand required by JENGA staff to monitor farmer’s fields. One training event was held at the National Institute for Agricultural Research (INERA) in Bukavu on harvest measurement methods. Africare field agents were unable to attend, and only 5 agents from ADRA were available. This was due to a conflict with the peak period of planting by farmers in which field agent support and monitoring of the FFS and individual farmer fields is critical. The ADRA agents that did visit INERA were unable to meet with Africare staff to share their training experience due to high demands on their time to monitor farm field harvests and to participate in a project evaluation. In terms of the quality of the FAO training, JENGA staff noted that sessions were largely theoretical in the classroom, with a lack of emphasis on practical hands-on field application of classroom knowledge. They also felt that training could have benefited from a diversity of trainers, rather than reliance on one instructor. While the project has encouraged collaboration and participation of local NGOs and MOA extension agents in the FAO training, it is not apparent that the engagement of these partners has led to a clear adoption of improved agricultural methods beyond the immediate target beneficiary group within JENGA. JENGA does not have the staff or resource capacity to closely monitor levels of adoption and application of such training in communities outside the project zone. In addition, incentive levels among MOA agents are highly variable and dependent upon levels of participation and remuneration with other projects which are highly disparate across the donor community. MOA agricultural agents tend to be older and poorly paid by the Congolese government, thus incentive levels are very low in general. Output 2.3: Training of Farmer Field Schools at Community Level Table 12: Achievement of Output 2.3 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 2.3: Formation and training of farmer field schools (FFS) at community level to promote improved agricultural practices, including integrated pest management practices Form farmer field school groups # of groups formed 245 142 58.0% Plant experimental study plots # of plots formed 245 142 58.0% Production of sets of materials for target crops # of sets produced 233 133 57.1% Conduct on-site training sessions at farmer field schools # of sessions conducted 2,940 1,786 60.7% Provide training on IPM to farmer field schools # of farmers trained 7,260 4,260 58.7% # of field schools trained 242 142 58.7% ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 29 Achievements To date, the project has been highly effective in mobilizing communities to improve their food security status and agricultural productivity through the creation of Farmer Field Schools. While needs are great and the number of participants in the FFS is small relative to the total population, focus group discussions reveal a marked improvement in food security of the beneficiaries through adoption of the FFS method and the introduction of mosaic-resistant cassava throughout the region. The results with maize and peanuts appear to be more variable, with some communities reporting notable improvements in yields of these crops, while others report problems in seed quality, particularly the improved variety of peanuts (JL24) distributed by the project which appears to be mixed with inferior seed in some instances (discussed further below). A total of 142 FFS have been organized to date. Each FFS has 30 members who farm a communal field that is designated in consultation by the village chief, elders, and project staff. Each FFS has two crops, the principal one being cassava, and the second one being maize, peanuts, or beans. In the first year, only one crop was introduced, mosaic-resistant cassava. FFS plot size was set at 1 hectare. However, the field size was deemed to be too large, and was therefore reduced significantly to .1 hectare per crop (.2 ha total) in the second year. The FFS beneficiaries also farm their own individual plots, applying the FFS methods learned in their own fields. Individual fields are often very far from the FFS plot which tends to be closer to the village. FFS participants are to meet once a week in the communal field to receive training and to discuss progress and problems encountered in the methods acquired with the JENGA field agent. A common observation among focus group respondents is that they have often expanded the plot size of the FFS after the first season of cultivation in order to increase agricultural output for purposes of generating income as a collective activity within the group. This positive development will be discussed further when reviewing the creation of farmer associations under IR 3, Output 3.2. Of 245 FFS plots to be established, 142 plots have been cultivated by the beneficiaries. Each FFS is provided with sets of field implements and improved seed (see discussion under Output 2.4 below). A total of 133 sets of tools and seed have been distributed to date, with another 100 sets remaining to be distributed by the LOP. The total number of on-site training sessions conducted in the FFS by JENGA staff to date is 1,786, with 1,154 more sessions remaining to be completed. In addition to improved cultivation methods and the introduction of improved crop varieties, FFS members are also trained in IPM methods. A total of 4,260 farmers in 142 FFS have been trained to date in the application of IPM practices. In conclusion, there is a robust trend of positive adoption of improved agricultural practices by FFS project beneficiaries. The most commonly cited include row planting, planting of crops in separate fields, turning under of organic residues, and the identification and removal of mosaic and other diseased plants. Evidence obtained from FG interviews suggests that significant gains in cassava production are taking place, thus increasing the MAHFP.11 Numerous instances of 11 Documenting crop harvest yields with any precision in FG sessions is highly problematic, not only because farmer recall may be an unreliable or unverifiable method, but also because cassava harvests are ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 30 beneficiaries expanding the size of their FFS plots after their first season of cassava planting were noted during FG interviews. However, gains in peanut and maize productivity appear to be more modest. Challenges A key constraint in the training of beneficiaries in the FFS method has been the difficulty posed for JENGA field agents to maintain a rigorous and timely training and monitoring schedule. This may be attributable to several factors. Prompt delivery of training and monitoring services is problematic during peak periods of labor demand during the agricultural calendar, particularly during the onset of the first rains when planting is critical. Field agents must cover long distances on very poor roads during the rainy season to visit from 5-7 villages. During such production bottlenecks, some beneficiaries have suffered from delays in training, the delivery of essential inputs such as improved seed, and follow up monitoring and technical assistance in both communal (FFS) and individual fields. Some beneficiaries noted problems in receiving improved seed too late to plant in some communities, resulting in modest harvests. In the case of beneficiaries in the Uvira region, Africare staff have found it challenging to travel and return to their home base in Uvira on a daily basis. This problem has been alleviated recently for ADRA staff in the Fizi region, as they often must travel longer distances on very poor roads. Satellite substations have been established as a local base from which agents can return to each evening, thus reducing time and distance needed to cover their respective communities. Such an option may be introduced for the Africare agents and is under review by senior management of the project. In general, all field agents must work in a very demanding physical environment and are challenged to adhere to tight work schedules. There is insufficient staff to conduct monitoring of first year beneficiaries to determine whether agricultural methods and innovations introduced by JENGA have been systematically adopted over time to assure sustainable agricultural and environmental practice. IPM practices do not appear to have been heavily emphasized as a part of agricultural training by JENGA field agents to date. Other than learning to identify and remove diseased cassava mosaic plants, FG respondents described few other IPM practices that they have adopted. The quantitative survey finds that most cultivators (94.2%) are not practicing any infestation prevention practices with respect to the application of pesticides and bird netting. Farmers noted theft and the encroachment in their fields by cattle as major reasons for crop losses, but seemed hopeless in terms of preventing such losses. Removal of cassava mosaic is clearly the primary preoccupation of the beneficiaries interviewed. Findings of the quantitative survey note a relatively modest level of livelihood diversification, with respondents declaring agriculture (88%) as their primary occupation, while other income sources include small businesses (21.2%), casual labor (12.5%) and livestock rearing (7.7%). Future MYAP programming will need to diversify training and support activities to better strengthen diverse livelihoods in livestock production, fishing, micro-enterprise development, etc. done progressively rather than at one point in time. Harvesting is an ongoing process that is done regularly to meet the continual food demands of the household. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 31 Output 2.4: Farmers Provided with Improved Seeds Table 13: Achievement of Output 2.4 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 2.4: Farmers provided with improved seeds (including resistant varieties of cassava seeds) and tools Prepare seeds and fertilizers distribution plan # of plan prepared 1 1 100.0% Reception and preparation of seeds before distribution # of seed batches prepared 1 1 100.0% Distribute improved seeds to farmers # of farmers receiving seeds 7,350 4,350 59.2% Provide agricultural inputs for farmers basic tools # of farmers receiving basic inputs 7,350 4,350 59.2% Achievements Beneficiaries are provided with seed and field tools for cultivating crops in both the communal FFS plots and their individual fields. Mosaic-resistant cassava (Sawa-sawa) has been introduced in the project and is being extensively promoted by donors throughout the region. JENGA also distributes an improved peanut seed variety (JL24). JENGA obtains the cassava cuttings for distribution from SENASEM (Service National de Semences). SENASEM in turn receives cassava cuttings through certified individual local seed producers and producer associations. JENGA has successfully distributed manioc cuttings, seeds for peanuts, maize, and beans, and basic farm implements to 4,350 farmers for planting in their individual fields. The cuttings and seed quantities are listed in Table 14 below. Farmers plant crops during two agricultural cycles. The first season (A) extends from September to February and is the principal period for planting manioc which has a seven-month growing cycle. This is followed by a second cropping season (B) which extends from February/March through June, during which peanuts, maize, and beans are cultivated. Due to delays in project start up, the second cropping cycle (Feb-June) in Uvira was not carried out. The FFS fields were initially designated as 1 hectare plots in Year 1, but scaled down considerably to .1 hectare per crop in Year 2.12 Tool kits provided for the FFS include one hoe and one machete per beneficiary (30 total), and three picks, four shovels, three rakes, three spades, one tape measure, and nylon cord for field measuring. Due to chronic food insecurity and the inability of households to meet their food consumption requirements through farm production over a 12 month period, JENGA has instituted a Food For Work (FFW) component to the FFS program that is designed to assure that project beneficiaries 12 Total plot size for the FFS in Year 2 was .2 hectare since two crops have been introduced in the project, thus .1 hectare planted in cassava, and .1 hectare planted in either peanuts, maize, or beans. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 32 plant rather than consume the seed sets they receive for the FFS plots as well as their individual fields. Thus food rations are distributed three times during a cropping cycle to assure that project seed is not consumed during both the planting and harvest periods. The food ration per beneficiary distributed in Year 1 included 60 kg of maize flour (x3 = 180 kg), and 3 liters of vegetable oil (x3 = 9 liters). In Year 2, the quantities were reduced to 45 kg of maize (x3) and 2.16 liters of oil (x3), in addition to 4.2 kg of peas (x3). The use of FFW for seed protection has been highly effective in the project.13 There is no evidence of consumption of the distributed improved seed among the beneficiaries interviewed. This observation corroborates and supports the quantitative study findings which reveal a significant improvement in the MAHFP in the project. Finally, female respondents universally expressed very strong satisfaction in receiving peas as a portion of their food ration, a new food item that has been highly enjoyed and appreciated by family members. Findings from the final quantitative survey suggest that the number of farmers using improved seed varieties has declined significantly, from nearly three-quarters during the baseline, to just under 40 percent now. Beneficiaries interviewed in FG sessions noted widespread use of the seed varieties distributed by the project. It should be noted that the proportion of beneficiaries relative to the entire population in the project zone is very small, and thus, is the likely explanation for the low use of improved seed among those interviewed for the quantitative survey. Challenges The primary concern expressed among FFS beneficiaries has been the underestimation by the project to provide adequate quantities of seed and cassava cuttings needed in farmer’s individual fields. Respondents in focus groups near unanimously noted that the surface area planted in their individual fields was much larger than anticipated by project field agents. In many instances, respondents noted that they had to borrow or purchase additional seed and/or cuttings in order to adequately sow their field plots. Beneficiaries also frequently noted that the quantity of field implements provided was inadequate for their farming needs. This response, however, may be somewhat anticipated, as respondents commonly conveyed an air of dependency with respect to most elements of the project, including the volume of food aid, seed, farm implements, shelter, training, etc, received. 13 Technically, FFW in this context could be thought of as ‘Food for Assets’ since food is not being provided for work but rather as a protective or preventive measure to assure that harvested seed is not consumed but planted for the next crop cycle. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 33 Output 2.5: Small-Scale Irrigation Systems Rehabilitated Table 14: Achievement of Output 2.5 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 2.5: Small-scale irrigation systems rehabilitated Identify most appropriate places for irrigation canals # irrigation projects identified 10 10 100% Construct 16 km of irrigation canals using FFW (identified in FY1 and FY2) # km completed 16 15.56 97.3% Train people on maintenance of canals # people trained 40 40 100% Achievements An element of IR2 aimed at improving agricultural practices and boosting food security is to improve irrigation infrastructure through the rehabilitation of feeder canals. Irrigated rice farming is found in the lower plains areas near Lake Tanganyika, and has been practiced historically in the region. Rice is often sold and is one of the more remunerative cash cropping systems practiced in the area. Using FFW as a labor modality, JENGA has targeted the rehabilitation of 6.4 km of feeder canal in the Uvira region and 9.6 km in Fizi. The project has now achieved 15.56 km (5.58km Uvira, 9.98 Fizi) of canal repair, involving 60 beneficiaries14 . Two FG interviews were held, one in the Fizi region, and one in Uvira region, to better understand the context of canal repair and the constraints and opportunities involved in trying to improve irrigation capacity in the region. Of the sites visited, one involves land clearing and the creation of a water diversion canal (2.7 km) in a low-lying marsh area of papyrus (Fizi region), while the other involved repair of 6km of feeder canal (Uvira region) to low-lying bottomlands that are highly productive in rice during the rainy season. Both projects involved the use of FFW for the projects. In the papyrus marsh area, 60 participants received 55 kg of maize flour, 3 liters of oil, and 6 kg peas per laborer for 50 days of labor to build a new water diversion canal. In the other project, 150 beneficiaries received 75 kg of maize flour and 3 liters of oil for 50 days of labor on canal repair. Overall, the use of FFW has been instrumental in mobilizing labor to establish new land for crop production in the Fizi activity, and to recover highly productive bottomlands for rice and other cash cropping regimes in the Uvira irrigation perimeter. Beneficiaries in the Fizi project plan to plant rice, maize, peanuts, and bananas in an area that otherwise has had no productive 14 While 40 beneficiaries were targeted and trained in canal maintenance, a significantly higher number of individuals actually participated in canal irrigation rehabilitation. This includes 60 who participated in canal repairs in the village of Kasakwa, 60 in Kihanja, and 30 in Sebele, for a total of 150 participants. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 34 agricultural value in the past. In the Uvira project, the opening of the irrigated bottomlands with the repair of a feeder canal has had a strong positive effect on the food security status of those involved. In the past, the area could only be farmed once a year during the rainy season. Now, with the conveyance of water to the area year round, the beneficiaries are able to achieve three crop harvests during the year, significantly improving their household food consumption levels, while also boosting their ability to sell rice, sweet potatoes, onions, tomatoes, and other horticultural crops in the local market. As a result, they are now able to buy more meat and fish and provide more protein and better nutrition for their children and their families. They noted that on average, they have boosted their MAHFP from roughly 7 to 9 months. The overall impact of the feeder canal has been to open 450 hectares of highly productive land for year round farming to 100 farm families. Challenges While clear benefits have been derived from the two projects observed, a number of issues concerning longer term sustainability and maintenance of canal (and road) systems and the use of FFW as an incentive for infrastructural development may be raised15 . Canal maintenance committees have been established as part of an agreement to receive FFW benefits provided by JENGA. These committees, in many instances, have not existed in the past or have not been initiated spontaneously based on need a perceived need within various communities. Respondents in FG sessions consistently note that food rations for canal (and road) repair are inadequate given household size and demands on food from extra-familial sources. While officially, food rations are allotted for a family of 5 or 6, in reality, most respondents indicated that they were responsible for feeding many more people, often more than 10. When asked about the period of food coverage with rations that is intended for 50 days, many responded that rations only covered their needs for a 2-3 week period. Thus, food provisioning is insufficient in meeting household needs during allotted periods of FFW labor projects. In addition, food aid distribution has sometimes arrived late, or at the end of project activities. FG respondents frequently noted their desire to receive FFW rations during the course of the project labor period in order to smooth consumption patterns and assure an adequate source of food during peak periods of labor demand. Repeated requests for more FFW suggests that a culture of donor dependency on food and other in-kind sources of aid may actually hinder motivation over the long term of local communities to assume responsibility in a spontaneous and organic fashion for the infrastructural maintenance and development of their communities. This may particularly be the case, as in the example of the Fizi papyrus land reclamation area, where a FFW activity designed for 50 days may have a negligible effect on the successful completion of a longer term intervention.16 15 The concerns raised here apply in some regards to project support of road rehabilitation to improve market access through the use of FFW as well. The road rehabilitation component of JENGA is reviewed further below under IR3, Output 3.6. 16 Participants in the marshland reclamation project in Fizi noted that land clearing could possibly take up to one year and ideally would entail the use of tractors to help plow the land and remove papyrus debris after field burning. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 35 The Fizi land reclamation activity also suggests that more thorough planning and design may be needed on the part of JENGA staff prior to making a determination on the feasibility of a project intervention. An initial environmental impact assessment to understand the impacts of extensive bush clearing (bush fire) to open new tracts of land for farming should be closely examined to weigh the costs and benefits of such an activity. In general, there appears to be an emphasis in the region of promoting agricultural extensification rather than intensification (increased productivity on smaller farm plots). Thus more thorough consultation and feasibility assessment, particularly in environmentally sensitive areas, should be systematically built into JENGA project design. Intermediate Result 3 – Improved Market Linkages Relevance and Effectiveness of IR3 Project Performance Indicators Table 15: Achievement of IR3 project performance indicators Indicator Baseline Target Achieved (Sept 30, M F Total 2010) MI 1: Number of communities assisted to improve or develop infrastructure to mitigate the impact of shocks, over the life of the activity (irrigation systems, storage facilities, feeder roads) 120 - - 92 76.7% MI 2: Number of kilometers of irrigation canals rehabilitated/constructed 16 - - 15.56 97.3% MI 3: Number of households with storage facilities 5,400 346 544 890 16.5% MI 4: Number of kilometers of feeder roads rehabilitated 20 - - 27 135% MI 5: Recipients (Households) of food distribution under SO 1 Shelters 1,050 - - 1,100 104.8% Seed Protection 3,000 - - 3,000 100% Harvest Protection 3,000 - - 3,000 100% Irrigation Canals 150 - - 150 100% Road Rehabilitation 400 - - 280 70% Tree Nurseries 240 - - 180 75% Tree Plantings 360 - - 144 40% Monitoring Indicator 1 JENGA has assisted 92 communities to date to mitigate environmental vicissitudes and infrastructural constraints in improving access to markets through canal repair, road rehabilitation, and the use of improved crop storage facilities. This represents roughly three￾quarters (N=120) of the communities targeted over the LOP, which should be easily surpassed over the coming nine months. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 36 Monitoring Indicator 2 The project has achieved 15.56 km of irrigation canal repair/construction to date, or 97.3 percent of the project target (16 km). Both the opportunities and constraints in promoting canal repair have been highlighted in the section above. Along with road rehabilitation, the longer term incentives and motivations within a community to adopt a model of self-reliance and a self-sustaining approach to infrastructural development and maintenance may be called into question and should be given closer scrutiny in any future program initiatives that seek to build local capacity and strengthen resilience of the most vulnerable population in the region. The number of communities targeted by JENGA to build or repair irrigation canals is small relative to the overall population within the project zone. Thus, this may explain in part, why those reporting to have used water conservation techniques (diversion canals, terracing, closed canals) is so low (5.4%) in the quantitative survey. Monitoring Indicator 3 The number of beneficiaries receiving improved crop storage facilities is perhaps the most neglected component of the project to date. Presently, only 16.5% of targeted beneficiaries have benefited from improved crop storage technology involving the use of fired clay pots for seed storage and protection. JENGA staff recognizes delays in implementing this component of the project and will make a concerted effort to distribute storage containers to beneficiaries in the remaining months.17 However, the capacity needed to distribute nearly 4,600 containers in the coming nine months will pose a key challenge for project personnel that are already understaffed and heavily burdened with current responsibilities. The relevance and practicality of adopting such technology has some advantages but also has some limitations (discussed further below). In particular, breakage of the terra cotta pots during transport has been cited in one FG interview as a major problem. The percentage of cultivators using any form of crop storage was found to be relatively low (42.6%) in the final quantitative survey. Rat infestation was found to be the most frequently cited problem among nearly 58 percent of those interviewed. Thus, the urgency remains for the project to accelerate the distribution of clay pots and the use of biological controls (hot pepper, tobacco, etc) as a means of protecting seed from rats, insects, and other common pests. Despite delays in the distribution of clay storage containers, findings of the quantitative survey reveal some improvement since the inception of JENGA in reducing most forms of crop loss due to infestation by rats and other common pests, rotting, and humidity. Only theft of field crops appears to have increased since start up of the project. Monitoring Indicator 4 A total of 27 km of road has been rehabilitated to date, surpassing a project target of 20 km. Like canal repair, FFW has been used as the modality to incentivize local participation in road 17 Delay in implementation of this technical component of the project was due to a lengthy assessment process, which took five months to identify the most appropriate technology in consultation with community beneficiaries. Once clay pottery containers were selected, another extended period of time was required to set up training workshops for local potters (primarily pygmies) to train others. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 37 maintenance. The issues surrounding longer term sustainability, self-reliance, and the motivation of local communities to maintain or improve local infrastructure (canals, roads, etc.) may be called into question. Certainly instability in the region has been a key factor hindering community efforts at maintenance and improvement of local infrastructure. The quandary of road maintenance will be addressed in some detail further below. Monitoring Indicator 5 As noted above, FFW is a key instrument employed to catalyze local participation in most components of JENGA. These include shelter construction, seed and harvest protection, irrigation canal and road repair, and tree nurseries and tree planting. FFW targets have been reached in all areas except roads, tree nurseries, and agro-forestry. Final numbers of beneficiaries receiving FFW should be attained in all categories by the LOP. To date, tree planting has not been as strongly emphasized as it could be, particularly given the current state of severe deforestation that is taking place in both regions. While FFW may be used to prompt participation in the project components noted above, it may be most appropriate as an incentivizing instrument in the current short term emergency relief context, whereas longer term support of improved agricultural methods, environmental stewardship, infrastructural development, etc, may require more enduring solutions beyond FFW. Analysis of IR3 Activities and Output Indicators IR 3: Improved market linkages Output 3.1: Value Chain Analysis study conducted Output 3.2: Formation of farmers associations Output 3.3: Lead seed producers identified and trained Output 3.4: Market information shared by radio programs Output 3.5: Storage facilities rehabilitated/constructed Output 3.6: Feeder roads rehabilitated IR 3 entails six outputs, with several activities carried out under each one. The key achievements and challenges are discussed under each output, taking into account project performance based on the achievement of target indicators to date. A contextual discussion of each output and the activities carried out is presented, highlighting both strengths (achievements) and weaknesses (challenges) associated with each output. Output 3.1: Value Chain Analysis Study Table 16: Achievement of Output 3.1 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 3.1; Value Chain Analysis study conducted Conduct Value Chain Analysis # of Value Chain Analysis Studies conducted 1 1 100% ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 38 Achievements A value chain study was conducted by the Catholic University of Bukavu in October 2009, and presented to JENGA in November. The report identifies key cash crops (manioc, peanuts, maize, rice, sweet potatoes) but is weak in elaborating any elements of value addition or processing of these crops. In general, the analysis is theoretical in nature, with little emphasis on the practical transformation of crops that can bring greater economic returns to local farmers and producers. Challenges A value chain approach and development of smallholder production that integrates farmers into higher value markets takes significant time to develop, as well as a substantial investment of financial resources and training to develop the human resource capacity of JENGA staff. Normally, introduction of a market oriented approach to smallholder production necessitates a critical mass of well trained specialists in business development services (BDS), micro-enterprise development, and firm grounding in the methods of value chain analysis and sub-sector mapping. Thus, any realistic application and benefit to be derived from a value chain approach does not appear to be well integrated and articulated in the JENGA project documentation as it presently stands. Furthermore, development of such an approach with the remaining time left for project implementation is not sufficient to achieve any major objectives at this late stage. Therefore, a pro-poor market orientation that moves communities from a relief to development continuum should be well thought out and integrated into a second phase of JENGA program development. Output 3.2: Formation of Farmer Associations Table 17: Achievement of Output 3.2 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 3.2: Formation of farmers associations Identify/Form Farmers Associations in communities # of Farmers Associations Identified 75 88 117.3% Train Farmers’ Associations in production, commercialization # of training sessions conducted 75 88 117.3% Achievements JENGA aims to link farmers to markets by first organizing village associations that can begin to engage in micro-enterprise income earning activities such as processing of crops, small animal husbandry, and micro-credit lending. Many of these associations are an extension of the FFS members organized by the Community Development Committees (CDCs). To date, the project has held organizational sessions for 88 associations. A series of two-day training sessions was recently held from 7-25 June 2010 at 5 village sites in Fizi for 33 farm associations, and for 55 associations in Uvira. Farmer groups were trained in the following topics:  Organization and administration of farmer associations  Financial management and accounting  Value chain analysis and commercial processing of agricultural commodities ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 39  Application of organic fertilizers for soil fertility maintenance Challenges It appears that support for training and the mobilization of farmer associations to engage in market-oriented activities have received low priority in the project in relation to other activities. The formation of local associations comes late in the project life cycle, and there has been little emphasis to date on commercialization or a micro-enterprise orientation in field activities. This may be due in part to the weakness of the value chain study carried out, and modest staff capacity in the small enterprise and BDS sector. Due to the nature of MYAP programming which emphasizes food security in a post-conflict or emergency relief setting, the paucity of activity in pro-poor market development may not be a major limitation for JENGA. Scaling up of micro￾enterprise activities in a follow on phase of JENGA would be a logical extension of current programming to build upon. Beneficiaries in the FFS groups interviewed have begun to organize spontaneously in several communities to carry out small-scale cooperative activities in livestock production, rotating micro-credit, and other entrepreneurial activities. Output 3.3: Seed Producers Identified and Trained Table 18: Achievement of Output 3.3 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 3.3: Lead seed producers identified and trained Identify lead seed producers # of lead seed producers identified 100 45 45.0% Provide seeds and tools to lead seed producers # of producers provided 83 29 34.9% Train lead seed producers (refresher training in Years 2 & 3) # of lead seed producers trained 83 45 53.0% Achievements In order to assure the availability of quality seed for area farmers, JENGA has identified and trained 8 individuals and 37 farm associations in the propagation of mosaic-resistant cassava, peanuts, beans, and sweet potatoes. These producers are to be certified by SENASEM as quality producers of cassava cuttings for local sales and distribution. 35 producers (5 independent farmers, 30 farm associations) have been trained in the Uvira region, and 2 producers and 8 farm associations trained in Fizi. Training of seed producer associations was held by the provincial coordinator for SENASEM in April and July 2010. Challenges The individuals and associations identified and trained to become seed producers by JENGA must first be certified by SENASEM in order to have authorization to sell quality seed to officially recognized institutions including NGOs, government ministries, and international donors. JENGA ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 40 recently learned that SENASEM requires a $40/ha fee in order to certify seed producers. This cost was never anticipated in the project budget. Project management is now in negotiations with SENASEM over the certification process and the mandated costs. This unanticipated problem is now impeding the sale and distribution of seed on a large scale by the producers trained by JENGA. It is difficult to know whether or not JENGA staff could have anticipated this problem in advance. This problem will require resolution in the near future if the project is to achieve broader availability and public access to improved seed that has a guarantee of quality assurance by the local government authority responsible for seed distribution, SENASEM. Output 3.4: Market Information Shared by Radio Programs Table 19: Achievement of Output 1.4 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 3.4: Market information shared by radio programs Radio programs produced # of programs produced 42 30 71.4% Radio programs aired # of program airings 84 60 71.4% Achievements In order to improve access to markets by local producers, JENGA has introduced the weekly transmission of prices for major agricultural commodities (including livestock) on local radio stations. Since June 2010, market prices have been collected in 17 communities for airing on four radio stations - two in Fizi, one in Uvira, and one in Bukavu. Three of the four stations (excluding Uvira) are local community-based radio. The project provides a modest stipend to support village agents who collect market data on a weekly basis, which is sent to JENGA headquarters to be prepared for radio transmission. The MOA also tracks data in the two largest urban markets of Uvira under a program funded by the FAO. This information is transmitted in Bukavu, but is not diffused by local radio in Uvira or Fizi. An estimated 85% of project villages are able to access JENGA radio transmissions on local commodity prices. A total of 30 programs have been produced, and 60 have been aired to date. JENGA has provided a valuable source of market information that appears to be well appreciated by project beneficiaries, as no other radio programs covering market prices exist locally. JENGA staff note that some non-beneficiaries in the participating villages have indicated that they listen to the radio programs and have benefited from the market information. It is anticipated that the local CARG will assume market data collection and the broadcasting of prices after the LOP. Challenges The number of farmers with radios is limited, thus the project provides radios that can be shared among FFS members. Due to market distance, poor roads, and transport costs, it is not clear that project beneficiaries have the capacity to access markets to sell their crops or take advantage of higher crop prices based on market location. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 41 Output 3.5: Storage Facilities Rehabilitated Table 20: Achievement of Output 3.5 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 3.5: Storage facilities rehabilitated/constructed Conduct a diagnostic study on storage techniques # of studies conducted 1 1 100% Train farmers in improved storage techniques and post harvest handling # of farmers trained 6,000 3,000 50% Construction of storage facilities by target farmers # farmers with completed structures 5,400 890 16.5% Provide basic inputs (cord) for construction of storage facilities # farmers provided basic inputs 5,400 890 16.5% Achievements The project identified post-harvest crop loss due to insect infestation, animal predation, and theft as a significant problem requiring improved crop storage technology to reduce crop losses and protection of seed for field sowing. Therefore, JENGA staff conducted a diagnostic study on customary storage methods to determine which methods would be most preferred and acceptable to project beneficiaries. Farmers have ongoing problems with the theft of crops from their fields, and therefore expressed their desire not to have storage granaries far from their compounds. Instead they prefer to have smaller containers that they can store in their homes or shelters, such as clay pots or burlap sacks that are hung from ceilings. They identified locally clay fired pots traditionally made by pygmies in the region as the preferred technology. The project identified local pottery makers at 10 production sites (6 in Uvira, 4 in Fizi) and began production in July 2010. A total of 890 clay pots have now been produced and distributed at no cost to beneficiaries. The pots cost approximately $US 10 and are transported on very poor roads to the project sites. As a means of improving post-harvest protection against insects, beneficiaries have been trained and advised by JENGA field agents to employ local indigenous ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 42 methods of biological control to protect harvested seed, such as the covering of seed in the containers with hot pepper, tobacco, or a local plant that is toxic to fish. Challenges While the technology employed for crop storage builds upon local indigenous practice, there is some evidence of breakage of clay pots during transport. In one community interviewed, 20 of the 30 beneficiaries did not receive storage pots due to breakage of the pots en route from the production sites. JENGA aims to scale up the distribution of the pots in the remaining months of the project. Therefore, staff will need to closely monitor the percentage of broken pots to assess the utility and practicality of diffusing such storage technology in the future. This component of the project has been launched relatively late in the project and it is not yet clear whether or not first year beneficiaries will receive storage pots this late in the project. Output 3.6: Feeder Roads Rehabilitated Table 21: Achievement of Output 3.6 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 3.6: Feeder roads rehabilitated Identify most appropriate places for road rehabilitation # of roads sections identified 20 20 100% Provide basic tools for road rehabilitation to communities # of tool sets provided 20 20 100% Construct feeder roads through FFW # km of feeder roads 30 27 90% Train people on maintenance of roads # people trained 40 20 50% Achievements JENGA seeks to improve market access through FFW activities that support community-based road repair. Roads are notably in poor condition and experience continual deterioration due to extended rains and very strong sheet runoff from the mountains that frequently washes out both the main road from Uvira to Fizi and secondary roads between villages. Basic implements such as picks, axes, shovels, rakes, and hoes are provided along with a FFW food ration18 Road rehabilitation activities began in November 2009, and the project has supported a total of 27 km of repaired road to date (17 km in Fizi, 10 km in Uvira). Roads and groups chosen were determined in consultation with the MOA that has prioritized which roads are in need of most 18 FFW rations for road rehabilitation support a 50 day labor contract covering a two-month period. Participants in one community interviewed received 50 kg of maize flour, 3 liters of oil, and 5.25 kg of peas for 25 days of labor (x2). ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 43 repair. A total of 270 beneficiaries have participated in the FFW road rehabilitation program to date. Challenges As earlier discussion on canal maintenance has noted, basic infrastructure such as roads and canals require ongoing maintenance and heavy physical labor, particularly in light of the nature of a prolonged rainy season and high rainfall in the region. While it is recognized that FFW may serve as an appropriate instrument to support short term interventions such as the repair and improvement of local infrastructure, the longer term engagement of local communities in the maintenance of roads and canals must be more thoroughly examined if more sustainable approaches to local community development are to be encouraged by external donor aid. Intermediate Result 4 – Improved Soil Fertility Practices Relevance and Effectiveness of IR4 Project Performance Indicators Three performance indicators from the project IPTT are used to gauge the overall impact and effectiveness of the activities under IR#4. The indicators chosen for monitoring represent the main aspects of soil fertility enhancement and tree planting. Table 22: Achievement of IR4 Project performance indicators Indicator Baseline Target Achieved (Sept 30, 2010) Percent M F Total Achieved MI 1: Percentage of beneficiaries (individual farmers) who adopted soil fertility practices19 44% 60% 45.4% 49.2% 47.3% 78.8% MI 2: Number of tree nurseries developed 0 6 6 100% MI 3: Number of trees planted Moringa oleifera 0 6,500 7,227 111.2% Citrus 0 16,500 18,763 113.7% Others (Cassia Siamea, Spectabilis, Calliandra etc) 0 - 10,134 - Monitoring Indicator 1 This is a standard Food for Peace indicator, and can reflect adoption of any of a number of practices of soil management and conservation promoted by the project. At 79% of farmer beneficiaries, the project has surpassed the target of 60%, and could fairly easily increase that percentage as well as increase the number of good practices that each farmer is using. After the widespread deforestation and soil deterioration exacerbated by the movement of various military groups through the area, and the growing population in the project areas, it will be crucial to elevate the practices of participants as much as possible, in the hope of influencing the broader population as well. Monitoring Indicator 2 Six nurseries were established by the project across the two territories, partly on the strength of food-for-work to the associations involved. In one sense, the target was fairly modest if it was possible to pay people to set up the small nurseries, but field inspections and FGDs conducted 19 FFP Required Indicator ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 44 for this evaluation confirmed that the nurseries were set up by reasonably serious associations which had some track record and motivation to sustain themselves. Still, it would be informative for the project to report on the status of the nurseries at the end of the project, as to whether they had been sustained at least up to that time. Monitoring Indicator 3 The number of trees that were reported as being planted by project participants far exceeded the targets that were set, in the specific species planned for by the project, but especially in other species which took off independently. Given the apparent success in actual plantings, the project could focus on strengthening and sustaining the nurseries and other groups involved in planting trees within the communities. Output 4.1: Improved soil fertility practices Table 23: Achievement of Output 4.1 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 4.1 Farmers trained on soil conservation practices Provide sets of training materials (posters, pamphlets) # of sets of training materials 100 100 100% Provide training on soil conservation practices to farmer field schools # of field schools trained 100 100 100% Train farmers in soil conservation techniques: terracing, gully control, contour lines, ditches to capture water, composting, biols, use of level A # of farmers trained 1,500 3000 200% Achievements This output is essentially implemented as part of the work with FFSs dealt with under IR#2. JENGA was able to provide materials and training to 100 FFSs, and train 3000 farmers in practices that would facilitate improved soil fertility. Obviously this is a laudable achievement of goals, especially in that it has been reached well before the completion of the project. During FGDs, participants rarely would bring up soil conservation or tree planting on their own, emphasizing instead the impacts and changes in terms of agricultural production. When asked about how they conserved soil, a number of participants exhibited awareness of and application of practices such as soil turning, mulching, crop rotation, terracing, contour planting, and composting. Most of these are the targeted practices expected under this output, but other soil management practices such as mulching and soil turning are equally important to enriching nutrient balance and enhancing soil structure. These also seem to be naturally blended in people’s minds with the key agriculture techniques frequently mentioned, which included planting in lines, separating and spacing crops. The project reports that other soil management methods were implemented, such as erosion control, ravine control, infiltration ditches, land leveling, riverbed control, though it was not possible to confirm their existence in the field. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 45 Challenges This activity could have had an impact on the practices of all FFS members, but as this was a limited percentage of households in the community, it may be difficult to detect an impact through the population-based quantitative survey. This survey showed that 54% of households are practicing green manure currently as opposed to 41% in the baseline, while a smaller percentage of households are practicing other soil conservation techniques including tree planting, terracing, composting and fertilizer use have decreased since the baseline survey. It is worth having a second look at the targets and results for this activity. It seems curious that rounded-off or approximate targets were set for this, when it might have been possible to provide a set of training materials to every FFS. Likewise, the target for farmers trained could have been set for at least two-thirds of the members of FFS, but the target seems to be an estimate. Also, Monitoring Indicator #1 should be directly related to those farmers trained under FFS; the latter number should be taken as not less than 4350 which is the number who received improved seeds. If those FFS participants trained in soil conservation techniques were 3000, this would represent 69% of trained farmers. Yet MI#1 shows that 79% of farmers were practicing the techniques. If it is the case that the application of the soil management practices exceeds the training provided by JENGA, then this should be disclosed in reporting rather than leaving readers to form an impression that the achievement of MI#1 can be attributed to the project. Project participants tend to overlook conservation in favor of production, which is common in situations where food security is very severe. Still, the degree of penetration of concepts could be considerably greater, because it seems that many farmers don’t realize that managing and conserving soil fertility has immediate as well as long-term productivity effects. As one community member stated, not many people understand that planting leguminous trees fertilizes the soil. Another challenge worth mentioning in this connection was that of understanding the ingredients which had led to learning and the adoption of practices, so that it could be reported on and also replicated. In some communities, there were several influences on participants’ awareness of soil management and other environmentally-related subjects, including different components of JENGA as well as other projects. In communities where the nurseries were established there was a higher degree of knowledge shown, suggesting that the tree planting activity was potentially important in fostering learning about the environment. Inevitably, other projects in some of the same communities had raised awareness. The interaction of JENGA’s work in improving soil fertility and planting trees still seems unclear, which could impede progress in building on the experience. Output 4.2: Tree planting Table 24: Achievement of Output 4.2 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 4.2 Trees planted for reforestation purposes Develop tree nurseries # of tree nurseries 6 6 100% Plant trees for reforestation purposes # of trees planted 23,000 36,124 157% ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 46 Achievements Tree planting is often not prominently featured in food security programs, yet the context of rapid deforestation in Eastern Congo provides a clear justification for this component. As discussed above, JENGA has already well-exceeded its targets for tree planting. This is no mean feat, because some of the nurseries have faced setbacks such as fire and movement of rebel groups. JENGA did not take an approach of pushing people to take trees to plant, but rather provided information and only gave people trees when it was clear that they were interested. The project has thus fulfilled the literal meaning of the indicator, but to fulfill the spirit of the indicator may require more time. Considerable thought went into selecting locations for nurseries that could be maintained easily and would facilitate distribution of seedlings among the target communities. Training for nursery management was provided by officers of the Territory Environment Service, who receive a small allowance from JENGA for this. Most nurseries were run by local associations – generally community-based organizations (CBOs) or NGOs based in several communities – which show some signs of independent capacity and sustainability. In Katanga (Fizi Territory), the association ADA had to relocate the nursery after a fire, and they reportedly gathered donations for seeds and bags. The association also operates a plantation. In Ake (Fizi), the association was holding regular meetings with the assistance of the chief and effectively raising awareness amidst a wide portion of the community. This raises an important point about the tree planting activity, that it benefited a broad range of people in the target communities, more so than the FFS which was an intensive process with a limited number of participants. Trees were made available to anyone and the information disseminated through all possible channels, and while this particularly was witnessed in communities with nurseries and local associations working specifically on tree planting, in principle the opportunity was offered to all other JENGA communities. During FGDs, it was confirmed that dissemination of knowledge was taking place from those centrally involved to others in the community, at least in communities with nurseries. Developing a consciousness of the importance of planting trees sets a powerful precedent for future applications in individual farms and communal lands. Challenges Within the scope of the tree planting intervention as defined in the project document, JENGA has largely met its objectives. While the monitoring and activities targets all show a satisfactory level of performance, however, there are several questions which should be raised - about the species promoted, about what the indicator shows, and about sustainability and institutionalization. Moringa is a species emphasized in the project document which has many worthy features, particularly in terms of direct food security impacts. According to project records and staff comments, it has been widely promoted. Nonetheless, moringa was not mentioned as one of the species promoted, and in two nurseries visited it was not present. Most participants talked of other species like cassia, calliandra, leucaena, cedrela, acacia, and citrus to some extent (which was the second genus emphasized in the project document). If other species have a considerable demand, it is desirable that the project supports that, but there should also be more visibility to moringa even if villagers are still taking time to get used to it. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 47 In terms of the indicators, it is one thing to report that trees have been produced in nurseries, but it is important to confirm whether they have been received by community members to be planted, whether they were actually planted and if they then survived for more than half a year. It is not clear from the M&E system documentation exactly how this indicator is measured, but it would be optimal to ensure that the indicator measures an output rather than an activity. As mentioned above, the local associations running the nurseries show some positive signs of independent initiative, but it is always worth asking if the activity would continue if the food-for￾work was not present. There was not a specific exit strategy or business plan which provided a vision of sustainability of the nursery operations. There seems to have been some discussion of the possibilities of charging for trees, but in order to stimulate demand for such a service, there should have ideally been a more far-reaching program of sensitization of the communities about reforestation. The community outreach to promote reforestation is mainly done by the JENGA field agents, with a limited expectation of awareness-raising by the FFS members. The other question about sustainability is in technical support to community groups operating nurseries. The Environment Service is in a good position to work with such community groups, and indeed these groups would probably be expected to help the government to achieve its own goals, but there is a question mark over their motivation to do so. A stronger buy-in would be needed by this department, to help sustain community groups, but also to address issues that go beyond the scope of the community, and this was a major concern raised in terms of current practices of bush-burning which often destroy newly-planted trees. Again, tree planting on the scale required to address current deforestation trends may also need to consider land tenure issues for individual farm plots, communal plantations and agropastoral applications. Thus tree planting and land tenure are two agenda which should be jointly promoted with the territorial administration. Output 4.3: Agroforestry Techniques Table 25: Achievement of Output 4.3 indicators Output Activity Process Indicator Target Achieved Sept 30 2010 Percent Achieved Output 4.3 Farmers utilize agro-forestry techniques Develop pilot plots for agro-forestry among farmer field schools # pilot plots established 6 6 100% Train farmers in agro-forestry through farmer field schools # farmers trained 0 0 - The project reports that while the pilot plots have been established, with three in each territory, the training is scheduled to take place during the final nine months of the project. In reality, the activity has begun through the reforestation, soil management and agriculture training work. Among some participants, there is already a good awareness of the nitrogen-fixing benefits of leguminous trees and utility of trees in combating erosion. However, other applications are less known, such as mixed cropping and trees for animal fodder. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 48 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overall, the JENGA project has achieved or surpassed many of the target indicators in the IPTT and DIP documents. Qualitative interviews in approximately 20 percent of the beneficiary communities confirm that food security of many of the most vulnerable segments of the population has improved, largely due to the introduction of mosaic-resistant cassava, which is significantly boosting crop yields and being adopted universally throughout the region. The project has introduced improved farming techniques that are gaining hold and slowly changing the way in which land management and environmental stewardship is perceived, as beneficiaries increasingly recognize the advantages of adopting more sustainable natural resource practices that avoid the customary practice of extensive field clearing by means of bush fires. Recommendations The following recommendations seek to provide some guidance to the program in the final months of JENGA, to consolidate gains, document experiences, build partnerships, extend benefits wherever feasible, and help prepare an exit strategy. Many of the recommendations pertain to future programming of ADRA, Africare or other development actors, either in the context of possible follow-on projects in DRC or in other global applications. Resettling and Rebuilding Community Structures (IR 1) Community Development Committees In order to consolidate CDCs in the context of the advances and assets built up during the project, some follow-up training would be helpful, to cover issues like participatory planning, project management, and financial management. The CDCs could be sorted by staff in terms of categories of needs and potentials for independence. Outstanding CDCs which have already shown their capacity to instigate their own initiatives could be selected for some additional support, to help them make more progress in project areas that are currently in need of more work (such as early warning systems or the home administration meetings) and also in the hope that they may be able to sustain themselves after the project. The relationships between CDCs and traditional authorities, government agents and other CBOs and NGOs should be clarified, and potential synergies should be built upon. It may be possible that CDCs are in a position to help sustain community assets developed by other NGOs such as water supply, while other organizations can help consolidate gender learning with JENGA participants. Future projects should take the same issues into account, and plan the project appraisal, baseline and start-up with more emphasis on local institutional capacity-building and coordination with the work of other NGOs. More participatory planning of interventions can be incorporated into food security programs, so that in addition to standard components like agriculture, housing or health and nutrition, the project can maintain flexibility to support smaller interventions as identified by the community. Targeting procedures for beneficiaries should be strengthened in future projects by starting with procedures for identifying committees to prevent bias against any community sub-groups. It would be preferable to have written guidelines for how to conduct start-up meetings and elections to ensure this representativeness; clear procedures could also help establish the institutions on a foundation of genuine participation. Selection of beneficiaries also should use ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 49 wealth categories or other simple and participatory forms of means-testing to provide a more objective basis for selection. Early Warning Systems The early warning system could be consolidated and documented in the 11 communities selected, to strengthen their potential sustainability and provide a more cogent model with which to leverage the support of other actors. It may be possible to disseminate this pilot experience to other communities without an inordinate investment of resources by JENGA, especially to communities identified as having more current capacity for independence. Since early warning needs to be considered with communities in their regional and national context, some effort should be given to linking these communities to other levels as outlined in the project document. There also was analysis of priority shocks and trigger indicators given in the project document, and it would be useful to update this with the pilot communities and complete it. Shocks like social unrest or conflicts would be an appropriate theme to explore, partly because – as observed during the evaluation – these problems are still present in the region. Shelter/Housing Construction The construction of shelters or houses in JENGA has been basically completed, and the main issue that remains for JENGA is to review the security of titles that beneficiaries have for the houses (see below). In terms of drawing lessons to inform future projects, the following are some questions to include for housing assessments, and suggestions of the general directions for answering them:  How to reduce cost per beneficiary, in terms of project outlay, by encouraging a more self￾help and step-wise construction process  What building materials can be used which are more locally-available, that stimulate local industries and micro-enterprises and can more readily be used by future self-help builders  How to use the project to strengthen community management capacities to grapple with challenges like land tenure  How to design the houses (and construction process) to optimize the building of capacity and a sense of local ownership, possibly allowing for more flexible designs  How to create self-perpetuating mechanisms to support housing improvement, by fostering the participation of private sector development in building and potentially in financing  How to promote the home as a multi-use socio-economic centre, such as by incorporating home-based agriculture and other income-generating activities, rain water collection, and other uses  How to consolidate local capacities to mitigate negative impacts on the environment in construction Through such analysis, the current housing approach could be adapted to have a more comprehensive impact in future applications. At the same time, future design decisions should also include whether to include housing at all, or to favor project components which more directly align with food security indicators, such as health, nutrition, water and sanitation. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 50 Land Tenure In order to address the uncertainty in this area, JENGA could focus on the following areas, roughly in the order of increasing effort required:  Invest some degree of attention to studying and documenting the current situation and the prospects for the poor in obtaining land for productive and domestic use; a major focus would be on private land, but there is also a need for attention to communal land management especially for grazing and reforestation  Hold a workshop or at least some strategically-chosen meetings with other stakeholders for mutual learning and to contribute to an overall network of support for land tenure  Assure advances in asset titling (housing, farms) which have been achieved so far, increase awareness of tenure issues and how they may affect the poor, in an attempt to minimize any possibility of powerful actors finding a way to gain control in the future  Make additional efforts to secure land for its marginalized participants, especially those currently paying to lease land, within the boundaries of the current operating environment  Identify possible strategies for lobbying to enhance legislation and practice, which could be followed up in future projects It is recognized that JENGA has limited time and resources to fully develop this line of activity in the final months, but the project (and ADRA and Africare) have gained considerable credibility in the region, and they can at least take a step forward and pass on the baton to other organizations for future work. Regarding the question of paying for titling of land for houses, JENGA should negotiate with the government to reach some agreement, to stay within the law (however contradictory) and minimize risks to the assets developed. USAID should be closely consulted with in this regard, and if necessary an adjustment to the budget may be required, as this was an unanticipated and significant expense. Gender and Peace Building – Home Administration Meetings and Radio The current program has some strong elements which can be built on to strengthen this component, including the placement of women in current community institutions and activities, the radio program, JENGA’s credibility with government and other actors, and its simultaneous concern with land tenure and other gender-related issues. There is still time to use these project capacities to increase the gender and peace building impact, particularly with a more intensive and extensive gender focus. It should be intensive in terms of trying to having a more measurable and concerted influence on GBV, and extensive in terms of understanding the broad nature of gender challenges and how GBV is intertwined with other gender concerns. While the commitments in the JENGA contract are still the priority, a quick-and-dirty rethinking of JENGA’s approach could help fulfill the aspirations expressed in the project document and USAID requirements, while helping ADRA and Africare gear up for possible future programming in the ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 51 DRC. The conception of gender equity embodied in the DRC Food Security Country Framework20 could provide valuable pointers. Training and networking on gender equity should be prioritized for the remaining months of JENGA, to help the radio team to continue the excellent work they have begun, and to gain ideas for re-launching the home administration meetings. Linking with local NGOs and international agencies with gender expertise may be an affordable and rapid way of adding gender capacity while also facilitating linkages of community groups to other local actors. Particular responsibility should be given to the radio team as well as one or two more senior staff, but ideally the field agents should be given a framework to facilitate meaningful discussions with FFS participants and others on gender equity. While attitudes related to gender relations can take many years to change, the project could deliver several key messages and encourage examples of “positive deviance”. The project could help CDCs and other participants to engage in a dialogue among men and women, about how the project benefits can be shared equitably and how women and men can both strengthen their development roles in the future. In this context, the land tenure issues could also be discussed, and the aim should be to generate a greater shared understanding of how these issues should be addressed in the future. Finally, for possible future projects, a health and nutrition component would greatly help maximize food security impacts in a development context, and gender equality promotion could naturally be incorporated here. The PD-Hearth model of community nutrition promotion may be appropriate to this setting, in promoting use of locally-available foods and recognizing valid examples. Improved Agriculture and Market Linkages (IR 2 & 3) The current phase of MYAP programming has directly focused on improving food security and building resilience among the most vulnerable – female headed households and others repatriated in the region after years of prolonged civil conflict. A new round of MYAP programming will need to continue to expand social safety nets among the most food insecure by boosting agricultural productivity and fostering initiatives to improve village infrastructure through the use of FFW activities. However, a more multifaceted and hybridized model of food security should now be introduced that begins to move the beneficiary population from their current state of post-conflict relief and recovery, to one of graduated asset accumulation based on promotion of pro-poor market development principles and the introduction of micro￾enterprise activities that boost family income. In the context of weak markets and ongoing instability in the region, some risks are inherent in such an approach. Nonetheless, communities benefiting from JENGA interventions at present have already begun to demonstrate entrepreneurial initiative by spawning nascent, market-oriented cooperative activities within both formal and informal local associational structures. Thus, these spontaneous initiatives need to be strengthened and reinforced through capacity building activities that move participants in small, well-designed increments through the relief to development continuum. 20 This is a guidance document to be used in preparing proposals for Title II programming. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/fy11.drc.fscf.pdf. Accessed 10 November 2010. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 52 A number of recommendations below are presented in a two track model, and are intended to assist JENGA management in preparation for a new phase of MYAP program design that builds upon the strengths of current project initiatives, while phasing in new activities that graduate beneficiaries from basic needs requirements in food and shelter, to participation in individual or collective income generating activities that enable communities to build assets and move toward a path of greater self-reliance. Both tracks would be implemented simultaneously, with Track One emphasizing a scaling up and expanding of the numbers of new beneficiaries, while Track 2 would build upon the momentum of current project beneficiaries by beginning to introduce new training activities with a smallholder market development focus. Track 1 activities would emphasize the recommendations presented above along with additional proposed activities to be introduced or strengthened under IRs 2 and 3 below. Track 1 – Program Relief and Recovery 1. Strengthen Food Production Capacity JENGA should continue to emphasize stabilization and strengthening of food production capacity, primarily through the adoption of mosaic-resistant cassava which has been a highly effective intervention through diffusion of the FFS model. Problem have arisen with the distribution of improved peanut seed through certified seed producers sub-contracted by the project. JENGA needs to work more closely with SENASEM and the MOA to monitor seed quality control and assure that quality improved seed, particularly the new peanut variety (JL24) is not mixed with inferior seed during the vending and distribution process to the FFSs. It also appears that the project has placed little emphasis on promoting and distributing more high quality maize and beans. A thorough review of the tender process and distribution of higher yielding varieties of maize and beans should be given more careful attention in the remaining months of the project and in any new phase of MYAP program activity. 2. Improve Technical Capacity of JENGA Staff A number of issues surround the quality and content of technical training of JENGA staff which can be improved and strengthened in the current MYAP as well as any future programming. Recommendations to strengthen the extension and outreach training capacity of the staff include:  Emphasize more focused, improved technical training of program staff in multiple areas of activity including GBV and HIV/AIDS, agriculture, small animal husbandry, micro-credit and micro-enterprise development, etc. Also, build in more time for in-service learning and upgrading of current technical skills among staff.  Provide more intensive and timely training that more closely coincides with activity implementation in the project calendar (ie, build staff capacity in a more intensive and concentrated fashion so that activities can be introduced in a more integrated and well synchronized fashion; some activities now being introduced or accelerated very late in the project cycle); some communities lost at least one full crop season due to delays in project implementation or the unavailability of JENGA staff to begin training activities. Introduce more reflexive learning among project staff that allows more time for periodic sharing of lessons learned and best practices which in turn can be used for more adaptive management and feedback into program design, analysis, and review. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 53 3. Improve Timing and Sequencing of Beneficiary Training Problems have been identified with the timing and sequencing of training of JENGA staff in the analysis of IR 2 outputs and activities above. If possible, JENGA should employ larger numbers of field agents in a future MYAP so that on-farm training can be delivered in a more concentrated and timely manner, particularly during periods of peak labor demand, such as onset of the rainy season21. At this late stage of the project, bringing on new staff may not be feasible given the constraints of budget and time to acclimate new personnel in the final exit phase of project activities. 4. Strengthen Program Harmonization and Coordination with Partners It appears that the project could improve the level of coordination, communication, and sharing of lessons learned with other key stakeholders and partners in the program. Therefore, JENGA could organize quarterly or semi-annual round tables or coordination meetings with partners (MOA, NGOs, etc.) to review progress to date, share knowledge and best practices, and to document project multiplier effects (adoption of practice by non-beneficiaries outside project area, etc.). This information could then be better integrated into the radio programming and communications public outreach component of the project. 5. Pilot Social Transfer Modalities in Cash and Voucher Programming While the project has built expertise in the distribution of direct food aid through the FFW mechanism, female beneficiaries in FGDs frequently commented on their desire to receive cash rather than food in order to better access a more diverse array of products and services, particularly in health and education, beyond the immediate food security needs of their families. Therefore, the project should explore the possibility of conducting a market study to assess the feasibility of introducing new pilot social transfer modalities, such as Cash for Work or voucher activities, such as seed fairs, etc, on a limited basis. These activities could be scaled up in the future, based on the cost effectiveness and performance of these pilot interventions. Conduct a market study to assess the feasibility of introduction of Cash for Work activities, seed fair vouchers, etc, on a limited basis Track 2 – Asset Accumulation and Pro-Poor Market Development 1. Transition from Service Provision to Market Facilitation In a new phase of MYAP programming, JENGA should hire specialists (ideally a minimum of two) with expertise in pro-poor market development and technical skills in value chain analysis, sub￾sector mapping, Business Development Services, micro-credit, etc, who can train and transition staff from the role of direct service provision under the current humanitarian relief model to one of facilitation in a sustainable pro-poor smallholder market development model (see Appendix V). 21 Note here, however, that in order to achieve scale up of numbers of beneficiaries and communities reached, increased numbers of JENGA staff should be trained to serve more in a facilitation role, training and monitoring the work of lead farmers, rather than a direct service provision role, described further below in the Track 2 section. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 54 2. Transform the FFS Model and Farmer Associations into Micro-Enterprise Farm Units JENGA should build upon current momentum gained with existing the FFS/CDC and farm association structures created by the project to phase in introduction of income generating activities to be spread by these local institutional structures. Examples include:  Housing construction and materials – promote small-scale brick making and roofing cottage industries that make use of environmentally friendly technologies (stabilized earth brick, alternative roofing materials) to help slow down rates of deforestation for brick making, etc.  Train local ‘barefoot’ masons and carpenters in the local FFS/farm associations who can market their new skills, or carry out labor for in-kind exchanges (bartering).  Small-scale animal husbandry – introduce micro-scale household animal husbandry systems involving intensive fattening of goats, ducks, chickens, guinea fowl, etc (eg, reference animal husbandry models of Heifer International).  Micro-credit lending – introduce group rotating micro lending from revenues generated from the above activities. 3. Develop Household-Level Micro-Enterprise Garden Production Units The project could introduce rainwater harvesting storage systems using the new shelter roofs to create micro multi-use water systems for potable water supply, intensive household drip irrigation garden systems22, and fruit tree planting around the shelter compounds. Small scale animal husbandry, including methods of intensive dairy production (goats) and livestock fattening would provide a rich source of manure for composting of horticultural gardens23. Such systems could be organized as clusters and shared among several families if located within close proximity of one another. Adopting more intensive forms of household-based garden and livestock production systems may help relieve some pressure of security risks for women who must walk long distances alone to their fields. Initial project subsidies combined with group lending of micro-credit and the sale of garden produce and animals can help pay for the start up cost of such systems. 4. Create Linkage of Micro-Enterprise Service Providers through Agricultural Value Chains JENGA should build upon initial work in establishing seed producers (individuals and associations) by linking these providers to project lead farmers (as well as non-beneficiaries) to assure access to quality seed. The project should scale up the FFS model by training community￾based lead farmers in a TOT model to organize small FFS producer groups. Lead farmers should 22 See work on affordable micro-irrigation drip technology and household garden kits, low cost water storage technology, and water conveyance systems at www.ideorg.org (International Development Enterprises). 23 Again, Heifer International provides a small-scale intensive dairy and livestock production model involving the use of micro-credit and the loaning of animals that is based around the immediate vicinity of the compound and provides rapid scale-up in asset accumulation of both livestock and income. Small ruminants (goats), chickens, and ducks would be appropriate animals to introduce with such a model. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 55 function as service providers at the village level and assume the role of project field agents, providing agronomic training (agro-vets), inputs (seed), market information, and improved linkages to markets. The role of project field agents shifts from one of direct service provision to one of facilitating quality control, technical support, and monitoring of the lead farmers. This role could also be assumed by MOA agents with JENGA training and support. The project could initially pay for the services of the lead farmer, with gradual phasing out of project subsidies and costs slowly being absorbed by farmer associations organized under the FFS model. Enhancing Soil Management and Promoting Tree Planting (IR 4) The main numerical targets have been reached in this IR, but JENGA could focus on documenting and analyzing where the soil fertility and tree planting has been most successful, enhancing the degree of application of desired practices, and increasing the sustainability of processes to extend the benefits. A short operational survey could be carried out by field agents in conjunction with M&E staff to assess where knowledge and practice of soil fertility practices are higher, and determine what combination of causes were present, including the possible impact of tree planting initiatives or other projects in the area. Through this analysis, the staff and partners could generate some simple documentation to share more widely, but also it can serve to refocus efforts in the final months to help increase the buy-in of conservation-oriented agriculture and land use methods. The tree planting component of JENGA can be intensified in the final months, and its sustainability especially can be augmented by taking several steps. First, in the context of the preparation of exit strategies, the Territorial Environmental Service and Ministry of Agriculture should be engaged to jointly assess the feasibility of future continuation and extension of community-based tree planting efforts. Ideally a task force could be formed to analyze the work done so far, for example monitoring how trees have been planted and their survival rates. The six nurseries have been the cornerstone of this activity, and serious thought needs to be given on how they could continue their role with the support of government and other development actors that may be assisting in the future. The possibility of increasing interest and demand for planting trees should be further analyzed, in terms of what the various community actors may be able to contribute, including health and education facilities (where often there have been trees planted). If other community groups or entrepreneurs also have a chance of sustainably providing this service, they could be considered for inclusion even at this relatively late stage. Even if groups and/or individuals continue on a volunteer basis and fall back to a minimum level of activity after the project, their continued interest and small-scale activity can help to maintain some local capacity and circumstances may change or there may be future program opportunities that help build up the capacity again into a major activity. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 56 Appendix I - Evaluation Scope of Work ADRA-AFRICARE Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) Fizi and Uvira Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) 2010 1. INTRODUCTION This is a scope of work for the final survey of ADRA-AFRICARE Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP) in DRC. In mid 2008, the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) International and United States Agency for International Development (USAID) signed a cooperative agreement to fund a MYAP in Fizi and Uvira, South Kivu province of eastern Democratic Republic Congo (DRC). The MYAP‟s name is JENGA, a Kiswahili word, meaning "Building the strength of communities in Fizi and Uvira, South Kivu Province". ADRA and Africare have been implementing JENGA in Uvira and Fizi territories respectively. ADRA International is organizing a final survey of the MYAP to be conducted starting mid-September 2010. 2. PROGRAM GOAL, OBJECTIVE and ACTIVITIES The program has the following goal, strategic objective, and intermediate results: Goal: The goal of JENGA is to reduce food insecurity among vulnerable populations in fizi and uvira territories, focusing on female-headed households and returnees Strategic Objective: Increased access to food for returnees households IR 1: RETURNEES'S BASIC HUMAN NEEDS FOR SHELTER AND SAFETY MET IR 2: INCREASED USE OF IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES IR 3: IMPROVED MARKET LINKAGES IR 4: IMPROVED SOIL FERTILITY PRACTICES Main Activities Implementation of JENGA project focuses on the following activities: IR 1: Resettlement support provided through training community development committees, providing support for shelter construction to returnee families, providing advocacy land tenure for vulnerable groups, conducting home administration meetings to discuss topics of GBV, nutrition education, etc, and airing integrated radio programs including themes on agricultural practices, marketing information, GBV, peace-building. IR 2: Increased use of agricultural practices through facilitating the development of action plans at territory levels, providing technical training on improved agricultural practices using farmer field schools approach, proving improved seeds and agricultural tools to farmers and rehabilitating small-scale irrigation canals. IR 3: Improved market linkages through conducting value chain analysis study, formation of farmers associations, identifying and training lead seed producers, sharing by radio programs market information, improving post-harvest handling practices and facilities, and rehabilitating feeder roads. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 57 IR 4 and IR 5: Improved soil fertility practices: through training farmers in soil conservation practices, planting trees for reforestation purposes and promoting the utilization of agro-forestry practices by farmers. 3. PURPOSE The purpose of the final survey is to provide quantitative study report as part of the final evaluation of the MYAP. The final survey is expected to present estimates of all qualitative indicators for the project at the time of the survey. This will also fulfill a major part of evaluation compliance of the cooperative agreement for the MYAP. 4. SURVEY METHOD The survey process will focus on the guidelines designed by USAID for the final evaluations of Food for Peace Food Security Projects. A survey questionnaire will be adopted from the baseline, translated from English to Kiswahili and retranslated backwards from Kiswahili to English by way of a participatory process. A second review of the Kiswahili version will be performed presented during the survey training to survey supervisors and enumerators. The survey team will discuss what does each question mean, and why it is important for this survey and understood how to ask each question and mark response (s). A total of 60 questions with their corresponding responses will be formulated as part of the questionnaire. Additional questions will be added to collect information and data on health, nutrition, water, sanitation and gender. The content of each question will take into account potential respondents language, understanding and cultural sensitivity in the target area. Finally, one day will be allotted for the questionnaire will be pre￾tested in nearby village (s) and modifications, if any, will made before it s ready for data collection. Appointments for interviews, and field trips as well as logistics support will be arranged by ADRA JENGA staff will facilitate the field work. The survey team will be supplied with relevant project documents, including baseline report and IPTT and M&E documents. JENGA staff may participate in data collection providing that enumerators do not collect data in the same geographic area where they carry out implementation At the end of the field work the surveyor will provide an oral presentation of preliminary findings to the project office in DRC. 4.1. SAMPLING The sample universe will consist all households and villages in the target areas of the ADRA project. The sampling frame will list all villages with their corresponding total populations in the target area of ADRA‟s project. The design is based on a simple adequacy – before and after comparison. Probability proportional to size (PPS) is a sampling technique for use with surveys or mini-surveys in which the probability of selecting a sampling unit (e.g., village, zone, district) is proportional to the size of its population. It gives a probability (i.e., random, representative) sample. It is most useful when the sampling units vary considerably in size because it assures that those in larger sites have the same probability of getting into the sample as those in smaller sites, and vice verse. This method also facilitates planning for field work because a pre-determined number of respondents is interviewed in each unit selected, and staff can be allocated accordingly. Using the following formula, the sample size will be calculated and be equally divided between Fizi and Uvira. n: D [(Za + Zb)2 * (P1 (1 - P1) + P2 (1 - P2)) /(P2 - P1)2] ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 58 Where: n = minimum size of the sample D = Design effect: a correction for the loss of sampling efficiency resulting from the use of cluster sampling instead of simple random sampling P1 = the level of the indicator when measured as a proportion at the time of baseline P2 = the expected level of the indicator either at a final survey time, so that the quantity (P2 - P1) is the size of change that is targeted; Za = the Z-score corresponding to the degree of confidence desired in order to conclude that a change of the size (P2 - P1) is not due to chance (a – statistical significance level); and Zb = the Z-score corresponding to the degree of confidence desired in order to detect with certainty a change of the size (P2 - P1), if such a change has effectively taken place (b – statistical power). Additional parameters that will go into the sample size calculation include the probability of detecting a change that is true (alpha, set at 0.95) and the power to detect a change if it has really taken place (beta, set at 0.80); a design effect (to compensate for the use of cluster sampling), is set at 2.0 and a 10% “security factor” (to account for attrition and non-response). A random cluster sampling of 30 communities or villages will be identified. At the second stage, each village will have certain number of households for interview proportional to its population size. 4.2. Training and Data Collection Training will be provided to the survey team on survey methodology, organization, understanding each question and responses in the questionnaire, interview techniques, and data quality assurance. The training will also review the role of supervisors; discussed proper, improper interviewing techniques to include obtaining informed consent, observed demonstration interviews, provided feedback about the interviews, and practiced conducting interviews. There will be 15 supervisors and 15 pairs of (male and female) interviewers who will participant in a five day-training. Before the data collectors go to the sample districts, they will be provided with a letter from the program office so that they can show the concerned local authorities and to inform them about the survey objectives and the field schedules. The specific training components for supervisors and enumerators are listed in the attached field training manual. Respondent household will be selected using the random-walk method entails: 1. Randomly choosing a starting point and a travel direction within a sample cluster. 2. Conducting an interview in the nearest household, and 3. Continuously choosing the next nearest household for an interview until the target number of interviews has been obtained. The average length of each interview will approximately be one hour. Each supervisor will be responsible for managing 2 interviewers every day. The survey team will complete the data collection in 8-10 days during August 2010. It is worth noting that rough road network will create difficulties in terms of accessing some of the communities. 4.3 Data Analysis and Reporting ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 59 Using SPSS, data will be entered by five pairs of data entry clerks. Also, the same statistical software will be used to clean and analyze the data. Data entry clerks will be given a day of training and will begin data entry as the completed questionnaires arrive from the sample sites two days after the commencement of the data collection. The analysis will proceed systematically by first describing the data using tabulations and frequency distributions of main outcomes and covariates. Further exploration of the data is next done by doing a series of bivariate tabulations. The bivariate relations to be selected for tabulation will be suggested by the conceptual framework. These bivariate relationships are tested using simple statistical procedures such as Chi square, correlation coefficients, means tests and ANOVA. Corresponding probability coefficients will be reported where appropriate. 5. CITIZENS PRIVACY 5.1 General Use of Data ADRA/HQ considers it unethical for any member of survey team to use information gathered from unsuspecting citizens during the evaluation assignment for anything other than the evaluation under study. Should viable reason present itself for using the information obtained for other purposes, then, ADRA International must be consulted and prior permission secured. This must be adhered to, especially when the material is of a controversial nature and exclusively involves the private lives of the target population. 5.2 Distribution Evaluation Report The ultimate responsibility for gathering and disseminating information from all of its regional offices around the world lies within ADRA International. Therefore, ADRA International expects the evaluation team, particularly hired consultants, to turnover to ADRA International all the data and other information that were used as the basis of the team's final inferences. It is ADRA's position that no evaluation is final until it is: 1) presented to ADRA/HQ, 2) both the consultants and ADRA International have discussed the contents in an open manner and 3) clear understandings of all conclusions and any differing views are reached between the consultant and ADRA International as reflected in the final document. ADRA International does not edit or change in any form or fashion the final report of the team without the Team‟s consent. In the event the team and ADRA remain to have a difference of opinion regarding the final report of the evaluation, ADRA distributes the document intact but will attach a letter to the report stating its own position. 6. COMPOSITION OF SURVEY TEAM The survey team will consist of two evaluators: an external consultant, for training and conducting the survey and Dawit Habtemariam, internal evaluator from ADRA/I ,who will ensure that the evaluation is organized and managed smoothly, as well as the survey report is used to inform the final evaluation. 7. TENTATIVE CALENDAR Arrival in DRC August 15 Review of Questionnaire August 16 Training August 17-23 Field Work –Data Collection August 24-Sep.5 Data Analysis Sept 6-20 Writing of the draft Report ADRA Sep 21-30 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 60 Final Report to ADRA HQ October 8 Title Page. The title page will state the name and project number, names and titles of evaluators, and date and name of the document. List of Acronyms. Unusual or obscure acronyms should be identified at the beginning of the report. Executive Summary. The executive summary synthesis should be no more than two pages in length and will include: background of project, evaluation methodology, accomplishments and impact of the project, concerns and recommendations. Table of Contents. The table of contents should outline each major topic section, appendices, figures, maps, tables, etc. Main Body The body of the evaluation report will include the following in sequential order: Introduction and background. The introduction and background will include at a minimum: justification for awarding grant, goals and objectives of the grant, implementation methods, and the purpose of the evaluation. Survey Methodology. The evaluation methodology will include at a minimum: description of data collection and survey sites selection processes. Discussion and Analysis. This is where the findings are clearly stated and discussed in detail. All the recommendations and the summary of the evaluation are based on this section of the document. Supplementary Issues and Questions. This section will address in sequence the supplementary issues and questions outlined in this Scope of Work. Conclusions and Recommendations. This section presents the main conclusions and recommendations based on this final survey. Results Highlight One page “results highlight” If appropriate, provide a one-page description of some element of the program, with supporting data, that would make a good stand-alone communication piece for the PVO or USAID to distribute or to post on the Office Webpage. Appendices. The appendices included will be at the discretion of the team. However, the appendices must include the scope of work, itinerary for the evaluation visit, list of individuals interviewed/surveyed during the evaluation, surveys and interviewers‟ questionnaires, references cited and maps. Additional appendices such as case studies, etc. may be included as determined appropriate by the team. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 61 Appendix II - IPTT Monitoring Indicator Matrix YEAR 1 (FY 2008) YEAR 2 (FY 2009) YEAR 3 (FY 2010) LOA Indicators Desired direction of change (+) or (-) Baseline Total Target Achieved % Target Met Total Target Achieved % Target Met Total Target Achieved % Target Met LOA Target LOA Achieved % Target met PROGRAM GOAL: TO REDUCE FOOD INSCURITY AMONG VULNERABLE POPULATIONS IN FIZI AND UVIRA TERRITORIES, FOCUSING ON RETURNEES AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE 1: INCREASED ACCESS TO FOOD FOR RETURNEE HOUSEHOLDS Impact Indicator 1: Average Household dietary diversity score **FFP Required Indicator (+) 3.4 5 7 7 3.2 45.7% Impact Indicator 2: Coping strategies index (-) 47* 45 37 37 38.9 95.1% Impact Indicator: 3 Average Number of months with adequate food provisioning **FFP Required Indicator (+) 3 4 6 5 8.4 168% Impact Indicator 4:: Number of rural households benefiting directly from USG interventions (F indicator/ USAID DRC Mission) (+) 0 1,200 3,600 2,400 7,000 6,503 92.9% Impact Indicator 5: Number of individuals who have received USG supported short term agricultural sector productivity training (Number of women) F indicator/ USAID DRC Mission (+) 0 1,260 3,000 3,000 7,260 4,350 59.9% Impact Indicator 6 : Number of rural households benefiting from activities to maintain or improve household access to food during the FY (SAPQ required) (+) 0 1,260 3,000 3,000 7,260 5,449 75.1% IR 1 Returnees’ basic human needs for shelter and safety met ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 62 Monitoring Indicator 1: Number of communities assisted in developing early warning systems (+) 0 0 10 10 11 110% Monitoring Indicator 2: Number of shelters provided to returnee households (+) 0 19 1031 0 1,100 1,100 100% IR 2 Increased use of improved agricultural practices Monitoring Indicator: 1 Percentage of beneficiaries (individual farmers) using (at least four) of sustainable agriculture technologies **FFP Required Indicator (+) 41% 30% 45% 70% 70% 65.2% 93.1% Monitoring Indicator 2: Number of farmers (individuals) that received extension/outreach services during the FY (SAPQ) (+) 0 1,260 3,000 3,000 7,260 3,897 53.7% Monitor Indicator 3: Number of additional hectares under improved technologies or management practices as result of USG assistance. F Indicator/ USAID DRC Mission (+) 0 60 180 140 380 413.9 108.9% Monitoring Indicator 5: Annual yield of target crops Cassava (+) 12,000 **** 16,200 18,000 18,000 18,179 167.8% Maize 1,200 1,380 1,680 1,920 1,920 930 55.4% Peanuts 800 1,040 1,200 1,360 1,360 833 105.2% Beans 700 910 1,050 1,190 1,190 - 50.8% Sweet potatoes 3,000 3,600 4,050 4,500 4,500 - - IR 3 Improved market linkages Monitoring Indicator 1: Number of communities assisted to improve or develop infrastructure to mitigate the impact of shocks, over the life of the activity (irrigation systems, storage facilities, feeder roads) **FFP Required Indicator (+) 0 70 120 120 120 *cum 92 76.7% Monitoring Indicator 2: Number of kilometers of irrigation canals rehabilitated/constructed (+) 0 0 16 0 16 15.56 97.3% ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 63 Monitoring Indicator 3: Number of households with storage facilities (+) 0 0 3,000 2,400 5,400 890 16.5% Monitoring Indicator 4: Number of kilometers of feeder roads rehabilitated (+) 0 0 20 10 30 27 135% Monitoring Indicator 5: Recipients (Households) of food distribution under SO 1 Returnees Shelters (+) 0 0 1,031 0 1,031 1,100 104.8% Seed protection (+) 0 1,260 3,000 3,000 7,260 3,000 100% Harvest protection (+) 0 270 3,000 3,000 6,270 3,000 100% Irrigation canals (+) 0 0 150 0 150 150 100% Road rehabilitation (+) 0 0 400 0 400 280 70% Tree nurseries (+) 0 0 240 0 240 180 75% Tree plantings (+) 0 0 360 360 720 144 40% IR 4 Improved soil fertility practices Monitoring indicator 1: Percentage of beneficiaries (individual farmers) who adopted soil fertility practices **FFP Required Indicator (+) 44% 30% 45% 60% 60% 47.3% 78.8% Monitoring Indicatorc2: Number of tree nurseries developed (+) 0 0 6 0 6 6 100% Monitoring Indicator 3 Number of trees planted Citrus (+) 0 6,500 0 6,500 7,227 111.2% Moringa oleifera 0 0 16,500 0 16,500 18,763 113.7% Monitoring Indicator 4: Number of farmers adopting agro-forestry techniques (+) 0 0 0 180 180 * Data from (or derived estimates from) TANGO Vulnerability and Livelihoods Assessment, October 2007 ** National data from 2001- will be modified at baseline *** Data to be determined during baseline **** Because of agricultural season there is no harvest for cassava in the first FY 1 ***** 2007 was an exceptional year, that's why the yield is too high ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 64 Appendix III - Qualitative Evaluation Work Schedule Project intervention in 92 communities to date (60 Fizi, 32 Uvira), thus sample reflects roughly 20% of project sites (12 in Fizi, 6 in Uvira) Day District Village Theme Team FG 26.9 Sun Fizi Arrival Baraka – Project Orientation 27.9 Mon Fizi Meetings with project staff 28.9 Tues Fizi North Kalinga Test DH, JM 29.9 Wed Fizi Meetings with project staff on IRs Thur Fizi am Mulongwe Agri, Shelter, GBV DH Kaseke Farmer assoc, crop storage JM Fizi pm Malinde Agri, Shelter, GBV DH Kandali Agri, Shelter, GBV JM 1.10 Fri Fizi FG with project staff 2.10 Sat Fizi Analysis, document review Sun Fizi am Fizi Agri, Shelter, GBV DH Fizi Road rehab, Tree nursery, farmers assoc JM Fizi pm Kakungu Agri, Shelter, GBV, farmers assoc DH Mukindja Agri, Shelter, GBV, farmers assoc JM Mon Fizi am Nemba Agri, Shelter, GBV DH Sebele Road rehab, Tree nursery, farmers assoc, tree planting, tree nursery, irrigation JM Fizi pm Katenga Agri, Shelter, GBV DH Sebele Road rehab, Tree nursery, farmers assoc, tree planting, tree nursery, irrigation JM ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 65 5.10 Tues Fizi Key Informant Interviews (UNHCR, OCHA, etc) 6.10 Wed Fizi am Ake Agri, Shelter, GBV, tree planting, farmers assoc DH Kabondozi Agri, farmer assoc, crop storage JM Fizi pm Drive to Uvira Thur Uvira am Kigongo Agri, GBV DH Kabimba Agri, GBV, tree nursery JM Uvira pm Drive back to Uvira Fri Uvira am Mutarule Agri, GBV, road rehab DH Runingu Agri, GBV, irrigation, market information JM Uvira pm Drive back to Uvira 9.10 Sat Uvira Analysis, document review Sun Uvira am Kiliba Kabulimbo Agri, GBV, tree planting, market information DH Uvira pm Kala Kagando Agri, GBV, tree nursery JM 11.10 Mon Uvira Key Informant Interviews (UNHCR, OCHA, etc) 12.10 Tues Uvira FG with project staff 13.10 Wed Uvira Analysis, write up 14.10 Thur Uvira Analysis, write up 15.10 Fri Uvira Presentation of preliminary findings to ADRA/Africare 16.10 Sat Departure ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 66 Appendix IV - Characteristics of Communities Sampled for Qualitative Field Work District Village How long JENGA has been in village Activities implemented (Ag, Infrastructure, shelter, gender) Distance in time from Baraka/Uvira Fizi Abeka Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 1h50 (60 kms) Fizi Ake 3 Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, Tree planting, farmers assoc 2h30 (68 kms) Fizi Dine Nov 2008-Sept 2009, 10 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 1h05 (25 kms) Fizi Fizi 2 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, Road rehab, Tree nursery, farmers assoc 1hoo (36 kms) Fizi Kaboke Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, GBV 1h30 (42 kms) Fizi Kakungu 3 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, seed producers, farmers assoc 1hoo (22 kms) Fizi Kalinga Nord 3 Nov 2008-Sept 2009, 10 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 10 m (2 kms) Fizi Kandali 2 Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 30 min (12 kms) Fizi Karamba Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, GBV 2h30 Fizi Kaseke 2 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, farmers assoc, crop storage 1hoo (20 kms) Fizi Katanga 3 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, Tree nursery, farmers assoc, crop storage 25 min (12 kms) Fizi Katenga 2 Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 45 min( Fizi Kikonde Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, GBV 3h (53 kms) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 67 Fizi Lumanya Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, GBV 5h (81 kms) Fizi Malinde 1 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, crop storage 40 min (14 km) Fizi Muchimuchi Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 30 min (4 kms) Fizi Mulongwe 1 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 40 min (18 kms) Fizi Mwayenga Nov 2008-Sept 2009, 10 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 1h05 Fizi Nemba 2 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV 45 min Fizi Simbi Sept 2009 to date, 12 months Agri, GBV 2h (33 kms) Fizi Some Sept 2009 – Sept 2010, 12 months Shelter, GBV 30 min Fizi Sebele 2 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, Tree nursery, road rehab, irrigation, farmers assoc, crop storage 1h30 Fizi Kabondozi 3 Sept 2009 – Sept 2010, 12 months Agri, farmers assoc, crop storage 2h Fizi **Mukindja 3 Nov 2008 to date, 22 months Agri, Shelter, GBV, farmers assoc 45 min Uvira Biriba July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 25 min (34 kms ) Uvira Kabimba Feb 2009 to date, 19 months Agri, GBV 20 min (28 kms) Uvira Kabunambo July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 37 kms (35 min) Uvira Katongo July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 20 min (10 kms) Uvira Kigoma July 2009 – July 2001, 12 months Agri, GBV, tree nursery 1h00 (49 kms) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 68 Uvira Kiliba Kabulimbo July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 30 min 25 kms Uvira Kiliba ONDS July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 40 min (28 kms) Uvira Kiringye July 2009 – July 2001, 12 months Agri, GBV 1h10 (76 kms) Uvira Mirungu July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 1h00 min (66 kms ) Uvira Mutarule July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, , GBV, Road rehab 40 min (52 kms) Uvira Nyakabere July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 40 min (52 kms ) Uvira Nyango July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 49 kms ( Uvira Rukobero July 2009 – July 2001, 12 months Agri, GBV 35 min (53 kms ) Uvira Rusabagi July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 50 min 53 kms ) Uvira Sange July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 40 min (45 kms ) Uvira Sasira July 2009 to date, 14 months Agri, GBV 54 kms ( ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 69 Appendix V - Contrasting Development Models of Direct Service Provision versus Market Facilitation Development Intervention Models: Service Provision versus Facilitation Old Approach: Donor Service Provision ( Sustainability?) SE SE SE SE Private-Sector Providers? Donor funding Government agency Donor Program, NGO Donor / Government Facilitator Provider Provider Provider SE SE SE SE SE SE Market Facilitation Model Towards Sustainability Public funding, development agenda Private payment, Commercial Direct provision of Services orientation Facilitation of demand and supply ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 70 Appendix VI - FGD and KII topical outlines (English) Questions for Focus Group Participants - questions to be asked to men and women together, or in separate groups by gender * FGMI (Focus Group Mixed); FGM (Focus Group Men); FGW (Focus Group Women); KII (Key Informant Interview); SO1: INCREASED CROP PRODUCTION IR1.1 Food Security of Resettled Households Output 1.1.1 Shelter Construction Interview Format Location When Duration Who Participation 1. How many of you are beneficiaries of a shelter? 2. How were you chosen to receive a shelter? 3. How do you feel about the selection process for beneficiaries? 4. Where were you living before this, and what was the condition of your dwelling? 5. How long did it take to complete your shelter? 6. How many people, and who, assisted you? (family members, relatives, other?) 7. What was your contribution to the construction of the shelter? (labor, tools, food, money, other?) 8. What was the contribution of ADRA/Africare, or others in the project? (labor, tools, training, food, money, other?) 9. Did you have any problems during the construction of the shelter? 10. What is the quality of the construction; will the building be strong enough to last a long time 11. Were you a recipient of food for your shelter construction? 12. What rations did you receive and were they adequate for your food needs? 13. How long did the rations cover your food needs? 14. Are you satisfied with the food ration composition? If not, what foods would you change in the ration? 15. Did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 16. How has your life changed since construction of the shelter? Ways conditions have improved? Ways conditions have worsened? 17. Do you feel you have learned any new skills in shelter construction? 18. Do you feel you could build another shelter in the future without project assistance if you had adequate resources? (tools, materials, money, etc.) 19. Do you feel you could earn income from building shelters in the future? FG Shelter Resettlement Activities (these questions may be placed before the questions on shelter) Interview Format Location When Duration Who Introductory Meetings 1. Who organized introductory meetings? 2. Describe the meetings and who attended? How were they useful? How were they not useful? 3. How would you change the nature of these meetings in the future? FG Community Development Committees 1. Who organized your Community Development Committee? 2. How were the CDC members chosen? FG ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 71 3. How many men and how many women are on your CDC? 4. Would you recommend a change in how members of your CDC are chosen in the future? 5. How do you find your CDC to be useful? Not useful? Gender-Based Violence Training 1. How many of you participated in GBVT? 2. How many sessions were held in GBVT? 3. Who conducted your training session? (organization and gender) 4. Describe the content of the training. 5. Do you feel you have benefited or gained new knowledge from the training? 6. What did you find useful about the training? What did you not find useful? 7. Have you been able to put to use anything you learned in the training? If so, what? 8. Do you know other community members who have put into practice what they learned? 9. How do you feel about the trainers in GBVT? Were they knowledgeable or not very knowledgeable of their subject? 10. What would you change about the content of GBVT in the future? FG Radio Programs 1. How many of you own or listen to a radio? 2. How many of you heard one or more radio programs about JENGA project activities? 3. What were the topics you heard on the JENGA radio program? 4. Which topics did you find useful and why? Which were not useful and why? FG Output 1.1.2 Advocacy for Land Tenure Issues Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. How many of you own and farm your own land? 2. How many of you rent or farm the land of others? 3. If you rent or farm the land of others, how much harvest can you keep, and how much must you give away (to the owner, other)? 4. Have any of you received project support to gain access to land to farm? 5. What crops did you grow? (cassava, maize, peanuts, other) 6. Who provided the support (organization) and what kind of support was it? 7. Do you now have ownership of land (land title document) or access to farm someone else’s land as a result of project support? 8. What have you found useful about project support for land? Not useful? 9. What can the project do to improve your access to land for farming? IR1.2 MOA Agricultural Extension Services Output 1.2.1 Development of Action Plans Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have action plans been completed for your territory? 2. Who participated in the development of these action plans? (MOA, ADRA/Africare, CDCs, other - by gender, how many men/women) 3. What was the role of each main actor? 4. What process was followed to prepare these action plans? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 72 5. Describe the content of these action plans. 6. How do you feel about the design process for the plans? Was it well done, or poorly done? 7. Was it a participatory process? If not, who do you feel was left out? 8. How would you improve the planning process in the future? Output 1.2.2 Market Analysis Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Has a market analysis been conducted in your community or in this area? 2. Who conducted the study and when? 3. Has anyone presented the results of the study to you? 4. How do you feel about the results or findings of the study? 5. Has anything been done with the market analysis, did it lead to any practical marketing of products? 6. What recommendations do you have for any future market analyses? 7. Do you think you could carry out some kind of market analysis in the future? If so, how would you do it? 8. Output 1.2.3 MOA Extension Worker Technical Training (these questions may be adapted for use with community groups as well as with MOA staff) Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Which agricultural practices have you been trained in? (soil preparation, seed selection, planting techniques, plowing, hoeing, agro-ecosystem analysis, other) 2. Were these the topics that you think were most relevant, ie. what you needed 3. Who trained you and where did the training take place (Farmer Field School - FFS)? 4. How many training sessions did you receive? 5. How do you feel about the quality of the training sessions? Were they adequate or inadequate? 6. If inadequate, what would you change to improve the training sessions? 7. Which farming techniques did you find most useful? Which did you find least useful? 8. What new agricultural practices have been tried out in the field, and what results did they provide 9. What recommendations would FGMI KII Output 1.2.4 Community Outreach/Monitoring Visits Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Which seeds were distributed for your FFS training? (cassava mosaic disease, maize, peanuts, other) 2. Who received the seeds for the FFS training? 3. Did you find the FFS training useful or not useful? 4. Would you recommend future training in the FFS, or somewhere else (directly in your field, other farmer’s field, other location)? 5. Did you receive seeds for your own individual field? 6. Who did you receive your seeds from? 7. What quantity of seed did you receive? 8. Was this quantity adequate for your family food needs? 9. How was the quality of the seed you received, good or bad? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 73 10. Who visited your field to monitor your crop production? 11. How often did they visit to monitor your crop production? 12. How often would you like them to visit your field? 13. Did you find the visits useful or not useful? 14. If not useful, what would you recommend to improve the field visits? IR1.3 Improved Agricultural Practices Output 1.3.1 Promotion of Improved Agricultural Practices Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. In which agricultural techniques have you received training? (soil preparation, seed selection, planting techniques, plowing, hoeing, agro-ecosystem analysis, other) 2. Which farming techniques are you using in your field now? Which techniques are you not using and why? 3. Are these proving to be useful? Why or why not? 4. Do you feel you have adequate time and resources (labor, money, tools, other) to use all the agricultural techniques in your field or not? If not, why? 5. Has use of these techniques changed the amount of labor time needed to grow your crops? 6. Has it changed the time needed for other tasks in the household? 7. Did you receive agricultural tools from the project? 8. Which tools did you receive? (machetes, hoes, rakes, picks, shovels, nylon cord, other) 9. Were these tools useful or not useful? 10. If not useful, which tools do you feel you need for farming? Output 1.3.2 Diversified Agricultural Production Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Which crops are you now growing as a result of project support? (cassava, maize, peanuts, other) 2. Are any of these crops new, or were you growing them before project support? 3. Has your crop yield stayed the same, increased or decreased since participation in the project? (ask for each crop – cassava, maize, peanuts, other) 4. How much has it increased or decreased? (kg) Which agricultural techniques do you feel work best at increasing production? Which techniques do not work? Why not? 5. Will you be able to continue using these new methods after the project ends? Which methods will you continue to use? 6. Which methods will you not continue to use, and why? 7. Were you able to sell any of your crops or did you use it only for feeding your family? 8. If sold, which crop/s and what quantity? 9. Why did you sell the crop/s? (to buy other foods, pay off debts, use income for other purchases, other) Food Security 1. How many months did your household have sufficient food before your participation in the project? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 74 2. How many months do you have sufficient food now from your crop production (not including project food aid)? Output 1.3.3 Improved IPM (CMD – cassava mosaic disease) Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you received training in IPM methods (CMD, other)? 2. How many training sessions did you attend and who did the training? 3. Was the training held in your field or the FFS? 4. Did you find the training useful or not useful? If not, why? 5. If not useful, what changes in training would you recommend? (location, time, methods, others) 6. Have you had problems with CMD in your fields? 7. Has the project helped to reduce CMD, or does the problem continue? If it continues, why? IR1.4 Improved Agricultural Infrastructure Output 1.4.1 Rehabilitated Irrigation Canals Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you participated in any irrigation canal repairs under project support? 2. If so, what support did you receive? (training, food, tools, other) 3. If food was received, did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 4. If some people received food (eg. Food-for-work), how were they selected? 5. How many days of work were involved? 6. What distance of canal repair work did you do? (meters, kilometers) 7. Has the canal repair helped improve the distribution of water to your field? 8. Has canal repair helped improve your crop production? If not so, why? 9. Can you continue canal repair in the future without project support? If not, why? 10. What institution may be involved in maintenance in the future? How will they work with the community? Output 1.4.2 Improved Crop Storage Facilities Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you participated in any crop storage construction under project support? 2. If so, what support did you receive? (training, food, tools, other) 3. If training was received, where was the training held and who did the training? 4. How many days or hours was the training? 5. Describe the storage construction method that you learned? (use of mud bricks, cement, metal, other) 6. If food was received, did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 7. How many days of work were required to build the storage faciility? 8. How many people helped build the storage? Were they family members or friends? 9. Were they paid in cash or food, or did they provide free labor? 10. Has the storage helped improve the protection of your crops? If not so, why? 11. Do you use other techniques in addition to your new storage to help protect your crops? (pesticides, chemical sprays, natural biological controls, ash, other)Will you be able to maintain your storage facility in good condition in the future without project support? If not, why? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 75 Output 1.4.3 Improved Feeder Roads Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you participated in any feeder road construction under project support? 2. If so, what support did you receive? (training, food, tools, other) 3. If training was received, where was the training held and who did the training? 4. How many days or hours was the training? 5. If food was received, did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 6. How many days of work did you participate in the road construction? 7. Has the feeder road helped improve your access to a local market or to other communities? If not so, why? 8. Do you feel the training for the road construction was adequate? If not, why not? 9. If not adequate, what would you recommend to improve the training? 10. Do you feel the quality of the road is now adequate or not? 11. Will you be able to maintain the road in good condition in the future without project support? If not, why? 12. What government institution might be involved in this, and what will be their role IR1.5 Improved Soil Fertility Practices Output 1.5.1 Farmer Training on Soil Conservation Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you participated in any training on soil conservation practices? 2. If so, which practices did you learn? (erosion control, composting, crop rotation, ravine control, infiltration ditches, soil texture, land leveling, riverbed control, reforestation and water use, terracing, deep tilling, green fertilizers, other) 3. What support did you receive? (training, food, tools, other) 4. Where was the training held and who did the training? 5. How many days or hours was the training? 6. If food was received, did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 7. Which soil conservation practices are you using in your field now? Which ones are you not using and why? 8. Do you feel you have adequate time and resources (labor, money, tools, other) to use all the conservation practices in your field or not? If not, why? 9. Has use of conservation practices changed the amount of labor time needed to grow your crops? 10. Has it changed the time needed for other tasks in the household? 11. Which conservation practices do you feel work best at increasing production? Which ones do you feel do not work? Why not? 12. Will you be able to continue using these conservation practices after the project ends? Which practices will you continue to use? 13. Which methods will you not continue to use, and why? 14. Do you feel the training for the conservation practices was adequate? If not, why not? 15. If not adequate, what would you recommend to improve the training? Output 1.5.2 Trees Planted for Reforestation Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you participated in any training on tree nursery practice? 2. What support did you receive? (training, food, tools, other) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 76 3. Where was the training held and who did the training? 4. How many days or hours was the training? 5. If food was received, did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 6. Have you ever grown your own trees before project intervention? If not, why? 7. Do you now have a tree nursery or have you received any tree seedlings from a nursery? 8. How many trees have you planted and what tree type? (citrus, moringa, other) 9. Where have the trees been planted and where are you planning to plant others? Is this land private, communal, government, etc? 10. Do you feel you have adequate time and resources (labor, money, tools, other) to manage a tree nursery or to plant trees in your field? If not, why? 11. Has tree planting changed the amount of labor time needed to grow your crops? 12. Has it changed the time needed for other tasks in the household? 13. How do you plan to use your trees? To earn income or for domestic household use, or both? 14. How many years must you wait to receive the benefits of your trees? (fruit harvest, other tree products) 15. Is this period too long to wait, or is it adequate? 16. Will you be able to continue growing trees after the project ends? 17. Will you have access to tree seedlings in the future when the project ends? If so, from whom? 18. Do you feel the training for growing trees was adequate? If not, why not? 19. If not adequate, what would you recommend to improve the training? Output 1.5.3 Agro-Forestry Techniques Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Have you participated in any training on agro-forestry techniques? 2. If so, which techniques did you learn? (intercropping, plant spacing, other) 3. What support did you receive? (training, food, tools, other) 4. Where was the training held and who did the training? 5. How many days or hours was the training? 6. If food was received, did you consume all the food, or sell some of it? If sold, why? 7. Which agro-forestry techniques are you using in your field now? Which ones are you not using and why? 8. Do you feel you have adequate time and resources (labor, money, tools, other) to use all the agro-forestry techniques in your field or not? If not, why? 9. Has the use of these techniques changed the amount of labor time needed to grow your crops? 10. Has it changed the time needed for other tasks in the household? 11. Which agro-forestry techniques do you feel work best at increasing production? Which ones do you feel do not work? Why not? 12. Will you be able to continue using these techniques after the project ends? Which techniques will you continue to use? 13. Which techniques will you not continue to use, and why? 14. Do you feel the training for the agro-forestry techniques was adequate? If not, why not? 15. If not adequate, what would you recommend to improve the training? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 77 Gender Dynamics Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. Do women have access to, control and use of resources (e.g. livestock, credit funds, training & discussion sessions)? 2. What types of agriculture and livelihood activities do women mainly do in this community, and how is that different from men? 3. Has program participation increased female access to resources (Iand, other)? 4. What decision-making do women participate in and/or control with regard to project activities? 5. Are women participating training sessions? What type of training sessions? How do the numbers compare to the number of men participating in training sessions? 6. How does your spouse feel about your participation in project activities? 7. Have there been any changes in the household about who makes decisions or how money is spent? FGW FGM Questions for ADRA-Africare NGO Staff/Key Informants Interview Format Location When Duration Who 1. What, if any, are the principle successes and achievements of the project to date? What specific factors have contributed to the successes and achievements? 2. What, if any, are the most prominent shortcomings and/or challenges of the project? Is there anything that has prevented a stronger collaboration between partners? 3. Overall, has ADRA strengthened its performance and impact through the partnership with Africare? Has Africare strengthened its performance and impact through the partnership with ADRA? If so, how? If not, what has prevented this from happening? 4. How has each partner participated in developing strategic and operational plans? What has worked well in this process? What has not worked well? 5. Does the country project operate as originally designed? If not, how did each partner participate in the decision-making process to change program operation? 6. What kinds of program monitoring procedures are undertaken by each partner? Are these monitoring procedures consistent among the two partners? What works well? What does not work well? 7. How have problems between the two partners been identified and solved? What has worked well in terms of problem solving? What has not worked well? 8. How is information communicated between the two partners? What has worked well? What has not worked well? 9. Which, if any, opportunities, tools, or methods for mutual learning between ADRA and Africare are/were most beneficial? 10. How has information gained through mutual learning experiences been applied? 11. Have actions been generated to improve practices or policies in the country programs of this partnership? What type of actions? 12. Have best practices and mutual learning experiences of ADRA and Africare been documented? Disseminated? If so, please give examples of format, media, intended audiences, etc. If not, are there concrete plans to do so? KII ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 78 Appendix VII - FGD and KII topical outlines (Kiswahili) Maswali kwa wanakikundi cha mazungumzo – Maswali yatakyo ulizwa kwa wanawake na wanaume pamoja, ao katika kundi mabilimbali kadiri ya jinsia (genda) * FGMI (Focus Group Mixed); FGM (Focus Group Men); FGW (Focus Group Women); KII (Key Informant Interview); SO1: ONGEZEKO LA MAVUNO YA UKULIMA IR1.1 Ubora wa chakula katika jamaa zilizo kimbia (waamiaji) Output 1.1.1 Ujenji wa nyumba Interview Format Location When Duration Who Participation 20. Wangapi kati yenu wamepata kujengewa nyumba? 21. Namna gani mulichaguliwa kwakujengewa nyumba? 22. Munafikiria nini kuhusu mpango wa uchaguzi wa walengwa? 23. Ulikuwa unahishi wapi mbele ya kukaa hapa , na makao yako yalikuwa na hali gani? 24. Ilichukuwa muda gani kwakujaza nyumba yakote? 25. Watu ngapi, na nani, aliye kusaidia ? (watu wa jamaa lako, marafiki, wengine?) 26. Mchango wako ulikuwa gani kwa ujenzi nyumba yako? (Kazi, vifaa vya kazi,chakula, pesa, ingine?) 27. Mchango gani ulipata kwa ADRA/Africare , ao wengine katika mradi? (Wafanyakazi, vifaa vya kazi,chakula, pesa, ingine?) 28. Je, ulipata tatizo fulani wakati wa ujenzi wa nyumba? 29. Majengo haya yana hali gani; Majengo haya yako nguvu kwaku dumu muda mrefu 30. Je ulipokea chakula kwa ajili ya ujenzi wa nyumba yako? 31. Sehemu gani ya chakula ulipokea na and ilitosha kwa maitaji yako ya chakula? 32. Ni kwa muda gani sehemu hiyo ya chakula ilitosha kwa maitaji ya chakula ? 33. Unarizika na aina za chakula? Ikiwa hapana , ni vyakula gani mungelipendelea vibadirishwe kati ya hivi? 34. Mulikula chakula yote, ao mulihuzisha sehemu ingine? Ikiwa ndiyo, kunayenye ilihuzishwa , kwanini ? 35. Namna gani maisha yenu yamebadilika tangu kujengwa kwa nyumba yako? Hali za maisha zinakuwa nzuri ?Haliza maisha zimekuwa mbaya zaidi ? 36. Munafikiri kama mulijifunza ujuzi mwengine mpya katika ujenzi wa nyumbau ? 37. Je, unafikiri kama kwa siku zijazo unaweza jenga nyuma ingine bila msaada mwengine wa mradi ikiwa unapata uwezo uano faa? (vifaa vya kazi,chakula, pesa etc.) 38. Unafikiri kama kwa siku zijazo unaweza jipatia pesa kwa kujenga nyumba ? FG Shelter Resettlement Activities (these questions may be placed before the questions on shelter) Interview Format Location When Duration Who Introductory Meetings 4. Nani aliye ongoza mikutano ya kijijini? 5. Taja mikutano na nani aliyekuwepo ? Namna gani ilikuwa muhimu? Namna gani haikuwa muhimu? 6. Namna gani mikutano hii ingebadilishawa kwa wakati ujao ? FG ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 79 Kamati za maendelo ya Kijiji (DCD) 6. Nani aliye unda kamati yenu ya maendeleo ya kijiji ? 7. Wanamenba wa CDC walichaguliwa namna gani? 8. Waume na wanawake ngapi wako katika CDC yenu? 9. Unaweza pendekeza mabadiliko kwa namna yea cuhaguzi wa wanamenba wa CDC kwa wakati ujao? 10. Namna gani uliona umuhimu wa CDC yenu? Haikuwa muhimu? FG Mafundisho kuhusu ubakaji unao tokana na jinsia ao Genda 11. Wangapi kati yenu fuata mafundisho kuhusu GBVT? 12. Mara ngapi mafundisho ya GBVT ilifanyika? 13. Nani ali ongoza mafundisho hayo? (shirika na jinsia ) 14. Taja mambo yaliyo husu mafundisho. 15. Unafikiri kwamba ulifaika ao ongeza ujuzi mpya kupitia mafundisho hayo? 16. Kitugani uliona cha maana katika maufundishoa? Kitu gani kisicho cha maana? 17. Uliweza kufanya mambo fulani uliyopata katika mafundisho? Ikiwa ndiyo, Nini? 18. Unafahamu wengine wanamenba wa kijiji walio tiya katika matendo mambo waliyo fundishwa? 19. Unafikiri nini kuhusu walimu wa GBVT? Walikuwa na ujizi mzuri ao hawakukuwa na ujuzi mzuri wa mafundisho yao? 20. Ungependa kitugani kibadilishwe katika mafundisho ya GBVT kwa wakati ujao? FG Vipindi vya Radio 5. Wangapi kati yenu wallisikiliza radio? 6. Wangapi kati yenu walifuata moja ao zaidi ya vipindi vya radio kuhusu kazi za mradi JENGA? 7. Somo gani mulifuata yenye muhimu sana kwenye vipindi vipindi vya radio kuhusu kazi za mradi JENGA? 8. Somo gani ulifuata ambalo uliona kuwa muhimu sana na kwa nini? Somo gani haikuwa ya muhimu sana na kwa nini? FG Output 1.1.2 Tutezi kuhusu matatizo ya kumiliki ardhi (Mashamba) Interview Format Location When Duration Who 10. Wangapi kati yenu wanashamba za kipekee na wanalima shamba zao za kipekee ? 11. Wangapi kati yenu wanakodi shamba ao wanalima shamba za wengine? 12. Ikiwa kodi ao unalima shamba za wengine, unaweza chunga mavuno ngapi, na ngapi utatoa (kwa mwenye shambacha, wengine)? 13. Wamoja kati yenu walifanikiwa kupata ardhi (shamba) ya kulima kupitia msaada wa mradi ? 14. Ulipanda mimea gani ? (muhogo, mahindi, kalanga, ingine) 15. Nani aliye towa msaada (shirika) na ilikuwa aina gani ya msaada ? 16. Je unashamba yako mwenye we sasa (cheti cha serkali cha kumuliki shamba ) ao urahisi wa kulima shanba ya mtu mwengine kupoiytia msaada wa mradi? 17. Nini uliona cha maana kuhusu msaada wa mradi juu ya ardhi (shamba)? Yenye haikuwa ya maana? 18. Mradi unaweza fanya nini kwaku boresha uwezo wa kupata shamba ya kulima? IR1.2 MOA Agricultural Extension Services Output 1.2.1 Development of Action Plans Interview Format Location When Duration Who 9. Mipangilio wa ukulima ilimalizika katika tarafa yenu? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 80 10. Nani alikuwepo katika kuandika mipangilio hii ? (MOA, ADRA/Africare, CDCs, wengine – kwa genda, wanaume ngapi /wanawake ngapi) 11. Kila muhusika alikuwa na kazi gani ? 12. Hatua gani ilifuatwa kwaku andaa mipangilio hii ? 13. Taja yaliyo katika mipangilio hii. 14. Unafikiria nini kuhusu hatuta za utugnaji wa mipangilo hii? Ilifanyika vizuri,ao haikufanyika kwa uzaifi ? 15. Hatua ilikuwa inahusisha watu ? Ikiwa hapana, Munafikiria nani aliachwa kando (hakuhusishwa)? 16. Namna gani unaweza ku saisha hatua za kuhunda mipangilio kwa wakati ujao? Output 1.2.2 Ukaguzi wa soko Interview Format Location When Duration Who 9. Ukaguzi wa soko uliendeshwa katika kijiji yenu ao katika eneo hili? 10. Nani aliemndesha ukaguzi huo na wakati gani? 11. Kunamtu nfulani aliyewonyesha matokea ya ukaguzi huo? 12. Unafikiria je kuhusu matokeo yaliyo patikana kwa ukaguzi huo? 13. Kunakitu kilicho fanyika kupitaia ukaguzi wa soko , iliongoza matunda ya utumiaji soko fulani? 14. Mapendekezo gani ukonayo kuhusu ukaguzi wa soko kwa wakati ujao? 15. Unafikiri kama unaweza tumia aina Fulani ya ukaguzi wa soko kwa wakati ujao? Ikiwa ndiyo, namna gani unaweza fanya? 16. Output 1.2.3 MOA Extension Worker Technical Training (these questions may be adapted for use with community groups as well as with MOA staff) Interview Format Location When Duration Who 10. Mulifundishwa ufundi gani wa ukulima? (kutayarisha ardhi, kuchagua mbegu, ufundi wa kupanda, kulima, utumiaji jembe, ukaguzi wa hali ya uhusiano kati ya miti na mimea ingine,ingine) 11. Somo hizo zilikuwa zina wajibika sana, imfano: Ulihitaji nini 12. Nani aliwafundisha na ni wapi mafundisho yalifanyika (Katika shamba ya mafundisho - FFS)? 13. Mulipata vipindi ngapi vya mafundiusho? 14. Unafikiri nini kuhusu hali ya vipindi vya mafundisho? Yalikuwa yanalenga vizuri ao hayakulenga vizuri? 15. Ikiwa hakulenga vizuri, mabadiliko gani yakutiya katika vipindi vya mafundisho? 16. Ufundi gani ya ukulima uliona yenye maana sana ? Mafundisho gani uliona yasiyo na maana sana ? 17. Ufundi gani mpya wa ukulima uliopimwa katika shamba, na ni matokeo gani iltokea 18. Mapendekezo gani yanaweza tolewa FGMI KII Output 1.2.4 Community Outreach/Monitoring Visits Interview Format Location When Duration Who 15. Mbegu gani muligabuliwa kwa shamba ya mafundisho? (muhogo, maindi, karanga, ingine) 16. Nani alipokea mbegu kwa shamba ya mafundisho? 17. Muliona kama wa shamba ya mafundisho ilikuwa ya maana ao haikuwa na maana ? 18. Unaweza pendekeza mafundisho katika shamba kwa siku zijazo, ao kwenye eneo ingne fulani, (mojakwamoja katika shamba yako, shamba za wakulima wengine, nafasi ingine)? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 81 19. Ulipokea mbegu ya shamba yako ya binafsi? 20. Ulipokea mbegu toka kwa nani ? 21. Ulipokea idadi gani ya mbegu ? 22. Idadi hii ya mbegu ilitosha kwa maitaji ya chakula kwa familia yako ? 23. Mbegu uliyo pokea ilikuwa namna gani, nzuri ao mbaya ? 24. Nani alikuwa anatembelea shamba yako kwakufuatilia mavuno ya mimea yako? 25. Namna gani kila mara walikuwa wanafika ku fuatiliya mimea yako ? 26. Namna gani kila mara ungelipenda wawe wanafika kuangalia shamba yako? 27. Uliona kama kufika kwao ni kwa maana ao si kwa maana? 28. Ikiwa si kwa maana, Ungependekeza nini iweze kusaishwa katika kufuatlia shamba? IR1.3 Improved Agricultural Practices Output 1.3.1 Promotion of Improved Agricultural Practices Interview Format Location When Duration Who 11. Mulipata mafundisho katika ufundi gani wa ukulima? (kukingia ardhi, kukagua mbegu, funfundi wa kupanda, kulima, utumiaji jembe, ukaguzi wa hali ya uhusiano kati ya miti na mimea ingine,ingine ) 12. Ufundi gani wa ukulima ambao munatumia katika shamba zenu kwa sasa ? Ufundi gani ambao hamtumie kwa sasa na kwa nini? 13. Zinasaishwa kwa kuwa na maana ?Kwa nini ndiyo ao hapana? 14. Unafikiri kama zinatosha kwa wakati na maitaji (wafanyakazi , pesa,vifaa vya kazi, ingine) kwakutumia katika ufundi wote wa ukulima katika shamba yako ao hapana ? Ikiwa hapana , kwa nini? 15. Utumiaji wa ufundi huu ulibadirisha hitaji ya wakati wa utumikaji kwaku komalisha mimea? 16. Ilibadirisha wakati unao hitajika kwa kazi zingine katika jamaa ? 17. Ulipokea vifaa vya ukulima kwenye mradi? 18. Ulipokea kifaa gani cha kazi ? (mpanga, jembe, kanya , sululu, kipawa, kamba ya nylon, ingine) 19. Vifaa hivi vya kazi vilikuwa vya maana ao bila maana? 20. Ikiwa havina maana, chombo gani unafikiri inahitajika hasa kwa kulima? Output 1.3.2 Diversified Agricultural Production Interview Format Location When Duration Who ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 82 10. Kwa sasa unapanda mimea gani kama vile matokeo ya msaada wa mradi? (muhogo, maindi,karanga, ingine) 11. Kuna moja kati ya mimea hii ni mpya, ao ulikuwa unahipanda hata mbele ya kupata msaada wa mradi? 12. Mavuno yako yalibaki vilevile, Yaliongezeka ao yalipunguka tangu kuwepo kwako katika mradi? (uliza kwa kila mumuea – muhogo, maindi, karanga, ingine) 13. Ni kwa kiasi gani imeongezeka ao imepunguka ? (kg) Ufundi gani wa kilimo unafikiri kama inatumika vizuri kwa kuongeza mavuno? Ufundi gani hautumike vizuri? Kwa nini? 14. Utawea kuendelea kutumia ufundi huu mpya mradi utkapo malizika? Ni Ufunfi gani utakao endelea kutumia? 15. Ni ufundi gani hautaendelea kutumia, na kwa nini? 16. Utakuweza kuhuzisha mimea yako fulkani ao ulitumia tu kwa kulisha familia yako? 17. Ikiwa ilihuzishwa , ni mimea gani /na kwa idadi gani? 18. Kwa nini ulihuzisha mavuno /? (kununua vyakula ingine , kulipa madeni, kutumia kwa kununua vifaa vingine, ingine) Food Security 3. Ni kwa nmiezi ngapi jamaa yako ina chakula cha kutosha mbele ya kuwepo kwako katika mradi ? 4. Ni kwa nmiezi ngapi unachakula cha kutosha kwa sasa kutokea kwa mavuno yako (hapana kuhingiza msaada wa chakula wa mradi)? Output 1.3.3 Improved IPM (CMD – cassava mosaic disease) Interview Format Location When Duration Who 8. Ulipata mafundisho kuhusu IPM methods (CMD, ingine)? 9. Ni somo ngapi zilizofundishwa ulikuwepo na ni nani aliyekuwa akifundisha? 10. Mafundisho yalifanyika katika shamba yako ao katika shamba ya mafundisho? 11. Uliona kama mafundisho yalikuw aya maana ao hakuwa na maana, na kwa nini? 12. Ikiwa hayakuwa ya maana , mabadiliko gani unngependekeza? (nafasi,wakati,ufundi,ingine) 13. Ulipata matatizo fulani ya CMD katika shamba zako? 14. Mradi ulikusaidia ku punguza CMD, ao matatizo yanaendelea? Ikiwa yanaendelea, kwa nini? IR1.4 Improved Agricultural Infrastructure Output 1.4.1 Rehabilitated Irrigation Canals Interview Format Location When Duration Who 11. Ulikuwepo katika kazi za kukarabati mufereji wa maji kupitia msaada wa mradi? 12. Ikiwa ndiyo, msaada gani ulipata ? (mafundisho,chakula,vifaa vya kazi, ingine) 13. Ikiwa ulipokea chakula, ulikula yote, ao ulihuzisha sehemu ingine? Ikiwa ulihuzisha, kwanini? 14. Ikiwa awtu wengine walipokea chakula, (eg.chakula kwa kazi), walichaguliwa namna gani ? 15. Ni siku ngapi kazi ilifanyika? 16. Mulitumika kazi ya kukarabati mfereji wa maji kwa urefu gani ? (mita, kilometa) 17. Mfereji wa maji ulio karabatiwa uliwasaidia kutumia maji kwenye mashamba yenu? 18. Mfereji wa maji ulio karabatiwa uliwasaidia kuongeza mavuno ya mimea yenu? Ikiwa hapana, kwanini? 19. Munaweza kuendelea kukarabati mfereji kwa siku zijazo bila msaada wa mradi? Ikiwa hapana, kwanini ? 20. Ni shirika ao tahasisi gani inayoweza kuhusishwa katika kushugulikia daima mfereji kwa siku zijazo? Namna gani watatumika na jamii ao kijiji? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 83 Output 1.4.2 Improved Crop Storage Facilities Interview Format Location When Duration Who 12. Ulihusika na kutengeneza chombo cha gala kupitia msaada wa mradi? 13. Ikiwa ndiyo, ulipata msaada gani? (mafundisho,chakula, vifaa vya kazi, ingine) 14. Ikiwa mulipata mafundisho,yalifanyik awapina nani aliye fundisha? 15. Mafundisho yalichukuwa saa ao siku ngapi? 16. Taja ufundi ya wa chombo cha gala ulio jifunza? (kutumia matofari mabichi (yasiyochomwa), cimenti,chuma, ingine) 17. Kiwa mulipokea chakula ,mulikula chakula yote, ao mulihuzisha sehemu ingine? Ikiwa ilihuzishwa, kwa nini? 18. Siku ngapi zilikuwa zilifaa kwaku tengeneza chombo cha gala kwa uraisi? 19. Watu ngapi walikusaidia kutengeneza chombo cha gala ? Walikuwa memba wa familia ao marafiki? 20. Walilipwa pesa ao chakula ao walitumika kwa bure? 21. Gala ilisaidia kusaisha kukingia mavuno yako ? Ikiwa hapana , kwanini? 22. Unatumia ufundi mwengine zaidi ya chombo mpya cha gala kusaidia ku kingie mavuno yako? (dawa ya vidudu, dawa za kufukiza, uchunguzi wa kawaida, majivu, ingine). Utaweza kulinda chombo chako cha gala daima katika hali nzuri kwa siku zijazo bila msaada wa mradi? Ikiwa hapana, kwanini? Output 1.4.3 Improved Feeder Roads Interview Format Location When Duration Who 13. Ulihusika na kutengeneza barabara ya kupitia msaada wa mradi? 14. Ikiwa ndiyo, msaada gani mulipata ? (mafundisho,chakula, vifaa vya kazi, ingine) 15. Ikiwa mulipata mafundisho, yalipitika wapi na nani aliye fundisha? 16. Mafundisho yaluchukuwa muda wa siku ao saa ngapi ? 17. Ikiwa chakula ilipokelewa, mulikula mchakula yote, ao mulihuzisha sehemu ingine? Ikiwa mulihuzisha, kwa nini ? 18. Kwa muda wa siku ngapi mulihusika na kazi hiyo ya kukarabati barabara? 19. Barabara iliyo tengenezwa iliraisiha kwenda soko ya mahali ao kwenda kwa vijiji vingine? Ikiwa hapana, kwa nini? 20. Unafikiri kama mafundisho juu ya kutengeneza barabara ilikuwa ililenga vizuri? Ikiwa hapana, kwa nini? 21. Ikiwa haikulenga vizuri, uneweza pendekeza nini kwa saisha mafundisho hayo? 22. Unafikiri kama kwa sasa hali ya barabara ni bora ao hapana ? 23. Mutaweza kulinda daima hiyo barabara katika hali nzuri kwa siku zijazo bila msaada wa mradi? Ikiwa hapana, kwa nini? 24. Tarsisi gani ya serkali inapaswhwa husishwa ndani, na kazi yao itakuwa gani ? IR1.5 Improved Soil Fertility Practices Output 1.5.1 Farmer Training on Soil Conservation Interview Format Location When Duration Who 16. Ulihusika na mafundisho ya ufundi wa kulinga ardhi? 17. Ikiwa ndiyo, ni ufundi gani ulifundishwa? (kuzuhiya mmomonyoko wa ardhi, rutuba, kubadilisha mimea, kuzuhiya miferezi ya maji, shimo za kudumbukiza maji, muhundo wa udongo, kusawazisha udongo, kutuliza mapito ya mtoni, upandaji miti na utumiaji maji, terracing, deep tilling, mbolea za majani mabichi, ingine) 18. Mulipata msaada gani ? (mafundisho, chakula,vifa vya kazi, ingine) 19. Mafundishoyalipitika wapi na naninaliye fundisha? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 84 20. Mafundisho yalichukuwa siku aoao saa ngapi? 21. Ikiwa chakula ilipokelewa, mulikula chakula yote, ao mulihuzisha sehemu ingine? Ikiwa ilihuzihswa, kwa nini? 22. Ufundi gani wa kutunza udongo munao tumia kwa sasa katika shamba zenu? Ni gani ambyo hamutumie na kwa nini? 23. Munafikiri kama mulitumia vizuri sasa wakati na mambo ingine (wafanya kazi, pesa, vifaa vya kazi, ingine) ku tumia ufundi wote wa kutunza undongo katika shamba yako ao hapana? Ikiwa hapana kwa nini? 24. Utumiaji wa ufundi wa kutunza udongo ulibadirisha kiasi cha muda na wafanya kazi vinavyohitajika kukomalisha mimea yako? 25. Ilibadirissa muda unaohitajika kwa kazi zingine katika jamaa? 26. Ufundi gani wa utunzaji udongo unafikiria kama ni bora zaidi ku ongeza mavuno? Unafikiria ya wapi siyofaa vizuri? Kwa nini? 27. Utaweza endelea kutumia ufundi wa kutunza udongo hata mwisho wa mradi ? Utaendelea kutumia ufundi gani? 28. Ufundi gani hautoweza endelea kutumia, na kwa nini? 29. Unafikiri kwamba mafundisho juu ya utunzaji wa udongo yalikuwa sawa kabisa? Ikiwa hapana, Kwa nini? 30. Ikiwa hayakuwa sawa , uneweza pendekeza kusaishwe nini katika mafundisho? Output 1.5.2 Trees Planted for Reforestation Interview Format Location When Duration Who 20. Ulihusika na mafundisho ya kutengeneza nafasi ya kupanda mbegu za miti? 21. Msaada gani mulipata kupitia mradi ? (mafundisho, chakula, vifaa vya kazi, ingine) 22. Mafundisho yalifanyika wapi na nani aliye fundisha? 23. Mafundisho yalichukua siku ao saa ngapi? 24. Kiwa chakula ilipokelewa, mulikula yote, ao mulihuzisha sehemu? Kiwa ilihuzushwa, kwa nini ? 25. Ulishaka panada miti weye mwenyewe mbele ya kazi ya mradi huu? Ikiwanhapana , kwa nini? 26. Kwa sasa una nafasi yakuhoteshea mti ao ulipata mbegu za miti kutoka ku nafasi ya kuhoteshea? 27. Ulipanda miti ngapi na ni aaina gani ya miti ? (citrus=agrume, moringa, ingine) 28. Miti ilipandwa wapi na wapi ukonapangiliya kupanda ingine? Hiyo eneo(ardhi) n ya binafsi, ya kundi , serkali, etc? 29. Unafikiri kama ulitumia vizuri muda na mambo ingine (wafanya kazi, pesa,vifaa vya kazi, ingine) kwa kuandaa nafasi ya kuhoteshea miti ao kupanda miti katika shamba yako? Ikiwa hapana, kwa nini? 30. Upandaji wa miti ilibadirisha kiasi cha wafanya kazi ao muda vinavyohitajika kwa kukomalisha mumea (muti)? 31. Ilibadirisha muda unaohitajika kwa kwa kazi zingine katika jamaa ? 32. Namna gani unapangilia kutumia miti yako? Kupata pesa ao ku kwa ajili ya matumizi ya jamaa , ao vyote viwili? 33. Miaka ngapi inasalia kwa wewe kupata faida ya miti yako? (mavuno ya matunda, manufaa ingine ya mti) 34. Muda huo ni mrefu kuchung, ama ni nzuri? 35. Mutaweza kuendelea kupanda miti hata muradi ukimalizika? 36. Mutakuwa na uwezo wakupata miti midogo kwa siku zijazo wakati muradi utakapo malizika? Ikiwa ndiyo, kutoka kwa nani? 37. Unafikiri kwamba kukomalisha miti ilikuwa vuzuri? Ikiwa hapana, k wa nini? 38. Ikiwa haikuwa vizuri, uaweza pendekeza nini irekebishwe katika mafunzo? Output 1.5.3 Agro-Forestry Techniques Interview Format Location When Duration Who 16. Ulihusika na mafundisho Fulani kuhusu ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba ? 17. Ikiwa ndiyo, ufundi gani mulijifunza? (kuchanga mimea, kutenganisha mimea, ingine) 18. Mulipata msaadagani kutokea mradi? (mafundisho, chakula, vifaa vya kazi, ingine) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 85 19. Mafundisho yalifanyika wapi na nani aliye fundisha? 20. Mafundisho yaluchukuwa siku ao saa mgapi? 21. Ikiwa chakula ilipokelewa, mulikula yote, ao mulihuzisha sehemu ? Ikiwa ilihuzishwa, kwa nini? 22. Ufundi gani gani wa ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba munatumia kwa sasa katika shamba zenu? Ni ufundi gani hamutumiye na kwa nini? 23. Munafikiri kama muko na muda wa kutosha na mabo ingine (wafanya kazi, pesa,vifaa vya kazi, oingine) kwaku tumia ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba zenu ao hapana? Ikiwa hapana, kwa nini? 24. Utumiaji wa ufundi huu umebadilisha kiasi cha muda wafanya kazi vinavyo htjika kwaku komalisha mimea? 25. Ilibadirisha muda unaohitajika kwa kazi zingine katika jamaa ? 26. Ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba unafikiri kama unaenda vizuri kwa ku ongeza mavuno? Ni gani haitumike vizuri? Kwa nini ? 27. Mutaweza kuendelea kutumia ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba mulio findishwa mradi utakapo malizika? Ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba uttaendelea kutumia ? 28. Ufundi gani wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba hautanedelea kutumia, kwa nini ? 29. Unafikiri kama mafundihso ya ufundi wa kuchanga miti na mimea ya shamba yalikuwa mazuri? Ikiwa hapana, kwa nini? 30. Ikiwa haikuwa vizuri, unweza pendekeza nini kwa kusaisha mafundisho yale? Gender Dynamics Interview Format Location When Duration Who 8. Wanawake wana uhuru wa, kumiliki na kutumia mambo (e.g. mifugo,mkopo wa pesa, vipindi vya mafundisho na mazungumzo)? 9. Aina gani ya kilimo na kazi ya kutafuta mlo wanawake wanafanya kila siku katika jamii yenu, na namna gani ni tofauti na wanaume ? 10. Mradi huu ulichangia kuongeza uhuru wa wanawake wa kumiliki vitu (ardhi,ingine)? 11. Wanawake wanahusishwa katika kuchukua hazimio gani katika na/ao wana miliki kulinganisha na kazi za mradi? 12. Wanwake wana husika na vipindi vya mafundisho? Ina gani vipindi vya mafundisho? Namna gani munalinganisha hesabu yao na hesabu ya waume katika vipindi vya mafundisho? 13. Namna gani muke wako anajisikiakuhusu kuhusika kwako katika kazi za mradi? 14. Kulikuwa mabadiliko fulani katika jamaa kuhusu nani anachukua uhamuzi ao namna gani pesa zinatumiwa? FGW FGM Questions for ADRA-Africare NGO Staff/Key Informants FRENCH Interview Format Location When Duration Who 13. Le cas échéant quels les pricipaux succès et les accomplissements du projet jusqu'à présent ? Quels facteurs spécifiques ont contribué aux succès et aux accomplissements ? 14. Le cas échéant quels sont les faiblesses les plus remaquées et-ou les défis du projet ? Y a-t-il quoi que ce soit qui a empêché une collaboration plus forte entre les deux partenaires 15. Par-dessus tout, ADRA a-t-il renforcé sa performnce et son impact à travers sle partenriat avec Africare ? AFricare a-t-il renforcé sa performnce et son impact à travers sle partenriat avec ADRA? Si oui , comment ? Si non, qu’est-ce qui empêché ce ci d’apparaître? 16. Comment chaque partenaire a-t-il partipé dans le développement des plans stratégique et d’opérartion. Qu’est-ce qui a étét bien ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 86 fait dans ce processus ? Qu’est-ce qui n’a étét bien fait ? 17. Le projet dans le pays opère-t-il(fonctionne-t-il) comme conçu à l'origine? Sinon, comment chaque partenaire participe-t-il au processus de prise de décisions pour changer l'opération de programme ? 18. Quels genres de procédure de programme sont contrôlées par le partenaire est entrepris par chaque partenaire ? Ceux-ci contrôlent-ils des procédures cohérentes parmi les deux paretanaires ? Quelles œuvres(travaux) vont bien ? Qu'est-ce qui n’a pas été bein fait ? 19. Comment ont été identifiés et résolus les prpblèmes entre les deux parteaires? Qu’est qui a étét bien fait Durant la phase de la resolution de problem? Qu’est-ce qui n’a pas été bien fait? 20. Comment les informations ont étét communiqués entre ls deux partenaires ? Qu’est qui bien fait ? Qu’est-ce qui n’a pas bien fait ? 21. Lesquelles , s’il y en a , des opportuniés, outils , ou méthodes pour l’apprentissage mutuel entre ADRA et Africare sont/étaient bénéfiques ? 22. Comment les informations entraient à travers l’apprentissage des experiences mutuellesont appliquées? 23. Les actions ont-elles été générées pour améliorer les pratiques ou les les lois d’applications dans le pays des programmes dans ce partenariat ? Quel type d’acytions? 24. Les meilleures pratiques et l’apprentassage d’experiences mutuelles d’ADRA et Africare ont ells été documentées ? Partagées ? Si oui, donner un format d’exmplaire, média , audiences, etc. si non, y a –t- il des plans concrts pour le faire? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 87 Appendix VIII – Household Questionnaire (English) FINAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ADRA Food Security Multi Year Assistance Project (MYAP) (FY 2009 - FY 2011) Democratic Republic of Congo Enumerator code Sub-Region Code: _______________ Fizi (100) Uvira (200) Village Name: ______________________ Household number ____ Are you returning to conduct an interview with a mother? Yes/No – if yes – skip to J1 INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT Hello. My name is ____________ and I am working with ADRA. We are conducting a study about JENGA project area in Fizi and Uvira. This survey will take about 60 minutes to complete. The information you provide will remain confidential. Participation in this survey is voluntary. Thank you for your participation. May I begin the interview now? IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT AGREE TO INTERVIEW………..1  END - DO NOT INTERVIEW IF RESPONDENT AGREES TO INTERVIEW……………………2  BEGIN INTERVIEW _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Name of Respondent _____________________________ A. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS 1. What is your age in years: _________ 2. Sex of respondent: 1. Male 2. Female 3. What is your relationship to the head of household? 1. Head of household 2. Spouse 3. Child 4. Brother/sister 5. Aunt/uncle 6. Parent 7. Other relative ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 88 8. Not related 4. What is your marital status? 1. Married 2. Separated 3. Widowed 4. Never Married 5. Can you read or write? 1. Yes 2. No (If no, skip to Q7) 6. What is your highest level of education? 1. Never attended school 2. Primary 3. Secondary 4. University 5. Adult Education 7. What is the total number of people in your household? ___________ 8. How many children do you have? 1. Male __________ 2. Female________ 9. Sex of Household head (skip if respondent is household head 3=1) 1. Male 2. Female 10. Are you a returnee to this village? 1. Yes 2. No If no, skip Q10 11. How long have you lived at this village since your return? ___________ months 12. What type of shelter does your household use? 1. Own shelter 2. Government shelter 3. ADRA shelter 4. Other NGO shelter 5. Rent 13. What is your main occupation for living? 1. Farming 2. Livestock 3. Fishing 4. Trading 5. Wage labor 6. Unemployed ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 89 B. FOOD SECURITY 1. In the past 12 months, were there months in which you did not have enough food to meet your family’s needs? 1. Yes 2. No If NO, skip to Section B3 2. If yes, which were the months (in the past 12 months) in which you did not have enough food to meet your family’s needs? a. January d. April g. July j. October b. February e. May h. August k. November c. March f. June i. September l. December 3. Which types of foods you or anyone else in your household ate yesterday during the day and at night?” a. Cereal/Grain Staples b. Tuber (Ugali) c. Pulses (Beans, lentils) d. Fruits e. Green Vegetables ( taro leaves, cassava leaves, amaranth leaves) f. Other Vegetables g. Roots (carrots, sweet potatoes) h. Dairy (Milk, yogurt) i. Eggs j. Meat (beef, goat, chicken) k. Oil/Fat/butter l. Sugar/honey m. Fish n. Coffee/Tea 4. How many times did you eat during the last 24 hours? 1. Once 2. Twice 3. Three times 4. Four times 4. None In the past 30 days, if there have been times when you don’t have enough food or money to buy food, how often has your household had to: Coping Option Times per week Every day 3-6 times/ week 1-2 times/ week Less than 1 Never 5a Rely on less preferred and less expensive foods? 5b Borrow food, or rely on help from friends or relatives? 5c Purchase food on credit? 5d Gather wild food or hunt? 5e Consume seed stock held for next season? 5f Send household members to live elsewhere? 5g Limit portion sizes at mealtimes? 5h Restrict consumption of adults so children can eat? 5i Reduced the number of meals eaten in a day? 5j Skip entire days without eating? 5k Sold livestock to purchase food? 5l Sold other assets to purchase food? 5m Beg? C. AGRICULTURE ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 90 1. Do you cultivate any crop in the last season? 1. Yes 2. No If NO, skip to question D5 2. Do you use your own land for agriculture? 1. Yes If yes, skip to C4 2. No 3. If no, who owns the land you use for agriculture? 1. Leased 2. Share cropping 3. Government 4. What is the area of the agricultural land you use? _______________ 4a. What is the unit of measure? a. Carré (25x25 metres) b. Square meters c. Square feet d. Other 5. Which crops did you cultivate for the last year? (Check as appropriate) a. Maize b. Cassava c. Ground nuts d. Beans e. Sweet Potatoes f. Rice g. Banana h. Other a.Area cultivated b. Kg cultivated c. Kg sold d. Value of crop sold 6. Maize 7. Cassava 8. Groundnuts 9. Beans 10. Sweet potato 11. Rice 12. How do you sale your crops from your last harvest? 1. Myself 2. Joint price negotiation with other farmers 3. Other, please specify 13. Did you use improved seed? 1. Yes 2. No If no, skip to C15 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 91 14. Where do you get your improved seed? a. Self owned b. Purchase c. Borrowing d. Government e. ADRA f. Africare g. Other NGO 15. Do you get extension services? 1. Yes 2. No If no, skip to C19 16. How often do you get extension services during a planting season? 1. Weekly 2. Biweekly 3. Monthly 4. Every Three month 5. Every 6 months 6. Once a year 17. How many times in the last 12 months have you received extension services? ______ 18. Where do get extension services? a. Ministry of Agriculture b. ADRA c. Africare d. Other NGO e. Private sector 19. Have you received training in improved agricultural production techniques? 1. Yes 2. No If no, skip to C22 20. Where did you get the training in improved agricultural production? a. Ministry of Agriculture b.ADRA c. Africare d.Other NGO e. Community organization 21. Which agricultural techniques do you apply during planting season? a. Crop Rotation b. Mixed Cropping c. Organic fertilizer use d. Seed preparation e. Improved Seeds use f. Row planting g. Water management h. Biologic pest control i. Weed control j. Improved Soil preparation k. Slash and burn k. None 22. Which of the following infestations/diseases affect your crop production? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 92 a. Pests b. Locusts c. Moisaic d. Banana wilt e. Birds f. mice g. Other h. None 23. Which crop protection techniques do you apply? a. Chemical Pesticides b. Bird netting c. Botanic Pesticides d. None 24. Do you use storage for food? 1. Yes 2. No If, no skip to D1 25. What types of storage facility do you use? a. Plastics barrels b. Elevated storage units c. Granary d. Hung husk e. Sacks f. Space in the house g. Space on farm h. clay pot 26. How long do you store your crops once harvested? ____________ days ____________months 27. What problems of food storage do you experience? a. Rotting b. Humidity c. Pest d. Rats e. Cockroaches f .Theft g. None 28. What improved techniques do you use to control infestation of food storage? a. Trappe technique b. Use of Elevated storage unit c. Use of metals in storage wall d. Biological control e. None D. SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION 1. Do you apply soil conservation techniques? 1. Yes 2. No, If no skip to D3 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 93 2. What soil conservation techniques do apply? READ THE LIST a. Tree-planting b. Terracing c. Composting d. Fertilizing e. Using green manure f. Other 3. Do you use any type of water conservation and irrigation techniques to water your crops? 1. Yes 2. No , If no skip to D5 4. Which irrigation techniques do you use? a. Diversion canals b. Terraces c. Building closed canals d. Other 5. How long, in minutes, does it take you to go to your water source, stand in line, collect water and return home? __________Minutes E. Household finances 1. How much money do you spend for your household in last 12 months? IF NO EXPENSE, ENTER “0” Amount (CF) a. Food Per month _______ b. Clothes Per year _______ c. Agriculture inputs Per Year _______ d. Education Per Year _______ e. Traditional festivity Per Year _______ f. Family health Per Year _______ g. Utilities Per month _______ h. Transportation Per month _______ 2. What are other sources of your household income besides agriculture (check as appropriate)? a. Fishing b. Small business c. Temporary wages d. Spouse e. Salaried job f. Relatives/Friends g. Rent h. None 3. Do you get loan for your household? 1. Yes 2. No If No, Skip to D5 4. What is the main source of the loan? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 94 1. Relatives 2. Friends 3. Money lenders 4. Cooperatives 5. Micro credit programs 5. What were other sources of income for the household in the last 12 months? (select all that apply) a. Farming b. Livestock c. Business d. Fishery e. Temporary job f. Salary job g. Remittance h. Food for Work i. Coal sale j. Other 6. How much did you earn last 12 months? CF a. Farming _______ b. Livestock _______ c. Fishery _______ d. Business _______ e. Temporary job _______ f. Salary job _______ g. Remittance _______ h. Food for Work _______ i. Coal sale _______ 7. Which of the following do you use as source(s) for food price information? a. Radio b. TV c. Price information board d. Market place e. Other 8. How far is the nearest food market from your house? _________ Meters ___________km 9. Do you have livestock? 1. Yes 2. No If no skip to D13 10. Which of the following livestock do you have? How many a. Cows/Oxen _____________ b. Sheep ______________ c. Goat _____________ d. Chicken _____________ e. Duck ____________ 11a: Do you own any other types of livestock not listed in the previous question? ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 95 1. Yes 2. No If no skip to F12 11b: If yes – what type of livestock? ________________ 11c: How many did you own? _______ 12. Did your livestock catch disease during the last 12 months? 1. Yes 2. No 13. Do you get veterinary services? 1. Yes 2. No If no skip to F1 14. Where do you get the veterinary services? a.. Ministry of Agriculture b. ADRA c. Africare d. Other NGO e. Private sector F. Health status of household members during last 2 weeks F1: Were any MALES over the age of 5 years sick in the last 14 days? 1. Yes 2. No F2: Were any FEMALES over the age of 5 years sick in the last 14 days? 1. Yes 2. No If no to F1 and F2, skip to G1 Details (family members > 15 years old) Read symptoms Number of episodes / occurrences in last 2 weeks F3. Men F4. Women a Diarrhea episodes b Respiratory illness (cough, breathing difficulty) c Worms d Skin diseases e Malaria/ fever f Cholera g Typhoid h An emia i Other recurring diseases j Number of work days missed due to illness k Number of times visited a doctor / medical person l Number of times consulted traditional healer G. HIV/AIDS and Chronic Illness QUESTIONS ANSWERS SKIP G1 In the past 12 months, has anybody in the household experienced chronic illness (sick for more than 3 months)? Yes.....................................................1 No ......................................................2 G3 G2 If yes, was this person tested for HIV/AIDS? Yes.....................................................1 No ......................................................2 Don‟t know……………………………….3 G3 Does your household care for anybody with HIV/AIDS? Yes.....................................................1 No ......................................................2 G4 Does your household care for anybody with TB? Yes.....................................................1 No ......................................................2 H. Gender ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 96 1. Do you think that violence against women is a problem in your community? 1. Yes 2. No 2. Do you personally know anyone who has been abused? 1. Yes 2. No 3. In your opinion, does a man have a good reason to hit his wife if: (read the list, select all that apply) 1. She does not complete her household work to his satisfaction 2. She disobeys him 3. She refuses to have sexual relations with him 4. She asks him whether he has other girlfriends 5. None of the above 4. Who makes the decisions regarding personal health care? 1. Primarily men 2. Primarily women 3. Men and women together 5. Who makes the decisions regarding visiting relatives? 1. Primarily men 2. Primarily women 3. Men and women together 6. Who makes the decisions regarding visiting friends? 1. Primarily men 2. Primarily women 3. Men and women together 7. Who makes the decisions regarding spending the wife’s earnings? 1. Primarily men 2. Primarily women 3. Men and women together 4. N/A Section I Child illness I1 Are there any children under five years in the household? 1. Yes 2. No (if No, end interview) I1a: How many children under five years are in the household: Boys__________ Girls __________ This section is regarding illness of children under the age of 5 – in the last 14 days were there any sick children under the age of 5? 1. Yes 2. No (if No, skip to I10) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 97 Child Disease CHILD ID Symptom Sex of child Male.............1 Female.......... 2 Did (CHILD) have any of the following symptoms in the last 14 days Yes ..............1 No ...............2 How many days did the symptom last over the last 14 days? Does (CHILD) still have the symptom today? Yes ...... 1 No ....... 2 What actions did you take for the symptom? (Can answer 3 actions) Give Special Liquid/Tea (other than ORS) ............................................1 Give ORS......................................2 Give a special food .......................3 Withdraw/Reduce Breast MilkI ......4 Withdraw/Reduce Other Liquids....5 Withdraw/Reduce Foods...............6 Give Medicine from chemist..........7 Traditional medicine......................8 Did you seek treatment or consult anybody for this symptom? Yes ...... 1 No ................ 2 Who did you consult? Doctor...................... 1 Nurse ...................... 2 Health Worker ......... 3 Pharmacist .............. 4 Traditional Healer .... 5 Other ....................... 6 Where did you go for this consultation? Clinic......................... 1 Hospital..................... 2 Health Center............ 3 Pharmacy.................. 4 NGO ........................5 Home Visit ................ 6 H2 Hd3a-k H4a-k H5a-k H6a-k H7a-k H8a-k H9a-k H10a-k H11a-k Flu Cough (severe) Diarrhea Vomiting Blood in stools Malaria Fever Measles Other symptom: CHILD #2 IF CONSULTATION IS FOR >1 SYMPTOM, WRITE IN THE BOTTOM ROW M51a-k M52a-k M53a-k M54a-k M55a-k M56a-k M57a-k M58a-k Flu Cough (severe) Diarrhea mothedefinition) Vomiting Blood in stools Malaria Fever Measles Other symptom: CHILD #3 IF CONSULTATION IS FOR >1 SYMPTOM, WRITE IN THE BOTTOM ROW M59a-k M60a-k M61a-k M62a-k M63a-k M64a-k M65a-k M66a-k ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 98 Flu Cough (severe) Diarrhea (mother’sdefinition) Vomiting Blood in stools Malaria Fever Measles Other symptom: ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 99 Child Immunizations (up to 3 children) I10 Do you have a card or child health booklet where your children‟s (name‟s) vaccinations and Vitamin A (capsules) are written down? IF YES: May I see them please? YES………………………………………..……1 NO………………………………...………….....2 DON‟T KNOW………………......………….. ...9  H11a  H11a I11 Record child‟s birthdate from vaccination card DAY MONTH YEAR I11a Calculate child‟s age in months - |___|___| months I12 Sex of child 1= Boy 2=Girl If no card, skip to H14 I13 COPY VACCINATION DATE FOR DTP1, DTP3 AND MEASLES FROM THE CARD OR BOOKLET. IF VACCINES ARE NOT RECORDED IN CHILD HEALTH CARD OR BOOKLET, FILL IN 99/99/9999. DAY MONTH YEAR BCG ….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| VPO1….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| VPO3….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| DTP1/Hep……|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||__| DTP3/Hep……|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| VAA….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| SULUBA (VAR)...|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| I14 Has your child (NAME) received any vaccinations that are not recorded on this card, including vaccinations given during immunization campaigns? YES………………………………………..……1 NO………………………………...………….....2 DON‟T KNOW………………......………….. ...9  I1 I1 I15 If mother does not have card, or child has received immunizations not recorded on the card, which immunizations did the child receive? (multiple answers possible) BCG...........................................1 VPO1 .........................................2 VPO3 .........................................3 DTP1/Hep..................................4 DTP3/Hep..................................5 Yellow Fever..............................6 Measles .....................................7 Other..........................................8 Is there another child under five in the household? 1= Yes (if yes, continue through another cycle) 2= If no, continue to Section J) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 100 Section J: Maternity Practices - This section is directed towards ALL women in the household who may have given birth in the previous 3 years. These questions will cycle through up to three times if necessary QUESTIONS ANSWERS SKIP J1 Has any member of the household given birth in the last 3 years? (Please talk directly to her) This section will be allow for up to 3 females. Yes .....................................................1 No.......................................................2 END J1a Are they available for the interview? If yes, please interview them. If not, please ask if it is possible for you to interview them later that day. If it is not possible, do not return for interview Yes .....................................................1 No, but will return for interview ...........2 No cannot return for interview ............2 J2 During your last pregnancy, did you consult anyone for antenatal care? Yes .....................................................1 No……………………………………….2 H5 J3 With whom did you consult? Doctor / Medical Assistant......... 1 Nurse......................................... 2 Midwife ..................................... 3 Traditional Birth Attendant (TBA)4 Other ......................................... 5 J4 How many times did you receive antenatal care? TIMES J5 Did you receive an injection in the arm to prevent the baby from getting tetanus, that is convulsions after birth? YES……………………………………..……1 NO……………………………...………….....2 DON‟T KNOW……………......………….. ...9  7  7 J6 While pregnant with (name), how many times did you receive such an injection? ONE…………………………………….…….1 TWO………………………..…………………2 THREE OR MORE..……………..…………3 DON‟T KNOW..……………………………..9 J7 When you were pregnant with (NAME), did you take any drugs in order to prevent you from getting malaria? YES……………………………………..……1 NO……………………………...………….....2 J8 If yes, what did you take? SELECT ALL THAT APPLY SP/Fansidar………………………….…….1 Chloroquine……………..…………………2 Amodiaquine……..……………..…………3 Quinine……...……………………………..4 ACT…………………………………………5 Aspirin………………………………………6 Paracetamol……..……………..………….7 Other………………………………………..8 Don‟t know……..……………..…………….9 J9 Did you receive any tetanus toxoid injection at any time before that pregnancy, including during a previous pregnancy or between pregnancies? YES……………………………………..……1 NO……………………………...………….....2 DON‟T KNOW……………......………….. ...9 J10 Where did you give birth? Home......................................... 1 Hospital ..................................... 2 Clinic ........................................ 3 Health center............................. 4 NGO.......................................... 5 Other ……………………………..6 J11 Who assisted with the delivery? DOCTOR..…………………………………..1 NURSE..………...………...........................2 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 101 Anyone else? PROBE FOR THE TYPE(S) OF PERSON(S) AND RECORD ALL MENTIONED. MIDWIFE…………..…..…………………….3 AUXILIARY MIDWIFE……………………...4 OTHER HEALTH STAFF WITH MIDWIFERY SKILLS.………………………5 TRAINED TRADITIONAL BIRTH ATTENDANT………………………………..6 TRAINED COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKER..…………………………………..7 UNTRAINED TRADITIONAL BIRTH ATTENDANT……………………………….8 RELATIVE/FRIEND…………………..…...9 NO ONE………………… ………….……..10 J12 After the birth, did any health care provider or traditional birth attendant check on (Name‟s) health? YES……………………………………..……1 NO……………………………...………….....2 J13 How many children in total have you given birth to? __________________________ children J14 Are you currently doing something or using any method to delay or avoid getting pregnant? YES……………………………………..……1 NO……………………………...………….....2  14 J15 Which method are you (or your husband/ partner) using? DO NOT READ RESPONSES. CODE ONLY ONE RESPONSE. IF MORE THAN ONE METHOD IS MENTIONED, ASK, What is your MAIN method that you (or your husband/ partner) use to delay or avoid getting pregnant?” IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS BOTH CONDOMS AND STANDARD DAYS METHOD, CODE “12” FOR STANDARD DAYS METHOD. IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS BREASTFEEDING, CODE “15” FOR OTHER AND RECORD BREASTFEEDING. IF RESPONDENT MENTIONS ABSTINENCE OR ISOLATION, CODE “15” FOR OTHER AND RECORD RESPONSE IN SPACE PROVIDED. FEMALE STERILIZATION……………………1 MALE STERILIZATION……………………….2 PILL……………………………………………..3 INJECTABLES…………………………………5 CONDOM………………………………………7 FEMALE CONDOM…………………………..8 LACTATIONAL AMEN. METHOD………….11 STANDARD DAYS METHOD/ CYCYLEBEADS…………………………..…..12 RHYTHM METHOD (OTHER THAN STANDARD DAYS)…….…………13 WITHDRAWAL………………..………….....14 OTHER……………………………………….15 K. Child feeding practices – This module is for children aged 0-23 months and should be administered to the same woman the previous questions were asked to NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 1 Is the child you most recently gave birth to aged between 0 and 23 months? If yes, ask to speak to the caregiver of the child- this section allows for up to 3 children YES .........................................................1 NO ..........................................................2 2 Age of child in months |__|__| months 3 Sex of child 4 Did you ever breastfeed (NAME)? YES ........................................................1 NO .........................................................2 8 5 How long after birth did you first put (NAME) to the breast? IF LESS THAN 1 HOUR, RECORD „00‟ HOURS. IF LESS THAN 24 HOURS, RECORD HOURS. If 24 hours or more, enter 24 HOURS 1 |___|___| 6 During the first three days after delivery, did you give (NAME) the liquid that came from your breasts? YES ........................................................1 NO .........................................................2 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 102 DON‟T KNOW ........................................8 7 In the first three days after delivery, was (NAME) given anything to drink other than breast milk? YES ........................................................1 NO .........................................................0 DON‟T KNOW ........................................8 9 9 8 What was (NAME) given to drink? Anything else? DO NOT READ THE LIST RECORD ALL MENTIONED BY CIRCLING LETTER FOR EACH ONE MENTIONED MILK (OTHER THAN BREASTMILK) .....A PLAIN WATER .......................................B SUGAR OR GLUCOSE WATER.............C GRIPE WATER ......................................D SUGAR-SALT-WATER SOLUTION .......E FRUIT JUICE .........................................F INFANT FORUMULA .............................G TEA / INFUSIONS ..................................H HONEY ..................................................I OTHER _____________........................X 9 Are you still breastfeeding (NAME)? YES .........................................................1 NO .........................................................0 10 For how many months did you breastfeed (NAME)? IF LESS THAN ONE MONTH, RECORD “00” MONTHS. MONTHS .............................|___|___| 11 Did (NAME) drink anything from a bottle with a nipple yesterday or last night? YES .........................................................1 NO .........................................................0 DON‟T KNOW ........................................8 12 A B C D E Now I would like to ask you about liquids or foods (NAME) had yesterday during the day or at night. Did (NAME) drink/eat: READ THE LIST OF LIQUIDS (A THROUGH E, STARTING WITH “BREAST MILK”). Breast milk? Plain water? Commercially produced infant formula? Any fortified, commercially available infant and young child food” [e.g. Cerelac]? Any (other) porridge or gruel? YES NO DK A…………… ……………1 0 8 B…………..……………...1 0 8 C………. ………………...1 0 8 D…………………………..1 0 8 E……………………..……1 0 8 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 13 Now I would like to ask you about (other) liquids or foods that (NAME) may have had yesterday during the day or at night. I am interested in whether your child had the item even if it was combined with other foods.24 Did (NAME) drink/eat: YES NO DK 24 A separate category for any grubs, snails, insects or other small protein foods must be added in countries where these items are fed to young children. A separate category for any foods made with red palm oil, palm nut, or palm nut pulp sauce must be added in countries where these items are fed to young children. Items in each food group should be modified to include only those foods that are locally available and/or consumed in country. Local terms should be used. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 103 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V Commercially produced infant formula? Milk such as tinned, powdered, or fresh animal milk? Cheese, yogurt, or other milk products? Any fortified, commercially available infant and young Child food (e.g. Cerelac)? Bread, rice, noodles, or other foods made from grains?25 White potatoes, white yams, manioc, cassava, or any other foods made from roots? Pumpkin, carrots, squash, or sweet potatoes that are yellow or orange inside? 26 Any dark green leafy vegetables? 27 Ripe mangoes, papayas or (INSERT ANY OTHER LOCALLY AVAILABLE VITAMIN A-RICH FRUITS)? Foods made with red palm oil, palm nut, palm nut pulp sauce? Any other fruits or vegetables like oranges, grapefruit or pineapple? Eggs? Liver, kidney, heart or other organ meats? Any meat, such as beef, pork, lamb, goat, chicken, or duck? Fresh or dried fish or shellfish? Grubs, snails, insects, other small protein food? Any foods made from beans, peas, lentils, or nuts? Any oil, fats, or butter, or foods made with any of these? Tea or coffee? Other liquids? Any sugary foods such as chocolates, sweets, candies, pastries, cakes, or biscuits? Any other solid or semi-solid food? A.....…………………….1 0 8 B ….…………………... 1 0 8 C………………………..1 0 8 D………………………..1 0 8 E……………………......1 0 8 F………………………...1 0 8 G……………………......1 0 8 H…………………..........1 0 8 I………………………….1 0 8 J…………………………1 0 8 K………………………...1 0 8 L…………………………1 0 8 M………………………...1 0 8 N…………………………1 0 8 O………………………....1 0 8 P………………………….1 0 8 Q………………………….1 0 8 YES NO DK R……………………...1 0 8 S……………………...1 0 8 T………………….......1 0 8 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 25 Grains include millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, or other local grains. Start with local foods, e.g. ugali, nshima, then follow with bread, rice, noodles, etc. 26 Items in this category should be modified to include only vitamin A-rich tubers, starches, or vitamin A-rich red, orange, or yellow vegetables that are consumed in the country. 27 These include cassava leaves, bean leaves, kale, spinach, pepper leaves, taro leaves, amaranth leaves, or other dark green leafy vegetables. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 104 14 31. How many times did (NAME) eat solid, semi-solid, or soft foods other than liquids yesterday during the day or at night? IF CAREGIVER ANSWERS SEVEN OR MORE TIMES, RECORD “7” WE WANT TO FIND OUT HOW MANY TIMES THE CHILD ATE ENOUGH TO BE FULL. SMALL SNACKS AND SMALL FEEDS SUCH AS ONE OR TWO BITES OF MOTHER‟S OR SISTER‟S FOOD SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED. LIQUIDS DO NOT COUNT FOR THIS QUESTION. DO NOT INCLUDE THIN SOUPS OR BROTH, WATERY GRUELS, OR ANY OTHER LIQUID. USE PROBING QUESTIONS TO HELP THE RESPONDENT REMEMBER ALL THE TIMES THE CHILD ATE YESTERDAY NUMBER OF TIMES ......................|___| DON‟T KNOW ........................................8 15 Has (NAME) ever received a vitamin A dose (like this/any of these)? SHOW COMMON TYPES OF AMPULES/CAPSULES/SYRUPS YES ........................................................1 NO .........................................................0 DON‟T KNOW ........................................8 15 15 16 Did (NAME) receive a vitamin A dose within the last 6 months? YES ........................................................1 NO .........................................................0 DON‟T KNOW ........................................8 Is there another women in the household who has given birth in the last 3 years? 1= Yes (if yes, continue with another cycle) 2=No (if no, end interview) Thank you for your time! ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 105 Appendix IX - Household questionnaire (Kiswahili) MAULIZO YA MSINGI ADRA-Africare Food Security Multi Year Assistance Project (MYAP) (FY 2009 - FY 2011) Democratic Republic of Congo Code enqueteur Code sous régional_____________ Fizi (100) Uvira (200) Jina la kijiji ______________________ Numero de menage ____ Je unarudi katika kijiji hichi kwa kumuhoji mama naye? 1=Ndio (Nendeni kwa swali la I1) 2=Hapana INGILIYO Jambo , jina langu………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. na ninatumika kwa niaba ya Mradi JENGAa inayotumikiwa na shirika ADRA na Africare. Tunafanya utafiti katika maeneo ya kazi ya muradi JENGA katika tarafa la Uvira na Fizi. Mazungumzo haya yanaweza kuchukua muda wa dakika makumi sita karibu . Maelezo utakayo toa yata hifadhiwa ama yatachungwa kwa siri. Kushiriki katika utafiti huu itakuwa kwa hiari. Je,unakubali kushiriki katika utafiti huu kwa ku jibu kwa maulizo? : 1. IKIWA MWENYE KUJIBU HAKUBALI MAZUNGUMZO : ( SEMA ASANTE NA USIMUULIZE TENA ) 2. IKIWA MWENYE ANAKUBALI MAZUNGUMZO : ( SEMA ASANTE NA ANZA MAULIZO ) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Jina la mwenye kujibu_________________________________ A. ALAMA ZA UONGEZEKO WA WAKAAJI (CARACTERISTIQUES DEMOGRAPHIQUES) 1. Una umri wa myaka ngapi :_________ 2. Umbile (Sexe) ya mwenye kujibu 1. Mme 2. Mke 3. Ni aina gani ya uhusiano unayo pamoja na kiongozi wa familia? 1. Baba wa familia 2. Mke ao mama wa familia 3. Mtoto 4. Kaka ao Dada 5. Mjomba ao Shangazi 6. Mzazi 7. Not mwengine 8. Bila uhusiano wowote ule ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 106 4. Hali ya ndoa (Etat civil) 1. Owa ao olewa 2. Ndoa vunjika 3. Kufisha mme ao mke 4. Sija olewa 5. Je, unajuwa kusoma ao kuandika? 1. Ndio 2. Hapana (Ikiwa hapana, wende hapo kwa swali la sita 7 kwa ukurasa wa pili ) 6. Una kiwango gani cha masomo? 1. Sijakanyaga kwenye shule 2. Masomo ya msingi 3. Segondari 4. Chuo kikuu 5. Masomo ya watu wazima 7. Ni hesabu ya watu ngapi katika nyumba yako? ___________ 8. Una watoto ngapi? _______ 1. Wavulana ________ 2. Wasichana _____ 9. Umbile ya kiongozi wa familia (Ruka ikiwa unayemuoji ni kiongozi wa familia 3=1) 1. Mme 2. Mke 10. Je, umerudi kijijini? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la 10) 11. Umefanya muda gani tangu urudi kijijini? ___________ myezi? 12. Ni aina gani ya makao unayo ? 1. Makao binafsi 2. Makao ya serikali 3. Makao ya shirika ADRA 4. Makao ya shirika za maendeleo 5. Makao ya kupanga 13. Una kazi gani ? 1. Mlimo 2. Uvuvi 3. Biashara 4. Kazi ya muda (contractant) 5. Bila kazi 6. Ufugo ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 107 B. HALI YA CHAKULA 1. Katika myezi 12 zilizopita, je kuna myezi ambayo chakula kilikuwa kidogo na hakikutoshelea familia yako? 1=Ndio 2= Hapana, ruka kwenye swali B3 2. Ikiwa ndio, ni myezi gani (katika myezi 12 zilizopita) ambayo haukupata chakula cha kutoshelea familia yako? a. Januari d. Aprili g. Julai j. Octoba b. Februari e. Mei h. Ogasti k. Novemba c. Machi f. Juni i. Septemba l. Desemba 3. Ni aina gani ya chakula ambayo wewe ao mtu mwengine katika familia yako alikula jana mchana ao usiku? a. Mbegu (mahindi, ble, mchele…) b. Tubercules (ugali) c. Pulses (maharagwe, lantilles) d. Matunda e. Mboga za majani f. Mboga zingine za majani g.Viazi, Karoti, viazi ulaya h. Maziwa i. Mayayi j Nyama k. Mafuta/ Mafuta ya nyama l. Sukari/Asali m. Samaki n. Kahawa/chai 4. Ni mara ngapi ulikula chakula kwa ma saa 24 iliyo pita? a. Mara moja b. Mara mbili c. Mara tatu – three times d. Mara ine – four times e. Hakuna Katika siku 30 zilizopita. Ilipotokea ukose chakula ao pesa za kununua chakula katika familia yako, ni mara ngapi ulitumia mbinu hizi? Kila siku Mara 3 hadi 6 kwa wiki Mara 2 hadi 3 kwa wiki Mara moja kwa wiki Hata siku moja 5a Kununua chakula cha beyi chini ao kisicho pendwa na watu wengi. 5b Kukopesha chakula 5c Kupata chakula kwa mkopo 5d Kukusanya chakula pia kuwinda. 5e Kutumia mbegu iliyo wekwa galani. 5f kutuma wana memba wa jamaa kuishi mahali pengine. 5g Kupunguza sehemu ya chakula. 5h Kupunguza matumizi kwa watu wazima ili watoto wale. 5i Kupunguza idadi ya chakula. 5j Kushinda mchana kucha bila kula. 5k Kuuzisha mifugo kwa kupata chakula. 5l Kuuzisha vitu vingine kwa kupata chakula. 5m Kuomba ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 108 C. KILIMO 1. Je ulilima mmemea wowote ule kwa kipindi cha masika kilicho pita? 1. Ndiyo 2 Apana (nendeni kwa swali D5) 2. Je, ardhi unayo tumiya kwa mlimo ni yako binafsi? 1. Ndiyo (nendeni kwa swali C4) 2. Apana 3. Ikiwa jibu ni hapana, nani mwenye ardhi unayotumia kwa mlimo 1. Kukodesha 2. Kutowa mavuno 3. Serikali 4. Ardhi unayo tumiya kwa mlimo wako ina upana na urefu wapata gani? ______ 4.a Ni kipimo gani unachotumia kwa kupima shamba yako? (What is the unit of measure?) e. Carré (Kamba) (25x25 metres) f. Metre carré (Square meters) g. Miguu (Square feet) h. Ingine 5. Ni mbegu gani ulizo panda kwa kilimo kilichopita? a. Mahindi b. Muhogo c. Kalanga d. Maharagwe e. Viazi f. Mpunga g. Ndizi h. Ingine SWALI ZINAZO FUATA NI KWA : (INGIZA JINA LA MUMEA) Ukubwa wa shamba ulio lima Mavuno uliopata mu KG Yaliohuzishwa mu KG Smani ya Kg 1 ya yaliohuzishwa 6. Mahindi 7. Mhogo 8. Kalanga 9. Maharagwe 10. Viazi 11. Mpunga 12. Namna gani umeuzisha mavuno yako kwa kilimo kilicho pita? 1. Mimi binafsi 2. Katika kupatana bei pamoja na walimaji wengine 3. Ingine ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 109 13. Je, unatumiya mbegu za kisasa katika shamba lako? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la C15) 14. Ni mahali gani ambako unapata mbegu hizo za kisasa? a. Utafiti binafsi b. Kwa kununua c. Kwa kukopesha d. Serikali e. ADRA f. Africare e. Zingine Shirika za maendeleo 15. Je, wapata huduma za inje (services d’extension)? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la C19) 16. Mara ngapi umepokea huduma za inje kwa wakati wa kupanda mbegu? 1. Kila juma 2. Kila juma mbili 3. Kila mwezi 4. Kila mwezi mitatu 5. Mara moja kwa mwaka 6. Mara moja kwa myezi sita 17. Nimara ngapi ulipata mafundisho ya kilimo katika myezi 12 zilizopita ? _________ 18. Wapi unapopata huduma hizo? a. Wizara ya mlimo b. ADRA c. Africare d. Ingine Shirika ya maendeleo e. Sekta zenye kujitegemea (Secteur privé) 19. Je, umekwisha pokea mafunzo kuhusu ufundi wa kilimo cha kisasa ? 1. Ndio 2. Apana, (nendeni kwa swali 22) 20. Umepewa mafunzo yale wapi? a.. Wizara ya mlimo b. ADRA c. Africare d. Zingine Shirika za maendeleo e. Kamati zenye ushirika (organisation communautaire) 21. Kwa kilimo kilichopita, ni ufundi gani uliyo tumia? Mpe unayemuuliza uwezo wa kupana wazo lingine a. Kubadiri kilimo b. Kuchanga vilimo c. Mboleo ya kawaida d. Utayarishaji wa mbengu e. Mbegu zilizo chaguliwa (za kisasa) f. kupanda kwa mustari (semi en lignes) g. Kuchotea mmea h. Uchunguzi wa vidudu i. Uchunguzi wa majani mabaya j. Utayarishaji wa udongo (ardhi) k. kuchoma majani k. Hakuna 22. Kati ya viambukizi (infectations) vifwatavyo, gani kati yavyo vimevamia mimea yako? a. Pests (Vidudu) b. Nzige ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 110 c. Magonjwa ya mihogo (mosaïque) d. Magonjwa yanayoshambulia mgomba d. Ndege e. Panya f. Ingine g. Hakuna 23. Ni Ufundi gani ulitumia kwa kukinga na kutunza mimea yako ? a. Dawa ya kizungu ya kuuwa vidudu b. Mtego ya ndege c. Dawa ya majani ya kuuwa vidudu d. Hakuna 24. Je, unajiwekea hakiba ya vyakula? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la D1) 25. Ni mbinu gani unayo tumia kwa kujiwekea hakiba ya vyakula? a. Ngungulu ya mupira b. Kahala c. Gala d. Kupanika e. Gunia f. Nyumbani g. Shambani h. Mutungi 26. Kiasi cha muda gani unayo chunga chakula kisha mavuno? _________siku ____________myezi 27 Ni magumu gani uliyopata kwa kuchunga chakula? a. Kuoza b. Kibaridi(humidité) c. Vidudu d. Panya e. Mende f .Wizi g. Hakuna 28. Ni ujuzi gani wa kisasa uliyo utumia kwa kugombanisha uharibifu wa mavuno uliyochunga? a. Ufundi wa mitego b. Kuchunga mavuno kwenye kahala iliyo juu c. Kutumia vyombo vyachuma kwenye gala d. Uchunguzi wa kibiolojia e. Hakuna D. Udongo na Uchungaji wa maji 1. Je, unatumia matumizi yakuchungaudongo? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la D3) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 111 2. Unatumia nini kwa kuchunga udongo? (Someni orodha) a. Kupanda miti b. upandaji wa mistari mwanzo wa shamba c. Mboleo ya ngarani (composte) d. Kuongeza nguvu za udongo kwa fioliar (fertilisant) e. Kutandika majani katika shamba f. Ingine 3. Je, unatumia ufundi wa kumimiya maji mimea yako? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la D5) 4. Unatumia ufundi gani kwa kumimiya maji? a. Mifereji ya maji b. Terrasses c. kujenga mifereji iliyo fungwa d. Ingine 5. Unafanya dakika ngapi kwa kufikia kisima cha maji, kubaki kwenye mustari, kuchota maji na kurudi nyumbani? __________Dakika E. Uchumi wa familia 1. Ni kiasi gani cha pesa uliyotumia kwa jamaa lako kwa myezi 12 iliyopita? IKIWA HAKUNA ILIYOTUMIWA, INGIZA “0” Franc Congolais a. Chakula Kila mwezi __________ b. Mavazi Kila mwaka___________ c. Mbegu Kila mwaka____________ d. Elimu Kila mwaka____________ e. Siku kuu za kiasili Kila mwaka___________ f. Afya ya jamaa Kila mwaka__________ g. Vitu vingine vyenye maana Kila mwezi___________ h. Usafirishaji Kila mwezi____________ 2. Mali ya jamaa lako inatoka wapi kinyume cha mlimo? a. kurowa samaki b. Biashara kidogo kidogo c. Malipo ya muda d. Mwanamke ao Mme e. Mshahara f. Msaada wa ndugu ama marafiki g. Malipo ya upangaji 3. Je, unapata mkopo kwa jamaa lako? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la D5) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 112 4. Ni kwa njia gani unapata mkopo? 1. Wandugu 2. Marafiki 3. Wenyekutoa mkopo 4. Shirika za hakiba (Coopératives) 5. Muradi wa mikopo program 5. Ni njia gani zingine zilizopatia familia yako uchumi myezi 12 iliopita?(chagua zote kwa kujibu a. Mlimo b. Ufugo c. Biashara d. Kuvua samaki e. Kazi za muda f. Mshahara wa kazi g. Kusamehewa deni I h. Kazi kwa chakula (food for work) i. Kuuzisha makala j. other 6. Ulipata ngapi kwa miezi 12 iliyopita? Franc Congolais a. Mlimo _______ b. Ufugo _______ c. Biashara _______ d. Kuvua samaki _____ e. Kazi za muda _____ f. Mshahara wa kazi _______ g. Kusamehewa deni _______ h. Kazi kwa chakula ________ i. Kuuzisha makala ________ 7. Ni kitu gani kiinacho kutolea habari za bei ya chakula? a. Redio b. TV c. Ubao wa bei d. Bei sokoni e. Ingine 8. Soko ya chakula inayokuwa karibu sana nyumba yako inakuwa kwaurefu kiasi gani? ______ mita _______ kilomita 9. Je, unakuwa na vifugo? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la D13) 10. Ni ipi unayo kati ya vifugo vifuatavyo? ngapi a. Ngombe dume/ngombe dike _____________ b. kondoo ______________ c. Mbuzi _____________ d. Kuku _____________ e. Bata ____________ ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 113 11a: Je, una aina ingine ya ufugo ambayo haikutajwa kewnye oroza ya swali hizi? 1. Ndiyo 2. hapana (kama hapana ruka ku F12 ) 11b: Ikiwa ndiyo – Ni aina gani ya ufugo ? ________________ 11c: Ni ngapi unayo ? ______ 12. Je, ufugo wako uligonjwa kwa muda wa miezi 12 iliyopita? 1. Ndio 2. Apana 13. Je, unapata huduma toka kwa waganga wa nyama ? 1. Ndio 2. Apana (Nendeni kwa swali la F1) 14. Unapokea wapi huduma ya waganga wa nyama? a. Uwaaziri wa mlimo b. ADRA c. Africare d. Shirika za maendeleo e. Sekta zenye kujitegemea F. Hali ya afya ya wanamemba wa familia katika wiki mbili zilizopita F1: Kuna wanaume wa umri wa miaka zaidia 5 waliogonjwa katika siku 14 zilizo pita? 1. Ndiyo 2. Hapana F2: Kuna wanawake wa umri wa miaka zaidi ya 5 waliogonjwa katika siku 14 zilizo pita? 1. Ndiyo 2. Hapana Maelezo (wanamemba wa familia walio na miaka zaidi ya 5) Msomee majibu kisha achague Namba ya matukio / Matukio karika wiki 2 zilizopita F3. Wanaume F4. Wanawake a Kuharisha b Matatizo ya kupumua (kikohozi na kadhalika) c Minyoo d Magonjwa ya ngozi e Maleria/Homa f Kipindupindu g Homa ya matumbo (Typhoid) h Kupungukiwa damu (Anemie) i Magonjwa mengine yanayojitokeza mara kwa mara j Idadi ya siku ambazo mlikosa kwenda kazini kutokana na magonjwa k Idadi ya mara ambazo ulimwona daktari ao mganga l Idadi ya mara ambazo ulimwendea mganga wa kienyeji G. Ukimwi (HIV/AIDS) na magonjwa sugu (yanoyorudia mara kwa mara) MASWALI MAJIBU RUKA G1 Katika kipindi cha myezi 12 iliopita, je kuna mtu katika familia yenu aliyeshambuliwa na magonjwa sugu (aliyegonjwa kwa zaidi ya miezi 3)? Ndio................................................... 1 Hapana.............................................. 2 G3 G2 Ikiwa jibu ni ndio, je huyu mtu aliwai kupimwa Ukimwi? Ndio................................................... 1 Hapana.............................................. 2 SIJUI……………………………………3 G3 Je familia yako inamuhudumia mtu yeyote anayegonjwa Ukiwi? Ndio................................................... 1 Hapana.............................................. 2 G4 Je familia yako inamuhudumia mtu yeyote anayegonjwa kifua kikuu (Tuberculosis)? Ndio................................................... 1 Hapana.............................................. 2 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 114 H. UMBILE (JINSI) 1. Je unafikiri kwamba wanawake wanatendewa vibaya katika jamii yako (Ubakaji, kunyanyaswa….) 1. Ndio 2. Hapana 2. Je unamjuwa mwanamke hata mmoja katika kijiji chako aliyewai kutendewa vibaya 1. Ndio 2. Hapana 3. Kwa maoni yako, je mwanaume ana sheria yoyote ile ya kumpiga mke wake? (Someni orodha, chagua mojawapo ya ssababu hizi) 1. Ikiwa mwanamke hatimizi kazi za nyumbani kama jinsi mme anavyopendelea 2. Ikiwa mwanamke hamueshimu 3. Ikiwa mwanamke anakataa kufanya tendo la ndoa naye 4. Ikiwa mwanamke anamuuliza kama yuko na wabibi wengine 5.Hata moja 4. Ni nani ambaye anachukua uamzi katika maswali ya afya ya mke? 4. Mme peke yake 5. Mke peke yake 6. Mke na mme pamoja 5. Ni nani ambaye anachukua uamzi kwa ajili ya kuwatembelea wandugu wa familia? 1. Mme peke yake 2. Mke peke yake 3. Mke na mme pamoja 6. Ni nani ambaye anachukua uamzi kwa ajili ya kuwatembelea marafiki wa familia? 1. Mme peke yake 2. Mke peke yake 3. Mke na mme pamoja 7 . Ni nani ambaye anachukua uamzi katika kutumia uchumi wa mke? 5. Mme peke yake 6. Mke peke yake 7. Mke na mme pamoja 8. Hata moja Section I: Magonjwa ya watoto I1 Je kuna watoto wa umri wa miaka chini ya 5 katika familia ? 1. Ndiyo 2. Hapana (ikiwa hapana, malizia maswali) I1a Ni wangapi kati ya watoto wako wana umri kati ya sufuri (zero) na miezi makumitano na kenda: (59) 1. Wavulana ________ 2. Wasichana _____ Kitengo (section) hiki kinalingana na ugonjwa wa watoto walio na myaka chini ya 5 katika familia. Waweza kutafuta majibu kwa watoto zaidi ya 3. Je kuna mtoto yeyote wa myaka chini ya 5 katika familia aliyegonjwa katika siku 14 zilizopita? ? 1. Ndiyo 2. Hapana (Nendeni kwa swali la I10) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 115 Magonjwa ya watoto MTOTO #1________________ IKIWA AMEMUONA MUGANGA JUU YA ALAMA>1, ANDIKA CHINI YA MSTARI ALAMA Jinsia ya motto 1. Kiume 2. Kike Je alionyesha alama hizi katika siku 14 hizi zilizo pita ? Ndiyo ...........1 Hapana .......2 Alama hizo zilidumu muda wa siku ngapi kati mu hizo siku 14 zilizo pita ? Je mtoto anaendel ea kuwa na alama hizo hata leo hivi? Ndiyo ... 1 Hapana... 2 Ulipo ziona ulichukua hatua gani ? Nilimupa dawa za maji, chai na dawa zingine za kunywa ....................... 1 Nilimupa serumu za kunywa ........ 2 Nilimupa chakula kizuri ................ 3 Nilikata ao kupunguza kumunyonyesha ..................................................... 4 Nilikata ao kupunguza vinywaji vingine ..................................................... 5 Nilikata ao kupunguza chakula..... 6 Nilimupa dawa ya kizungu............ 7 Dawa ya asili................................ 8 Je umewai kutunzwa ao kumuona mtu yeyote kwa kumueleza alama hizo? Ndiyo ... 1 Hapana..2 Ulimuona muganga gani ? Daktari .................... 1 Infirmier ................... 2 Mtu wa afya ............ 3 Mwenye kuhuzisha dawa ....................... 4 Muganga wa asili ..... 5 Wengine................... 6 Ulikwenda kumuona huyu muganga wapi ? Kliniki ........................1 Hospitali ....................2 Kituo cha afya ...........3 Duka la dawa ............4 Shirika (NGO) ..........5 Maongezi ya nyumbanit .................6 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6a H6b H6c H7 H8 H9 a. Mafua (grippe) b. Kikohozi (toux sèche) c. Kuhara d. Kutapika e. Damu katika choo f. Malaria g. Homa h. Suluba (rougeole) i. Alama zingine : I1 Je, kuna watoto wengine wa umri wa miaka chini ya 5 katika familia ? 1. Ndiyo 2. Hapana MTOTO #2 IKIWA AMEMUONA MUGANGA JUU YA ALAMA>1, ANDIKA CHINI YA MSTARI H2 H3 H4 H5 H6a H6b H6c H7 H8 H9 Mafua (grippe) Kikohozi (toux sèche) Kuhara mothedefinition) Kutapika Damu katika choo Malaria Homa Suluba (rougeole) Alama zingine: ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 116 I1 Je, kuna watoto wengine wa umri wa miaka chini ya 5 katika familia ? 1. Ndiyo 2. Hapana (Kama hapana, malizia maswali hapa) IKIWA AMEMUONA MUGANGA JUU YA ALAMA>1, ANDIKA CHINI YA MSTARI H2 H3 H4 H5 H6a H6b H6c H7 H8 H9 Mafua (grippe) Kikohozi (toux sèche) Kuhara mothedefinition) Kutapika Damu katika choo Malaria Homa Suluba (rougeole) Alama zingine: ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 117 Kinga ya watoto (mpaka watoto 3) I10 Je una kadi ao buku ya afya ya watoto ambamo chanzo za watoto na vitamine A (vidonge) zina andikwa ? KAMA NI NDIYO : naweza kuviona tafazali ? NDIYO………………………………………..……1 HAPANA .…………………………...………….....2 SIJUE ………….………………......………….. ...9  11a  11a I11 Tafuta mwaka wa kuzaliwa kwa motto katika kadi yake ya vaccination? Siku Muezi Mwaka |___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| I11a Hesabu myaka ya motto katika myezi |___|___| myezi I12 Jinsia ya motto 1. Kiume 2. Kike If no card, skip to H14 I13 TARIKI GANI YA CHANJO YA VITAMINE A , DTP1, DTP3 NA SULUBA NDANI YA KADI AO BUKU TARIKI GANI YA CHANJO YA NDANI YA KADI AO BUKU IKIWA CHANZO HAZIANDIKWE NDANI YA KADI AO BUKU YA AFYA YA MTOTO JAZA 99/99/999 SIKU MUEZI MWAKA BCG ….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| VPO1….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| VPO3….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| DTCoq1/HEP………|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___| |__| DTCoq3/HEP ………|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| VAA….....|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| SULUBA (VAR)...|___||___|/|___||___|/|___||___|___||___| I14 Je mtoto wako alipata chanjo yenye haikuandikwa kwa hii kadi ao buku hata zile ambazo zilifanyika katika mpango wa kinga NDIYO………………………………………..……1 HAPANA …………………………...………….....2 SIJUE ………..………………......……………....9  I1  I1 I15 Mtoto wako alipata chanjo gani ya kinga? (jibu nyingi zina kubaliwa) Ikiwa mama hana kadi ya chanjo, ao ikiwa chanjo ya mtoto haikuandikwa kwenye kadi ya chanjo, ni aina gani ya chanjo ambayo mtoto alipata? BCG .......................................... 1 VPO1 VPO3......................................... 2 DT COQ/HEP1 DTCOX/HEP3 .......................... 3 Fievre jaune (VAA).................... 4 Suluba....................................... 5 Nyingine .................................... 7 Je kuna motto mwrengine aliye na umri wa myaka chini ya 5 katika familia yako? 1= Ndio (if yes, continue through another cycle) 2= Hapana (If no, continue to Section J) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 118 Section J: Zoezi za uzazi – Kitengo hiki kinalingana na wanawake wote katika familia ambao wamezaa myaka 3 iliopita. Maswali haya yatazunguka kwenye nyakati tatu ikiwa inahitajika MWANAMKE WA KWANZA – Tafadhali uliza moja kwa moja maswali yafuatayo kwa mwanamke wa kwanza katika familia ambaye alizaa katika myaka 3 iliopita ULIZO JIBU SKIP J1 Je kuna mwanamemba yeyote wa familia yenu alikuwa mjamzito katika miaka 3 iliopita (tafadhali, zungumza moja kwa moja na muhusika) Itakubalika kama wanaojibu ni zaidi ya wanawake 3 Ndio ................................................... 1 Hapana .............................................. 2 END J1a Je wako tayari kwa maulizo. Kama NDIO, tafadhali waulize. Ikiwa HAPANA, uliza kama itawezekana uwaulize baadaye siku ile ile. Ikiwa inashindikana, usirudi tena kuwauliza Ndio ................................................... 1 Hapana, utarudi kuuliza ..................... 2 Hapana, hauta rudi kuuliza ................ 3 Hapana, anakataa kuulizwa………...…4 J1b Jina la mwenye kujibu J2 4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Wakati wa mimba yako ya mwisho, je ulipata huduma ya mganga kabla ya kuzaa (consultation prénatale)? Ndio ................................................... 1 Hapana………………………………….2 H5 J3 Ni nani uliye muona wakati ule? Daktari / Msaidizi wa Daktari..... 1 Mganga......................................2 Mama mzalishaji .......................3 Msaidizi wa kuzalisha wa kienyeji 4 Wengine ....................................5 J4 Ni mara ngapi umepata huduma za kabla ya kuzaa (soins prénatals)? NAMBA J5 Je umewai kudungwa shindano mkononi kwa kumkinga mtoto kupata pepopunda (tetanus) baada ya kuzaliwa? NDIO…………………………………..……1 HAPANA……………………...………….....2 SIJUI………..……………......………….. ...9  7  7 J6 Ulipokuwa na mimba hiyo (pana jina ya mtoto), ni mara ngapi ulipata shindano ya namna hiyo (tetanus)? MOJA………………………………….…….1 MBILI.……………………..…………………2 TATU AO ZAIDI…....……………..…………3 SIJUI…………..……………………………..9 J7 Ulipokuwa na mimba (taja jina la mtoto), je kuna dawa yoyote uliyo tumia kwa kuepuka maleria? NDIO…………………………………..……1 HAPANA……………………...………….....2 J8 Ikiwa Ndio, ni dawa gani uliyo tumia? SP/Fansidar………………………….…….1 Chloroquine……………..…………………2 Amodiaquine……..……………..…………3 Quinine……....……………………………..4 ACT………….………………………………5 Aspirin……….………………………………6 Paracetamol….…..……………..………….7 INGINE…….….……………………………..8 SIJUI……..……...……………..…………….9 J9 Je umewai kupata shindano ya kinga ya tetanus kabla ya kupata hiyo mimba, ao wakati ulikuwa na mimba ya zamani ao kati ya mimba mbili? NDIO…………………………………..……1 HAPANA……………………...………….....2 SIJUI………..……………......………….. ...9 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 119 J10 Ni mahali gani ulizalia? Nyumbani...................................1 Hospitalini ..................................2 Clinic .........................................3 Kituo cha afya............................4 Shirika la msahada (ONG).........5 Ingine ……………………………..6 J11 Ni nani aliyekuzalisha? Mtu mwengine? DAKTARI..…………………………………..1 MGANGA………...………...........................2 Mama mzalishaji..……….………………….3 Msaidizi wa Mama mzalishaji...…………...4 Wengine wafanyakazi wa kituo cha afya wanao uzoefu wa kuzalisha..………………5 Mzalishaji wa kienyeji aliyefunzwa kuzalisha………………………. ………..6 Mfanyakazi wa kituo cha afya aliyefunzwa kuzalisha……………………………………..7 Mzalishaji wa kienyeji ambaye hakufunzwa……….………………………….8 Ndugu/Rafiki……….……………….…..…...9 Hakuna hata mmoja…… …….…….……..10 J12 Baada ya kuzaa, je kuna huduma yoyote ya afya iliyofanyiwa juu yako? NDIO………….………………………..……1 HAPANA……………………...………….....2 J13 Ni watoto ngapi kwa jumla ambao umesha zaa?? Watoto __________________________ J14 Je, kwa sasa unafanya kitu fulani ao unatumia njia yoyote ya kuchelewesha au kuzuia kupata mimba? NDIO…………………………………..……1 HAPANA……………………...………….....2  I1 J15 Ni njia gani ambayo wewe (ao mme wako/Mpenzi wako) unatumia kwa kuepuka kuzaa? USISOME MAJIBU, CHAGUA TU JIBU MOJA IKIWA MOJA ZAIDI YA METHODES HIZO NDIO IMECHAGULIWA, ULIZA Ni hipi namna wewe ao mme wako mnatumia kuzuia kupata mimba ao kuisogeza mbali? IKIWA MAJIBU YAKE NI KAPOTI NA METHODE YA KUPIMA SIKU, ANDIKA „12” IKIWA JIBU NI “BREASTFEEDING”, ANDIKA “15” KWA AJILI YA YA ZINGINE BREASTFEEDING. IKIWA JIBU YA KUJIZUIA (ABSTINENCE) AO ISOLATION, ANDIKA “15” KWA AJILI YA ZINGINE. Kufunga uzazi wa mke………………………1 Kufunga uzazi wa mme………..…………….2 Vidonge.………………………………………..3 SHINDANO…..…………………………………5 Kapoti…..……………..…………………………7 Kapoti za kike…………………………………..8 Kunyonyesha kwa ajili ya kuzuia uzazi…………..….9 SIKU ZISIO ZA UZAZI / SIKU ZA MWANAMKE.10 NJIA ZINGINE TOFAUTI ZA ZILE ZA KILA SIKU….11 KUJIZUIA KUMWAGA MBENGU ZA UZAZI….12 Ingine.……………….…………………………….13 K. Zoezi za kulisha mtoto Kitengo hiki kinawahusu watoto ambao wanapitaka kati ya myezi 0-23 na ambao wanauhusiano na wamama ambao walijibu maswali yaliopita NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 120 1 ` NDIO ....................................................... 1 HAPANA ................................................. 2 2 Umri wa mtoto katika miezi |__|__| miezi 3 Jinsia ya mtoto 4 Je ulishaka wahi kunyonyesha ? NDIO ...................................................... 1 HAPANA ............................................... 2 8 5 Kisha kuzaa umetmumia muda gani kabla ya kutia mttoto kwenye maziwa ? IKIWA CHINI YA SAA MOJA, ANDIKA “00”, IKIWA CHINI YA MASAA 24, ANDIKA MASAA. IKIWA MASAA 24 AO ZAIDI, ANDIKA 24 SAA 1 |___|___| SIKU 2 |___|___| 6 Katika siku tatu za kwanza kisha kuzaa, ulimpa mototo maziwa yatokayo katika kifua chako (matiti yako) ? NDIYO ................................................... 1 HAPANA ................................................ 2 SIJUWE ................................................. 8 7 Katika siku tatu za kwanza kisha kuzaa, kulikuwa kitu kingine ulimpa cha kunywa tofauti na maziwa yako ? NDIYO ................................................... 1 HAPANA ................................................ 0 SIJUWE ................................................. 8 9 9 8 Nini ulimpa ya kunywa Hakuna chochote USISOME OROZA ANDIKA MAMBO YOTE ANAYO TAJA UKITIA KIVIRINGO KWENYE HERUFI KWA KILA JAMBO ANALOTAJA MAZIWA (TOFAUTI NA MAZIWA YA MAMA AO YA MATITI) ....................................... A MAJI SAFI .............................................. B SUKARI AO MAJI YA SUKARI............... C GRIPE WATER ...................................... D MCHANGANYIKO WA MAJI NA SUKARI NA CHUMVI .................................................. E MVINYO WA MATUNDA ....................... F VYAKULA VYA KIPEKEE VYA WATOTO WACHANGA ........................................... G CHAI / UJI .............................................. H ASALI .................................................... I VITU VINGINE _____________.......... X 9 Je bado ungali unanyonyesha ? NDIYO .....................................................1 HAPANA ................................................0 10 Ulinyonyesha kwa kipindi cha miezi ngapi ? IKIWA CHINII YA MWEZI MOJA, ANDIKA „‟00‟‟ MWEZI MIEZI ..................................|___|___| 11 Je mtoto alikunywa kitufulani tokea chupa akitumia mpira (biberon) pale jana ao usiku ulio pita ? NDIYO .....................................................1 HAPANA ................................................0 SIJUE......................................................8 12 A B Sasa nigelitaka kukuhuliza kuusu vinywaji ao vyakula ambavyo ulikuwa navyo jana ao mchana ao usiku ulio pita? Je alikunywa ao kula : SOMA OROZA YA VINYWAJI (TANGU A MPAKA E, KUHANZIA “MAZIWA YA MAMA ”). Maziwa ya mama ? Maji safi? NDIYO HAPANA SIJUE A…………… ……………1 0 8 B…………..……………...1 0 8 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 121 C D E Vitu vinavyo tengenezwa na kuhuzwa kwa ajili ya malisho ya watoto? Chakula kilichotiwa nguvu, chakula cha watoto kinachouzwa kibiasahara (cerelac)? Uji Fulani tu ao or gruel? C………. ………………...1 0 8 D…………………………..1 0 8 E……………………..……1 0 8 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 13 A B C D E F G H I J Sasa ningelitaka kukuhuliza kuusu vinywaji ao vyakula ambavyo ungelipashwa kuwa navyo jana mchana ao usiku. Naitaji na wakati mtoto wako alikuwa na chakula kimoja hata kama ingelikuwa inachangwa na vyakula vingine. 28 Je alikunywa/kula hayo: Vitu vinavyo tengenezwa na kuhuzwa kwa ajili ya malisho ya watoto? Maziwa kama ya kopo, ya unga, ao maziwa ya baridi ya wanyama? Cheese, yogourt, ao namna ingine ya maziwa? Chakula kilichotiwa nguvu, chakula cha watoto kinachouzwa kibiashara (cerelac)? Mkate, mchele, noodles, ao chakula kingine kilicho tengenezwa kwa mbegu?29 Viyazi ulaya, maole,, muhogo,ao vyakula vingine vilivyo tengenezwa kwa mizizi Pumpkin [citrouille], karoti, maboga, ao viazi utamu vya rangi ya njano ao karibu nyekundu ndani? 30 Mboga fulani ya maajani rangi ya kijana sana? 31 Embe ya kuiva,papaya ya kuiva or Ripe mangoes, papayas NDIYO HAPANA SIJUE A.....…………………….1 0 8 B ….…………………... 1 0 8 C………………………..1 0 8 D………………………..1 0 8 E……………………......1 0 8 F………………………...1 0 8 G……………………......1 0 8 H…………………..........1 0 8 I………………………….1 0 8 J…………………………1 0 8 28 A separate category for any grubs, snails, insects or other small protein foods must be added in countries where these items are fed to young children. A separate category for any foods made with red palm oil, palm nut, or palm nut pulp sauce must be added in countries where these items are fed to young children. Items in each food group should be modified to include only those foods that are locally available and/or consumed in country. Local terms should be used. 29 Grains include millet, sorghum, maize, rice, wheat, or other local grains. Start with local foods, e.g. ugali, nshima, then follow with bread, rice, noodles, etc. 30 Items in this category should be modified to include only vitamin A-rich tubers, starches, or vitamin A￾rich red, orange, or yellow vegetables that are consumed in the country. 31 These include cassava leaves, bean leaves, kale, spinach, pepper leaves, taro leaves, amaranth leaves, or other dark green leafy vegetables. ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 122 K L M N O P Q R S T or (INSERT ANY OTHER LOCALLY AVAILABLE VITAMIN A-RICH FRUITS)? Vyakula vyenye kupikwa na mafuta ya ngazi ya rangi nyekundu, mafuta ya mise ya ngazi, mchizi wa mafuta ya ngazi? Matunda ingine yote ao vyakula vingine vya mimea kama machungwa, pamplemousse aonanasi ? Mayayi? Maini,figo, moyo ao sehemu ingine tu ya nyama? Nyama yoyote , kama ya ngombe, ya nguruwe, ya kondoo, ya mbuzi, ya kuku, ao ya bata? Samaki mbici ao za kukahuka ao mapondo? Grubs, [Escargot], vidudu , vyakula vingine vidogo vya kuleta afya ? Vyakula vyovyote vinavyotengenezwa kwa maharagi, njegere, lentils, ao mbegu ya ndani ya tunda? Mafuta fulani, fats(graisse), or butter (beurre), ao vyakula vilicho tengenezwa na mMoja kati ya hivi ? Chai ao kahawa ? Vinywaji vingine ? Vyakula vya sukari kama shokols pipi, pipi, balafu , [mikate ]pastries, keki, ao biskuti? Chakula chochote cha nguvu nyingi ao nguvu kadiri? K………………………...1 0 8 L…………………………1 0 8 M………………………...1 0 8 N…………………………1 0 8 O………………………....1 0 8 P………………………….1 0 8 Q………………………….1 0 8 NDIYO HAPANA SIJUE R……………………...1 0 8 S……………………...1 0 8 T………………….......1 0 8 NO. QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODING CATEGORIES SKIP 14 31. kwa muda gani alikula (JINA) vyakula vya nguvu, kadiri nguvu ao cha kuregea ao kingine cha maji jana mchana ao usiku ? IKIWA MLISHA WATOTO ANAJIBU SAA SABA AO ZAIDI YA SABA, ANDIKA “7” TUNATAKA KUFAHAMU NYAKATI NGAPI MTOTO ALIKULA NA KUSHIBA. VYAKULA AO AKIBA KIDOGO KIDOGO AO PIGO MBILI ZA CHAKULA ZA MAMA AO DADA HAZITA HESABIWA. VINYWAJI HAVIHESABIWE KWENYE MAHULIZO HAYA. HAPANA KUHINGIZA SUPU NYEPESI AO UJI, VYAKULA VYA KUREGEA, AO VINYWAJI VINGINE. TUMIA MASWALI YANAO SAIDIA MUHUSIKA KUKUMBUKA NYAKATI ZOTE AMBAZO MTOTO ALIKULA JANA HESABU YA WAKATI .....................|___| SIJUE ..................................................... 8 15 Ameisha pata chanjo ya vitamine A (ao moja ya chanjo zinazo kuwa) ? NDIYO ................................................... 1 ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 123 ONYESHA NAMNA UNAZO FAHAMU ZA /VIDONGE/SIRO HAPANA ................................................ 0 SIJUE ..................................................... 8 15 15 16 Je alipata dawa ya vitamine A mwa hii miezi 6 iliyo pita ? NDIYO ................................................... 1 HAPANA ............................................... 0 SIJUE .................................................... 8 Je kuna mwengine mwanamemba wa familia aliye zaa katika myaka 3 zilizopita? 1= Ndio (if yes, continue with another cycle) 2=Hapana (if no, end interview) Asante ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 124 Appendix X – JENGA Staff Focus Group SWOT Exercise Findings ADRA Staff SWOT Exercise Findings Group 1. 1. Impacts  Positive - i. Good quality seed (CMD), shelter, communication on GBV, food aid support for activities  Negative i. Small N of beneficiaries relative to total pop ii. Field fires destroy project nurseries (agroforestry) 2. Management  Positive  Good collaboration of staff  Weak  Too many activities with weak logistics  Heavy administrative functions (signatures for money, etc) 3. Suggestions  Extend activities for Fizi  Increase logistic support  Increase staff training in each domain  Introduce new areas of activity (health, education, water, micro-credit, livestock) Group 2. 1. Impacts  Positive - i. Availability of improved seed, shelter, radio emissions on ag techniques reach non￾beneficiaries, use of seed for fields, not consumed, application of ag techniques by pop  Negative i. Small N of beneficiaries relative to total pop ii. Jealousy between ben and non-bennies iii. Deforestation due to brick making, and field clearing for ag activities iv. Weak knowledge/training of staff in GBV v. Crop storage not well adapted for conservation of crops; also containers are too small 2. Management  Positive  Vehicles, transport has been good  Competent staff  Punctual payment of salaries  Weak  Small N of female staff – for ADRA, 7 of 64 (risks in working as agents out in remote areas)  No ongoing training for staff  Confusion with organigram (who is responsible) 3. Suggestions  Increase N of beneficiaries  Large scale reforestation  Recruit a team specialized in GBV (also provide direct med assistance to victims) ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 125  Introduce improved brick making methods, more env friendly  Increase N of female staff Group 3. 1. Impacts  Positive - i. Adoption o ag techniques ii. Availability of improved seed iii. Shelter iv. Information on mkt prices v. Road rehab  Negative i. Weak coverage of Fizi (vast region) ii. Delays in project implementation iii. Short implementation period - difficult to evaluate impact iv. Delay in food aid arrival v. Sites of provisioning far from field sites 2. Management  Positive  Sufficient logistics, well adapted  Good partner collaboration  Good selection of staff  Transparency in project management  Weak  Poor division of activities in relation to project areas  Criteria too selective in favor of certain activities  Slow staff recruitment 3. Suggestions  Extend area of intervention  Better coordination of the project fiscal year with activities  Increase project at least 10 years  Organize field exchange visits with other USAID projects  USAID should negotiate exoneration of some taxes with EU Group 4. 1. Impacts  Positive - i. Application of ag techniques ii. Availability of CMD iii. Free expression of women in the project areas  Negative i. Insufficient N of shelters ii. Small N of beneficiaries relative to pop 2. Management  Positive  Competent staff  Collaboration and complementarity of partners  Sufficient logistics, well adapted ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 126  Weak  Poor capacity building in all project areas 3. Suggestions  Increase N of beneficiaries in shelters and ag  Extend area of intervention  Intensify activities in other areas (health, education, livestock, etc) Group 5. 1. Impacts  Positive - i. Improved seed, especially CMD, appreciated by pop ii. Shelter appreciated iii. Application and adoption of ag techniques iv. Food aid helpful in covering food needs, protecting against consumption of seed v. Radio programs have resolved some community problems  Negative i. Field size of participants is larger than was anticipated, therefore seed provisioning is inadequate ii. Those receiving shelter sometimes were not farmers, causing some jealousy with those who do farm iii. Deforestation (for brick making) has accelerated iv. Demand for shelter is greater than initially anticipated, demand exceeds capacity to supply 2. Management  Positive  Logistics  Sufficient personnel  Weak  Poor timely implementation, problems of logistics  Training of staff is weak  Poor communication among field agents (lack means – no $ phone support) 3. Suggestions  Increase seed quantities – too small  Increase N shelters  Revisit remuneration in areas of high risk (eg, Fizi) for the field agents  Provide more $ support for agent field communication (eg, phone cards) Comment: Bush fires pose major problem for project beneficiaries, fires destroy their fields. Gender FG discussion with women – 13h20 – 5 women in ADRA  Logistics for women difficult (vehicle only, no motos due to risk); 1 F is married, others are single; bad roads in project area;  No complaints about logistics and frequency of field visits;  Only 2 women for communications to cover entire project with 2 men (and 1 stagiare), based in Fizi, cover Uvira, no women in comm for Africare; ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 127  4 radio stations – 2 Fizi, 1 Uvira, 1 Bukavu – transmissions once a week; they cover weekly themes with men and women (GBV, decline in education, etc.);  project distributes radios to each community, broadcasts a theme, a survey is given to see retention of information; appreciation of ag info;  15 cases of rape in Kenya in past month, 50 in the area in past month; taped interviews of cases, radio diffuses info on  ADRA began to document cases and do interviews in March 010; not yet sharing the info with Min of Health or govt authorities, discussing how to coordinate with authorities; IMC (Intl Med Corps) documents cases;  Training on GBV – conducted in YR1 by IMC; 1 woman trained in early 2009, other woman was not yet employed (began 2010); Africare Staff SWOT Exercise Findings Group 3. 1. Impacts  Positive i. Training of beneficiaries on ag techniques ii. Creation of peasant associations iii. Increase in ag productivity due to improved seed  Negative i. Small N of beneficiaries relative to total pop ii. Insufficient space devoted to road and canal rehabilitation iii. Insufficient seed in relation to area farmed by beneficiaries 2. Management  Positive  Good organization (organigram)  Logistics  Good adherence to planning of activities  Weak  A lack of diversity in programming (livestock, health, education, etc.)  Limit in activities due to insecurity  Lack of in-service training of staff 3. Suggestions  Diversification of programs (livestock, environment, health, etc.)  Review seed quantity  Intensify road and canal rehab  Integrate Africare in the radio programming  Improve, harmonize communication between the two organizations (better synchronize implementation of activities)  Extend activities to other areas Group 2. 1. Impacts  Positive  Technical training on agricultural techniques (especially CMD)  Organization and creation of FFSs ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 128  Farmers provided with improved seed  Reforestation practices (agroforestry) – strong demand from the population  Negative  Value chain study is not well elaborated – study done in Oct 09, presented in Nov 09; study identified cash crops (manioc, peanuts, maize, rice, sweet potatoes) but did not discuss value addition or processing; too theoretical, no emphasis on transformation of the crops;  EWS is not well developed  Action plan not developed 2. Management  Positive  Distribution of food aid and use (for seed protection) has been successful  Competent staff  Weak  Number of beneficiaries is low in relation to population  Heavy work loads for staff  Low salary for staff (high inflation - $1 = 450 F in 08, now 900 F; 30% income tax); also, high security risk, staff should have additional bonus  Seed for beneficiaries is insufficient 3. Suggestions  Increase number of beneficiaries in order to increase productivity  Increase number of staff (to relieve heavy work loads)  Increase salary for staff  Increase seed for beneficiaries  Introduce other projects on education, shelter, WATSAN, fruit trees Group 1. 1. Impacts  Positive  Farmers use improved seed (manioc sawasawa)  Farmers have adopted ag techniques vis a vis the FFS  Food aid distributed and ag techniques have improved food availability  Negative  Number of beneficiaries in relation to population is below 10%, low impact  Weak rehabilitation of roads and canals in relation to needs in the region  Small quantity of seed given to the beneficiaries (3 kg of peanuts, 1 kg maize, etc) 2. Management  Positive  Competent, dynamic staff  Prompt salary payment (although insufficient in relation to the cost of living)  Good expertise of Africare in implementing food security activities  Weak  Weak logistics and delays in transport  Weak coverage of the region by JENGA  Frustration of staff in terms of salary disparities  Many sectors are not addressed in the project (health/nutrition, education, WATSAN, livestock, aquaculture, etc.) 3. Suggestions ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 129  Systematize uniform salaries for staff across the project  Expand the area of project intervention and increase other sectors of activity  Increase and improve punctuality of logistics (transport)  Food aid distribution needs to better follow the agricultural calendar General Comments:  Lack of monitoring, follow up of FFS beneficiaries to assure that they master and apply ag techniques over the longer term  Propose food aid quantities in next MYAP based on activities to be carried out (current MYAP quantities were developed by ADRA, not Africare)  Long periods of stock of food aid and loss to pests, long delays in distribution to beneficiaries well into the agricultural season ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 130 Appendix XI – List of people met Name and Title Organization Babunga, Benjamin MYAP M & E Director ADRA Bapolisi Bahati, Dieudonne Agriculture Coordinator ADRA Busangu Kingombe, Pisha Country Representative FAO Dunia, Yves Mungura Provincial Agricultural Inspector Ministry of Agriculture/IPAPEL Kasaki, Gaston Mihigo Secretary of Agricultural Inspection Ministry of Agriculture/IPAPEL McHenry, Milton Assistant Food Security Director ADRA Menakuntuala, Joseph MYAP Director ADRA Muwawa, Adolphe Africare M&E Coordinator Africare Zoungrana, Samuel Humanitarian Affairs Officer UNOCHA ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 131 Appendix XII – Documents consulted ADRA International/Africare. 2008. Detailed implementation plan (DIP). ADRA International/Africare. 2008. Indicator performance tracking table (IPTT). ADRA International/Africare. 2008. JENGA. Fizi and Uvira Territories, South Kivu Province, DRC. DRC/ADRA and Africare Multi-Year Assistance Program Proposal. ADRA International/Africare. 2009. PREP: Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal. JENGA Project, Democratic Republic of Congo. Auteserre, S. 2010. The Trouble with Congo: Local Violence and the Failure of Internatioinal Peacekeeping. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bapolisi Bahati, Diendonne. 2009. Rapport de la visite d’echanges au Rwanda. ADRA/Africare. Bapolisi Bahati, Diendonne. 2010.Condense de modules de formation aux beneficiares du CEP. Themes dispenses par les agents de terrain du projet de securite alimentaire JENGA JAMAA en territoire de Fizi de 2009 a 2011. ADRA/Africare Byakombe Mazambi, Jonathan. 2009. Rapport du seminaire de formation en technologie semenciere en faveur des members des associations partenaires d’ADRA dans le territoire de Fizi. Avril 2009. Conseil Agricole et Rural de Gestion de Territoire de Fizi (CARG Fizi). 2010. Plan agricole du territoire de Fizi 2010 – 2012. ppt presentation. Habtemariam, Dawit. 2008. Draft Baseline Survey Report. ADRA-AFRICARE Multi Year Assistance Program (MYAP). Uvira and Fizi, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Makengo, Dauphin. 2009. Rapport de la formation sur l’approche Champs Ecole Paysan. 16 a 20 fevrier, 2009. ADRA/Africare. Mathys, Ellen and Sandra Remancus. 2010. USAID Office of Food for Peace Food Security Country Framework for the Democratic Republic of Congo FY 2011 – FY 2015 [DRAFT]. Washington, D.C.: Food and Nutri tion Technical Assistance II Project (FANTA￾2), AED Prunier,Gérard. 2008. Africa's World War: Congo, the Rwandan Genocide, and the Making of a Continental Catastrophe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. République Démocratique du Congo, Province du Sud Kivu. 2006. Document de strategie de la croissance et de la reduction de la pauvrete (draft 04). Juin 2006. UN Statistics division. 2010. Country Profile: Democratic Republic of Congo. Obtained online at: http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=Democratic%20Republic%20of%20the %20Congo ADRA DRC--JENGA Final Evaluation Report FFP-A-00-08-00071-00 page 132 US Department of State. 2010. Background Note: Democratic Republic of the Congo. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2823.htm. Accessed 15 September 2010