programme for economic reintegration and livelihood ... for economic reintegration and livelihood...

Programme for Economic Reintegration and Livelihood Enhancement, Aweil North & Aweil Centre | November 2015


ii

Acknowledgements

Forcier Consulting thanks our colleagues at the Danish Refugee Council for their cooperation and support with the Program for Economic Reintegration and Livelihood Enhancement (PEARL) End-of-Project evaluation. In particular, we would like to recognize:

Jessica F. Carlson, Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL) Coordinator

Richard Ofwono, Programme and Operations Manager

Zweol Ndebele, Refugee Response Coordinator

Saeed Ahmad, Monitoring & Evaluation/Humanitarian Accountability Project (M&E/HAP) Coordinator

Field research would not have been possible without the assistance local residents in Aweil Centre and Aweil North Counties, Northern Bahr el Ghazal State, who took part in the research as participants.



iii

The following individuals contributed to the field research and analysis undertaken for the Danish Refugee Council Programme for Economic Reintegration and Livelihood Enhancement (PEARL), Aweil North and Aweil Centre, South Sudan:

Natalie Forcier, Technical Advisor/Partner

Dr. Rens Twijnstra, Lead Methodologist

Dr. Zuri Linetsky, Lead Analyst

Brooke Braswell, Senior Analyst

Beatriz Jambrina Canseco, Junior Analyst

Joseph DeRosa, Analytics Intern

Leonora Evans Gutiérrez, Project Officer

Ceaser Taban, Assistant Project Officer

Morjan Robert Kenyi, Researcher

Akol Susan Agel, Researcher

Legal Notice and Disclaimer

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior approval in writing from Forcier Consulting.

This report is not a legally binding document. It is a collaborative informational and assessment document and does not necessarily reflect the views of any of the contributing partners in all of its contents. Any errors are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Copyright 2015 Forcier Consulting. All rights reserved.



iv

Table of contents LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................... V

ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................. V

MAP .......................................................................................................................................... VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... VII

1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. 1 1.1.1. Background on South Sudan .................................................................................. 1 1.1.2. Background on Livelihoods in Aweil Centre and Aweil North .................................. 1 1.1.3. Background on DRC-PEARL .................................................................................. 3

1.1.3.1. Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) and Seed Grower Groups (SGGs) ................................................ 3 1.1.3.2. Business Training Activities ......................................................................................................... 4 1.1.3.3. Financial Support Activities .......................................................................................................... 4

2. PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT &METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 6

2.1. AIM OF THE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................ 6 2.2. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 6

2.2.1. Data collection ........................................................................................................ 7 2.2.2. Limitations .............................................................................................................. 8

3. FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 9

3.1. RELEVANCE AND APPROPRIATENESS ..............................................................................10 3.2. CONNECTEDNESS ..........................................................................................................12 3.3. COHERENCE ..................................................................................................................13 3.4. COVERAGE ....................................................................................................................14 3.5. EFFECTIVENESS ............................................................................................................15 3.6. IMPACT .........................................................................................................................16 3.7. EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY ....................................................................................17

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................20

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................23

ANNEX 1: FGD FFS QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................23 ANNEX 2: FGD IGA QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................26 ANNEX 3: FGD VSLA QUESTIONNAIRE .....................................................................................29 ANNEX 4: KII QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................................................32



v

List of Tables

TABLE 1: BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION FOR AWEIL CENTRE AND AWEIL NORTH ..................................... 1 TABLE 2: QUALITATIVE RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................... 6 TABLE 3: FGDS CONDUCTED ........................................................................................................................... 7 TABLE 4: KIIS CONDUCTED .............................................................................................................................. 8

Acronyms

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

DRC Danish Refugee Council

EC European Commission

FFS Farmer Field School

FGD Focus Group Discussion

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score

IDP Internally Displaced Person

IGA Income Generating Activity

KII Key Informant Interview

MoAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry

NBeG Northern Bahr el Ghazal

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OECD DAC OECD Development Assistance Committee

PEARL Programme for Economic Reintegration and Livelihood Enhancement

SGG Seed Growers Group

SPLA/M Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement

SSP South Sudanese Pound

VSLA Village Savings and Loans Association



vi

Map1

1 OCHA. ‘SUDAN: Northern Bahr el Ghazal State – Administration Map’, September 2013



vii

Executive Summary

As a result of decades of conflict, food insecurity is one of the most common and persistent challenges faced by households in South Sudan. It is further aggravated by bi-seasonal climates and extreme weather conditions that interfere with agricultural activities. Moreover, the return and reintegration of IDPs and refugees that began after the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 has posed an additional strain on host communities.

The Danish Refugee Council (DRC) has been working in this context since 2004, and has more recently implemented programmes for the provision of Food Security and Livelihood activities (FSL) in Northern Bahr el Ghazal state. Forcier Consulting was asked to conduct an end-of-project qualitative assessment on the Programme for Economic Reintegration and Livelihood Enhancement (PEARL), in order to better inform future FSL activities.

Main findings

Activity Output Outcome

FFS Agricultural training

Use new agricultural techniques in their own fields.

Learned the importance of teamwork.

Higher productivity

Provision of seeds

Planting of new vegetable varieties Use of high-quality seeds (although

some defective batches)

Increased food diversity Higher resistance to extreme weather

conditions

Provision of farming tools and donkeys

Most popular feature of the project. All project participants use the newly

received materials and animal traction in their fields.

Increased productivity Possibility to cultivate more land Reduced ‘hunger gap’ (although there

still are significant food shortages during July and August)

Seed Grower Groups

Multiplication of high-quality seeds Increased food diversity Higher productivity Enhanced agricultural sustainability

IGA Business training & provision of basic inputs

Opening/scaling up of new businesses Learned the importance of teamwork Focus on promoting diversity within

the local economy

High levels of success Develop sustainable income sources

throughout the year (especially during the dry season)

Change in the local way of life (enjoying spending time on economically productive activities).

VSLA Financial training

Taught basic record keeping Taught to make profit through loans Learned the importance of using funds

productively to build up businesses

Promotion of a savings mentality Increased financial literacy

Provision of 500 SSP and sanduks

Sanduk schemes (members pay a small monthly contribution) that lend money to both members and non-members

Increased ability to cope with unexpected emergencies

Effective support to IGAs

As summarised in the table above, the implementation of the project has been in general terms very effective. All interviewed groups reported increased standards of living. The hunger gap was reduced, although seasonal flooding and droughts still hinder food security in the area. IGAs provide alternative income sources during the dry season and VSLAs mitigate external shocks and support IGAs.



viii

Local population needs and interest mapping has allowed the programme to build on pre-existing abilities and local priorities, thereby enhancing project relevance. All activities were tailored to local needs including the type of seeds distributed, businesses supported, and beneficiaries targeted. Specifically, IGAs and VSLAs were set up so as to encourage the diversification and development of the local economy. In addition, the project demonstrates high levels of coherence with relevant policies. It was in fact based on prior EC-funded initiatives.

The focus on at-risk communities was praised by KII participants and has led to relevant impact. While all groups admitted there were others who could have benefitted from the programme, respondents understood that resources were limited and considered beneficiary selection to be fair. It should be noted that no major differences seem to exist between the host population and returnees after participating in the programme.

Available resources were, in general terms, well-targeted and achieved good results. However, a more efficient allocation could include seed quality verification, and the fostering of more links between different branches of the programme. In addition, sustainability seems to be a source of concern for FFS, since more than 84% of groups repeatedly stressed the need for free seeds and tools along with other forms of continued support. The opposite seems to be true for VSLAs and IGAs, which have generally thriven.

Lessons learned

The DRC-PEARL activities should be maintained in the area and could be replicated in other regions. When doing so, the following elements should be taken into account:

The combination of all three activities (FFS, IGA and VSLA) enhances efficiency. Therefore, wherever possible, they should be implemented together and complemented with the training of local extension agents to ensure long-term sustainability.

The focus should be set on community building and progressing as a team. Local networks and power relationships should be researched in order to be able to target the most vulnerable.

Maintaining a two-way communication with the local institutions as well as with the whole community helps to meet local needs, and ensures enhanced collaboration. In addition, actively promoting the sharing of knowledge within the community, especially with those individuals who have not been included in the project, helps to achieve higher impact.

FFS are an efficient way of increasing agricultural productivity. However, the focus should be set on initially promoting SGGs, so that as soon as possible all seeds are purchased locally.

Animal traction and farming inputs should be provided to populations who cannot afford them. However, co-financing ensures a more efficient use of the resources provided.

Since the beginning of the project, aim to develop IGAs which can enhance the sustainability (blacksmithing and carpentry to fix and produce tools with local materials, animal husbandry, etc.).

Foster a local market for the products and skills promoted by the programme. Consider the possibility of complementing the VSLA scheme with microfinance, where the focus is instead on innovation and local long-term development.



1

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

1.1.1. Background on South Sudan

After more than two decades of civil war (1983-2005), in which more than 1.5 million people lost their lives, the Sudan People’s Liberation Army/Movement (SPLA/M) and the Government of Sudan (GoS) signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2005.2 The deal marked the creation of the Government of Southern Sudan and called for a referendum on independence. The sweeping majority obtained in July 2011 transformed South Sudan into the world’s youngest country to date.3

However, independence failed to end the armed struggle, with an outbreak of violence in Juba in December 2013 spreading through South Sudan and acutely affecting the Greater Upper Nile Region.4 As of 2015, the death toll stands at over 50,000 people, while more than 730,000 South Sudanese have fled to neighbouring countries and about 1.5 million are internally displaced.5 Moreover, estimates suggest that more than four million people are currently suffering from high levels of food insecurity.6

1.1.2. Background on Livelihoods in Aweil Centre and Aweil North

The PEARL project has been implemented since 2010 in Aweil Centre (AC) and Aweil North (AN), which are among the five counties that form the South Sudanese state of Northern Bahr el Ghazal (NBeG). The area constitutes the most rural state in South Sudan, with around 92% of its population living in the countryside.7 More details for both relevant counties are provided in the table below:

Table 1: Basic administrative information for Aweil Centre and Aweil North

County Aweil Centre Aweil North

Payams 7 5

Estimated population8 41,827 129,127

Main tribes Luo (Jur Chol) and Dinka9 Dinka10

The Luo and Dinka engage in similar income generating activities (IGAs). Their economies are based on crop cultivation, livestock rearing, fishing, hunting, and gathering.

2 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre. ‘South Sudan: Greater humanitarian and development efforts needed to meet IDP’s growing needs’, July 2014. http://bit.ly/1LKN30Y 3 Ibid. 4 OCHA South Sudan. ‘South Sudan: Humanitarian Response Plan 2015’, December 2014. http://bit.ly/1StXlbt 5 UNHCR. ‘South Sudan to mark 4th anniversary with more than 2.25 million displaced, continued conflict’, 7 July 2015, http://www.unhcr.org/559bc4876.html 6 World Food Program. ‘South Sudan Crisis: Regional Impact - Situation Report #64’, September 2015. 7 NBS. ‘Key Indicators for Northern Bahr el Ghazal’, October 2011 8 CBS and NBS. ‘5th Sudan Population and Housing Census 2008 – Priority Results’, 8 April 2009, http://bit.ly/1WRadt7. These numbers are likely to have increased significantly due to the importance of returning refugees. 9 IOM. ‘County Atlas 2013 - Aweil Centre County’, 2013 10 IOM. ‘County Atlas 2013 - Aweil North County’, 2013

http://bit.ly/1LKN30Y

http://bit.ly/1StXlbt

http://www.unhcr.org/559bc4876.html



2

Both Aweil North and Aweil Centre have bi-seasonal savannah and tropical climates. Although localised variations exist, the period between April and October generally corresponds to the wet season, with the heaviest rainfall usually occurring during the month of August.11 The dry season starts in November and lasts until late March.12 Because most crops are rain-fed, the weather pattern has a major impact on agricultural production. While the land is generally fertile, uni-modal rainfall only allows for one harvest per year. Changes in water volumes (and flooding) also affect yields and the areas that can be harvested. Both of these factors are responsible for many of the economic difficulties in the area, leading to a ‘hunger gap’ of more than six months.13 During this period households often use food gathering as a coping mechanism,14 opt for reducing or skipping meals, or borrow from relatives and friends, among other options.15

The incidence of the ‘hunger gap’16 is further exacerbated by a large average household size (7.2 members in the project area, of which roughly 20% were children under the age of five)17 and by the prevalence of returnees18 (who pose an increased strain on local authorities to cater to the basic needs of a rising population).

Sorghum is the main crop cultivated in both counties, along with millet, sesame, maize, groundnuts and an array of vegetables.19 Vegetables are usually produced for sale. Agriculture is mostly non-mechanised and organised in small farmsteads. Indeed, in spite of having arable land in plentiful supply, the scaling up of farms remains difficult if no animal traction is available in the area. Farm size is then directly associated with the availability of manual labour.20 Furthermore, there is very limited household usage of any kind of farming tools (only 23.4% of baseline respondents had access to any) and virtually no training in agricultural production.21

According to the DRC-PEARL baseline results, few residents in the area practice livestock farming. Only 3.74% of the households in Aweil North own cattle and just 7.14% raise goats. The percentages were somewhat higher in Aweil Centre, where 9.89% of respondents have cattle and 19.8% rear goats.22 This reduced practice of livestock rearing exists despite the presence of suitable grazing lands in most bomas.23

Alternatively, the local population in both counties undertake varied IGAs. There are timber and bamboo forests in the region that allow locals to pursue carpentry.24 These forests constitute a source of firewood that locals then sell in the market, and can also be used to produce charcoal.25 Fishing is prevalent in the areas near the Alok and Aroyo rivers.26 Small businesses

11 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 12 Ibid. 13 Although the months of July and August constitute the most challenging period. Benslyn Community Development Consultants. ‘PEARL Baseline Survey Report’, May 2013. 14 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 15Benslyn Community Development Consultants. ‘PEARL Baseline Survey Report’, May 2013. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid. 18 Between February 2004 and September 2012 NBeG had taken in more than 456,000 returning refugees. Aweil North was then hosting more than 11,000 IDPs (IOM-ERS. ‘Weekly Statistical Report Sept. 2012; DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014). 19 IOM. ‘Village Assessment Survey County Profiles: Northern Bahr el Ghazal’, 2013 20 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 21Benslyn Community Development Consultants. ‘PEARL Baseline Survey Report’, May 2013. 22 Ibid. 23 IOM. ‘Village Assessment Survey County Profiles: Northern Bahr el Ghazal’, 2013 24Winrock International and USAID South Sudan. ‘The Republic of South Sudan - Northern Bahr el Ghazal state: Aweil Centre. Country profile and strategic plan’, 2012. 25 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015



3

are also a common income support mechanism, with women usually selling tea or food in nearby markets.27

1.1.3. Background on DRC-PEARL

Due to the persistency of dwindling food stocks, inflation, and the threat of conflict in the regions bordering Sudan, food insecurity is a pressing issue in both the counties of Aweil North (IPC3) and Aweil Centre (IPC2).28 Given the situation, the overall objective of the Programme for Economic Reintegration and Livelihood Enhancement (PEARL) was to contribute to sustainable rural economic integration for IDPs or returnees and at-risk host populations in both counties. More specifically, the goals were:

1. “To improve food security among conflict-affected target populations.

2. To develop sustainable income sources and facilitate access to financial services to rebuild livelihoods of conflict affected population”.29

The programme targeted 6,850 beneficiaries (IDPs, returnees, women, youth and other vulnerable members of the local communities) engaged in agriculture and other small-scale IGAs. Sixty percent of those aid recipients were located in Aweil Centre (in the payams Apada, Achana, Aroyo, Bahr Manyen, Chel South and Nyalath), while the rest resided in Aweil North (in Ariath, Malual Centre, Malual North and Malual West).30 Since the aim was to identify individuals in vulnerable circumstances, the DRC selected participants for their inclusion in the programme by tapping into existing contacts in the area, and taking advantage of the help offered by local communities and their organisational structures. The DRC’s previous Farmer Field Schools (FFS) beneficiary lists were consulted so as to ensure that there was no duplication of efforts.

1.1.3.1. Farmer Field Schools (FFSs) and Seed Grower Groups (SGGs)

In order to attain increased crop and seed production,31 DRC-PEARL focused on introducing new technology and farming techniques into the local populations. The programme used the concept of FFS to increase the communities’ farming capacities and to foster innovation through sustainable agriculture. Beneficiaries were organised in four subgroups of 30 members each:32 staple crops, horticulture (during the dry season), agroforestry (during the wet season), and animal traction.33

The staple crop subgroup acted as the basis for all other activities, since those members would often also participate in other programme initiatives. In addition, field days, agricultural exhibitions and agricultural trainings were designed so as to promote cross-learning opportunities between the different subgroups.

All groups were provided with the necessary seeds and agricultural inputs. Only in the case of the animal traction FFS were participants required to contribute 30 % of the market value of the

26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 IPC. ‘South Sudan Food Security Update’, 26 September 2012 29 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014 30 Ibid. 31 Result 1, PEARL LogFrame 32 For a total of 90 FFSs 33 Which had ten members instead. DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014



4

donkeys and ploughs. 34 This approach was preferred as a means to guarantee a stronger motivation to participate. After all, these groups required more diligent efforts, since these specific techniques had never been implemented in the region and their results might take longer to bear fruit.35

Simultaneously, 45 ten-member Seed Grower Groups (SGGs) were created (five of which were dedicated to horticultural seed production). Building on the efforts of a prior EC-funded programme, their main aim was to increase the availability of improved seeds (drought-tolerant, high-output and with shorter maturity periods) in the programme counties. DRC-PEARL again provided the required agricultural inputs as well as relevant training in seed multiplication.36

1.1.3.2. Business Training Activities

A total of 100 ten-member IGA groups were set up over the 34 months of the project, giving preference to vulnerable individuals who were already engaged in IGA’s or in sanduk schemes. After an analysis covering market demand and the specific needs of the target groups, relevant training was provided, mostly focusing on marketing, business planning, financial literacy, financial access, and record keeping. In addition, many groups of beneficiaries received basic inputs with which to start and/or build up their enterprises.

The businesses supported included artisans (such as blacksmiths, carpenters, bicycle repairers, or tailors), service providers (restaurants, hotels, salons, etc.), small establishments selling general goods, artisan shops,

1.1.3.3. Financial Support Activities

The 90 Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) were designed to mobilise financial resources with which the beneficiaries would be able to establish IGAs. Therefore all VSLA groups were also trained on financial literacy and business management skills. By mobilising groups of 20 to 30 individuals, this branch of the programme aimed at improving both access to

34 DRC. ‘PEARL Revision Recommendations’. These percentages were reduced from initial values of 30% and 15%, respectively. 35 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014 36 Ibid.

Main outcomes:

Provision of farm inputs and animal traction led to a rise in productivity and increased the size of cultivated areas.

Overall reduction of the ‘hunger gap’ in project areas, although July and August still bring significant hardship.

Main outcomes:

Business training helped many businesses to scale up and to develop of sustainable income sources throughout the year.

Change in way of life, with locals now enjoying spending more of their time occupied in productive activities.



5

capital and the financial literacy of vulnerable population groups. Important concepts included the efficient and responsible use of loans, household budget management, the importance of savings, and the functioning and potential usefulness of formal financial services. The programme also provided each supported group with a contribution of 500 SSP,37 a metal box (sanduk), and stationery for record keeping. Loans taken by the beneficiaries from their VSLAs were typically between 100 and 400 SSP with a 10% interest rate and terms of up to three months.

37 Although this amount sometimes varied depending on the DRC’s initial assessment of the needs of the group.

Main outcomes:

Generation of a savings mentality among the local population.

Increased income security due to flexible support to cope with unexpected emergencies and to undertake different IGAs.



6

2. Purpose of Assessment &Methodology

2.1. Aim of the Assessment

The PEARL end-of-project evaluation measured the extent to which the targeted households have improved standards of living through shortened ‘hunger gaps’ and increased and diversified household income and savings in Aweil North and Aweil Centre. In particular, the assessment had the following objectives:

To assess whether the targeted farmer groups who were assisted through farming inputs, extension services and animal traction have increased crop and seeds production.

To assess whether the targeted households that were provided with training in business management experienced an increase and diversification of income.

To evaluate whether the targeted households and local population have improved access to financial services, thus ensuring the sustainability of IGAs.

In order to fulfil these objectives, the end-of-project evaluation directly measured the following indicators, as defined by the OECD’s DAC:38 relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability.

2.2. Methodology

The present report is based on qualitative research, undertaken through three data collection methods: a desk review, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs). More information on each of these research methods is provided below. All of the qualitative tools were drafted using available project documents, relevant secondary literature, and provisional indicators.

Table 2: Qualitative research methods

Desk review

A detailed desk study of relevant publications and background information was performed to elaborate this report. Among other documents, it included the Baseline Survey Report, the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) Survey Report, the project’s Grant Application Form, Mid-term Review Report, other previous impact evaluations, and the PEARL Exit Strategy.

FGDs Between 29 October and 10 November 2015, more than 250 beneficiaries of the PEARL initiative took part in 23 different FGDs. These were organised taking advantage of the structure of existing FFS, IGA and VSLA groups. They included representatives of both the host and migrant communities in Aweil North and Aweil Center whose participation had been arranged by the DRC at an earlier date. 12 FGDs were run in Aweil North and 11 in Aweil Centre.

KIIs Between 29 October and 10 November 2015, in-depth interviews were conducted with a member of the DRC staff, a government official and several area/community leaders. One KII was conducted in Aweil North and four in Aweil Centre.

38 See Annex 1 for definitions



7

2.2.1. Data collection

The locations and subject groups for the KII and FGD data collection were selected by the DRC prior to the initiation of the research efforts. Forcier Consulting conducted the interviews. The tables below provide a snapshot of the activities conducted in the field:

Table 3: FGDs conducted

Location Participant Date of interview

Aweil North

Malual Centre

Ahu Seed Grower LP November 3, 2015

Adhotic Animal Traction LP November 3, 2015

Matuic Horticultural LP November 3, 2015

Pamat Bed Sheet IGA November 3, 2015

Ariath

Lueth Lual VSLA HP November 4, 2015

Lueth Lual SC FFS LP November 4, 2015

Lueth Lual Animal Traction HP November 4, 2015

Makol Seed Grower Group HP November 4, 2015

Malual East

Mayen Ulem Carpentry IGA November 4, 2015

Abyei Chock Horticultural HP November 5, 2015

Rum Agok Staple Crop AGF HP November 5, 2015

Malual North Riang Miir VSLA LP November 5, 2015

Aweil Centre

Udhaba Udhaba IGA Group HP October 30, 2015

War Abour Animal Traction Group LP October 31, 2015

Long Ukon Panda VSLA HP October 31, 2015

Lou Chok Lou Chok VSLA LP October 31, 2015

Aroyo

Aroyo Centre Seed Growers LP October 31, 2015

Save Animal Traction HP November 2, 2015

Agor Kou HC HP November 2, 2015

Ngeme IGA LP November 6, 2015

Chel South

Mengo Seed Grower HP November 2, 2015

Ramciel II Staple Crop/AGF November 2, 2015

Dong Abel Staple Crop/AGF LP November 6, 2015



8

Table 4: KIIs conducted

Location Participant Date of interview

Aweil North

Ariath Ariath Community Chief November 4, 2015

Aweil Centre

Udhaba Male Returnee Leader October 30, 2015

Aroyo Area Leader November 2, 2015

Aweil

FSL Leader November 6, 2015

SMoAF Official November 9, 2015

2.2.2. Limitations

Due to the large distances between interview locations and a limited timeframe, fatigue and time availability played an important role in the data collection process. They impacted the format and length of some of the interviews, and in some cases forced researchers to conduct interviews where the size of the group being interviewed was reduced or some interviewees were not present to answer every question.

In addition, the structure of the questionnaires used for the FGDs in this qualitative analysis did not include different questions depending on the group being interviewed. As a result, it was difficult to ascertain which groups had taken part in more than one of the PEARL schemes. Such comparisons would have been useful in order to assess the benefits associated with fostering relevant connections between different parts of the project. A juxtaposition of FFS and IGA groups with and without financial training could also have important implications in terms of sustainability.

In most FGDs group leaders, in spite of the researchers’ efforts to encourage everyone to participate in the interview, dominated responses. It was the impression of Forcier’s researchers, however, that it is likely that group members have similar opinions and therefore, likely identify with the leader’s responses. In contrast, women were, in general, more reluctant to speak up, especially in the presence of men. In some instances, males even tried to correct/reprimand women, which had an impact (albeit not very large) in interview responses. The researchers denounced this sort of behaviour whenever they were aware of its occurrence.

It should also be kept in mind that not all researchers spoke the language of the respondents and thus relied on translations. Although both researchers and translators verified the quality of the translations, there is room for marginal error in interpretations. However, Forcier believes that this issue does not affect the overall narrative, findings, or conclusions of this report.

Lastly, because of the qualitative nature of the research, statistically significant findings cannot be ascertained.



9

3. Findings

The following section presents the findings of the qualitative interviews conducted by Forcier Consulting. Each section addresses the major points of analysis, following the indicators proposed in the Inception Report. Ultimately, the findings attempt to fully evaluate the DRC initiative by highlighting unintended impacts as well as successful results and points of concern in a way that can be useful for the replication of the project under similar conditions.

Key findings

A. General topics:

Almost all of the respondents’ livelihoods directly depended on the activities organised within DRC-PEARL.

Teamwork and the promotion of a sense of community were relevant tools for the success of the project. Extension agents, and connections between all branches of the programme are also fundamental for its efficiency and sustainability.

The DRC’s exit strategy is clear and based on partnerships with the SMoAF and other NGOs operating in the area. Constant communication with these agents ensures the projects continuity, as well as diligent cooperation.

DRC-PEARL was designed taking prior aid initiatives implemented in the area and humanitarian factors into account.

Implementers and the local community praised the specific targeting of IDPs, returnees and vulnerable host communities. Furthermore, while the initial goal was for 10% of the households to report improved standards of living, all interviewed beneficiary groups reported improved living standards. They stated that, in general, the programme has been very successful at helping them to attain higher overall levels of agricultural production, more diverse income sources, and increased financial security.

B. FFSs:

FFSs were an appropriate and adaptable and effective means to provide agricultural training in areas where locals lacked this type of knowledge.

The provision of farm inputs and animal traction vastly increased local productivity; because of this they have become the programme’s most appreciated elements. Indeed, although extreme weather conditions were an important drag on project outcomes in some areas, respondents reported an overall reduced incidence of the ‘hunger gap’. Nevertheless, the months of July and August were broadly defined as those where it was harder to cope.

The introduction of new seeds and training on how to cultivate them can promote nutritional diversity and were well received by the local population. In addition, SGGs are fundamental for the efficiency and sustainability of the project.

C. IGAs:

The IGA scheme constituted a relevant way to support local income levels throughout the dry season, although there are concerns as to its level of diversity.

Market linkages are somewhat lacking in spite of their importance for project sustainability. For example, further connections between SGGs and FFS groups, veterinary training, or the promotion of blacksmithing and carpentry to produce farming tools could enhance project efficiency and sustainability.

D. VSLAs:

VSLAs work as coping mechanisms in the face of unforeseen economic difficulties. They are also appropriate support mechanisms for FFSs and IGAs, and tend to increase population accountability to their own development.



10

They were responsible for a generation of a sharp change in local opinions in favour of the importance of saving. As such, they constitute an efficient way to use idle resources in the economy.

Respondents also considered them a sustainable initiative they could replicate even if violence hit and they had to establish their communities in a different location. Indeed, they underscored that the financial knowledge they have gained will be helpful during the rest of their lives.

3.1. Relevance and Appropriateness

Given the lack of resources and extreme weather conditions prevalent in the counties of Aweil North and Aweil Centre, the single most pressing issue in terms of survival is the ‘hunger gap’39 that afflicts the population during the wet season.40 Accordingly, the DRC identified the reduction of the ‘hunger gap’ as one of the main PEARL objectives. Given that most individuals in those counties base their livelihoods on crop cultivation, preliminary research focused on pinpointing the most important factors standing in the way of a more efficient use of agriculture. Several features pertaining to the local context were analysed and viable solutions found, as described below.

First of all, despite the existence of plenty of fertile land, the average household was only able to cultivate plots with a mean size of 0.5 to 1 feddan (equivalent to 0.21 to 0.42 Ha),41 leading to the consequent lack of available food throughout the year. A number of local factors were linked to this issue: lack of agricultural training and community organisation around the topic, inadequate tools for cultivation, and non-presence of animal traction in the region.42 Each of these elements was targeted, giving some attention to beneficiaries’ preferences.

FFS were considered a valuable and feasible alternative because nearly no residents had received prior agricultural training.43 This method indeed proved to be adaptable to the local context.44 All interview participants stated having learned useful concepts that they were now applying in their own fields.45 In addition, by arranging the beneficiaries in groups that work on common projects, the programme enhanced accountability and promoted a mentality of community and cooperation that was praised by many of the interviewees.46 In fact, four of the FFS groups in both counties listed teamwork as a fundamental lesson learned, reporting that it had increased their efficiency and thus, the land surface that it is possible to cultivate.47 In this way, teamwork and building a sense of community are especially important for the sustainability

39 Due to no crops being cultivated during the dry season, many households report food shortages later in the year. This occurrence is defined as a ‘hunger gap’. However, Forcier Consulting does not have the details on what threshold (defined in percentage of total households) has been used in the baseline survey to calculate the incidence of the ‘hunger gap’. 40 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 41Benslyn Community Development Consultants. ‘PEARL Baseline Survey Report’, May 2013. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 44 Although a KII participant pointed out that beneficiary preferences should have been better taken into account during the formation of the different groups (KII with a DRC staff member, November 2015). 45 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 46 Ibid. 47FGDs with two FFS groups in Aweil North and other two in Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 (of a total of 13 interviews with FFS groups).



11

of future projects and will prove useful in the long run, considering that both returnees and host communities tend to lack social integration.48

In this sense, the programme’s targeting of vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals has been a helpful integration tool, as well as an appropriate method to target food and income insecurity in the selected areas.49 Although practically every individual in Aweil North and Aweil Centre could have benefitted from taking part in the initiative, returnees and IDPs find themselves in a particularly vulnerable position. They do not possess seeds, tools, or the resources to purchase them to start any activity on their own.50 Supporting them should thus be a priority for any organisation operating in the region.

PEARL also provided all FFS groups with the necessary inputs to carry out their activities.51 These inputs include: a variety of seeds, ploughs and hand tools, as well as donkeys and training on their appropriate use for farming purposes. Indeed, these provisions were the most popular measures within the FFS initiative (every FFS group mentioned animal traction and/or farm equipment as the most useful asset their group had received52). This indicates that the action was in line with local preferences and proved to be useful to increase farm production.

It should also be kept in mind that a significant lack of food diversity was found in the baseline HDDS survey.53 Therefore, in order to increase food diversity, horticulture FFSs were introduced in the scheme and the DRC provided them with kale, mango, orange and guava (among other) seeds. Within a number of months, and in spite of lacking prior local knowledge regarding their cultivation,54 beneficiaries’ perception of these activities became very positive.55 It is also likely to have contributed to an increased nutritional diversity. It should be noted that horticulture FFSs were only attempted in those locations that lie close to water sources and where it is thus feasible to attempt the cultivation of a second crop.56 Therefore, the initiative resulted in minimal disruption in local cultivation habits, since the rest of the seeds provided were already endogenous to the project area.57

The inhabitants of Aweil Centre and Aweil North also pursue a range of IGAs other than crop cultivation, mostly as an attempt to cope with the limited array of income sources available during the dry season.58 Keeping in mind that PEARL was not simply designed as a humanitarian response, but as a rehabilitation and development effort as well,59 the relevance of the programme hinges on its capacity to improve the performance of existing IGAs, support the establishment of new ones, and enhance the local business diversity. Such was indeed the goal of the quotas present in the IGA support initiative.60 By these measures, the programme has been very successful at making use of the capabilities that already existed in the area, and

48 KII with a member of staff in Aweil Centre, November 2015 49All FGDs with FFS groups where any participants were returnees (nine out of 13), October and November 2015. KIIs with 50 KIIs with PEARL staff, an Ariath community chief, an Aweil Centre area leader, and a member of the SMoAF, November 2015. 51 FGDs with FFS group beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 52 Ibid. 53 Ngong, J., ‘PEARL HDDS Report’, April 2015. 54 This kind of agriculture was new to the project area. 55 FGDs with three horticulture FFSs in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, November 2015. 56 Welz, W. ‘PEARL mid-term evaluation’, September 2014 57 FGDs with FFS group beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 58 FGDs with IGA group beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 59 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014 60 Ibid.



12

working towards their improvement.61 As a result, established IGA groups have shown high levels of success,62 with some businesses even being able to open new branches.63

The work of both IGA and FFS groups has been complemented by the formation of VSLAs. The provision by DRC of metal boxes (also known as sanduks), initial grants, and financial training were designed to simplify access to finance and to encourage a savings mentality in the local communities. This was indeed one of the specific objectives laid out in the programme’s LogFrame. DRC-PEARL was very successful in this regard. Beneficiaries learned the importance of saving and of having the possibility to borrow money in order to start and/or expand a business, as well as when facing eventual emergencies.64 Two main benefits are associated with these attitudes: first, this kind of mentality enhances the self-reliance and sustainability of the FFS and IGA parts of the project (since it was designed to support them), but additionally, it increases the accountability of local populations to their own future development (switching their position from passive recipients to active development agents).

3.2. Connectedness

PEARL’s overall objective is: “To contribute to rural economic reintegration and sustainable livelihood recovery for IDPs/returnees and vulnerable host populations in Northern Bahr El Ghazal State in South Sudan”.65 As such, the PEARL initiative was constructed on the basis of previously existing projects66 and an exit strategy has been developed, which takes the local communities, other stakeholders (such as the SMoAF and other NGOs present in the relevant counties) and the conflict and humanitarian situations into account.67

The exit strategy is clear and proposes relevant actions for the continuation of project activities. More specifically, it puts forward a handover approach relying on a set of partnerships with other aid agencies and local institutions. To this end, the DRC planned the transfer of a number of assets (furniture, several vehicles, etc.) to the SMoAF, and has been working on an everyday basis with two Ministry officials who have been attached to the PEARL project for the period between August and November 2015. The involvement of the SMoAF in all of the activities is indeed an important step for local development. In spite of a clear lack of resources, the participation of local institutions should help to foster government accountability, as well as encourage the promotion of a sense of self-sufficiency. Building trust in the institutions is after all necessary to achieving longer-term development.

Furthermore, the exit strategy includes a series of recommendations, lessons learned, and an inventory of staff competences that will be shared68 with the SMoAF, the NBeG department in charge of NGO management, and other NGOs involved in the implementation of similar programmes.69 The rest of the exit strategy focuses on market linkages (including for the purchase of the parts necessary for the production of ploughs, hoes, and other farming inputs)

61 FGDs with IGA group beneficiaries in Aweil Centre, November 2015. 62 Every IGA group interviewed described their businesses as successful (FGDs with IGA group beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015). 63FGD with IGA group in Udhaba, Aweil Centre, October 2015. 64 This mindset was perceptible in every FGD with VSLA groups in both Aweil North and Aweil Centre (October and November 2015). 65 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014 66 Ibid. 67 See DRC. ‘PEARL Project Transition Strategy (Exit Plan)’, July 2015. 68Meeting scheduled for November 2015. 69 Ibid. This group of agencies includes mostly those that have received EC funding to operate in the region. Among them, Concern Worldwide (CWW), People In Need (PIN), Cooperazione e Sviluppo (CESVI), and German Agro Action/Welthungerhilfe (GAA/WHH) stand out.



13

and on spawning further connections between VSLA groups and FFSs and IGAs.70 Notably, these linkages among the different project schemes are correctly marked as a key element of the handover strategy. It is the simplest way to guarantee the long-term provision of basic agricultural inputs, and the origin of knowledge-sharing communities.

However, it should also be noted that most of the exit strategy hinges on a continuation of project activities by either the SMoAF or other NGOs present in project areas. While the efforts to secure the continuation of project implementation are commendable, concern about the sustainability of the positive outcomes of the project remain. Most respondents, when asked about the DRC’s withdrawal from the region, expressed concern about who would provide resources for them in the future.71 Some argued that they still needed donkeys, seeds, schools and many other resources.72 Such responses suggest that the DRC was not able to effectively communicate the timetable of the programme to the beneficiary population. Having a clear understanding of timelines of programmes can be helpful for beneficiaries to develop a sense of how to better plan for future needs and pursue community-led community-based development.

This last point is also connected to a general tendency within the local population to spend money on school and medical fees rather than on entrepreneurial endeavours.73 While necessary, such allocation of resources reduces the funds available for investment, which in turn hampers local development. In this sense, coupling projects such as this one with others focused on health and education provision might lead to higher resource availability and thus to increased levels of economic development. The inclusion in the exit plan of the promotion of the diversification of IGAs (as explained in the previous section) could also help in this regard.

3.3. Coherence

As mentioned in the previous section, the DRC is aware of previously existing humanitarian initiatives in the project areas. The reintegration of IDPs and refugees in their home regions was initiated after the CPA was signed in 2005. Since then, the EC has funded a Recovery and Rehabilitation Programme (RRP), a Food Security Thematic Programme (FSTP), the Sudan Production Capacity Recovery Programme (SPCRP) and the Special Programme for Rural Development and Food Security (SPRDFS). All these efforts have been taken into account during the design of the PEARL project.74

The involvement of the SMoAF in turn ensures that there is no duplicity of efforts in the region and that national and regional policies regarding development, trade, or the military are not violated. In a KII with a SMoAF official, he praised the DRC’s efforts to work closely with local area leaders as well as with the government. He placed special emphasis on the sharing of a monthly report and work schedule with county authorities, underscoring an increase in efficiency (since it both keeps the institutions informed at no extra cost and prevents legal and policy issues linked to a lack of communication).75

Regarding the inclusion of humanitarian and human rights considerations in project design, the DRC has excelled in the endeavour. The main requirements for participation in the programme are incidentally based on humanitarian considerations, with vulnerability as one of PEARL’s

70 Ibid. 71FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 72 A much more common response in FFS groups (all but two) than in IGAs and VSLAs. 73 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries and KIIs in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 74 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014. 75 KII with SMoAF Director General in Aweil Centre, November 2015.



14

main concerns. This factor, as well as the specific targeting of women and returnees, has been the most praised feature of the programme by all KII participants.76

3.4. Coverage

The PEARL project was centred on promoting the rural economic reintegration and sustainable livelihood of vulnerable populations in the counties of Aweil North and Aweil Centre. As such, its coverage focused on catering to the needs of those most affected by the ‘hunger gap’ that these populations face every year. Aweil North food security conditions are considered at crisis Level 3 for the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC3) and Aweil Centre is under a significant level of stress (IPC 2).77 Such levels of food insecurity imply that the vast majority of the population in those areas could have benefitted from taking part in the PEARL initiative. However, resources were limited and therefore only the most vulnerable individuals among those populations were targeted. Most of the interviews undertaken both with KIIs and project participants gave a positive evaluation regarding this specific feature of the project.78

The DRC thus set strict conditions for individuals to be able to take part in the programme. The most important factor was being an IDP or returnee, or constituting what was identified as a vulnerable member of the host population.79 It should be noted that returnees/IDPs are, on their own, quite a large population: between Feburary 2004 and September 2012 NBeG had taken in more than 456,000 returnees; Aweil North was then hosting more than 11,000 IDPs.80 Due to the relative importance of these groups, and considering their limited resources, this selection criterion was praised by several of the KII participants interviewed by Forcier. It was specifically noted that the assistance reduced some of the strain that recent returnees placed on their families’ resources.81 KII participants also remarked that positive efforts had been made in order to ensure equal treatment between the different population groups in terms of training and tools distribution.82

In order to distinguish the vulnerable members of the host population, the DRC drew from its experience working in the region. It also used local formal and informal institutions for this purpose. In total, the target groups for the FFS groups, SGGs and IGAs amounted to 3,850 households. At an average of 7.2 members per household, the target population stands at an approximated 27,720 individuals. Sixty percent of those were in Aweil Centre and forty percent in Aweil North. 83 In addition, the programme especially promoted its participation among women.

On the other hand, because nearly none of the local residents had received any previous agricultural or financial training,84 all trainings benefited the participants to some degree. Techniques like row planting, crop rotation, ploughing while standing instead of sitting down, or using donkeys in the fields85 are relatively easy to implement and had great impact on

76 Five KIIs with different knowledgeable individuals in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 77 IPC. ‘South Sudan Food Security Update’, 26 September 2012. 78 FGDs and KIIs associated with the PEARL Project, October and November 2015. 79 Forcier Consulting does not have a precise definition of the term ‘vulnerable host population’. However, it is known that the selection of participants was organised taking advantage of the DRC’s previous knowledge of the area and of local social structures, as is explained later in the text. 80 IOM-ERS. ‘Weekly Statistical Report Sept. 2012 81 KIIs with a DRC member of staff, an Ariath community chief, and an area leader in Aroyo, Aweil North and Aweil Centre, November 2015. 82 Ibid. Some FGDs pointed to some issues in this regard, however. See next section. 83 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014. 84Benslyn Community Development Consultants. ‘PEARL Baseline Survey Report’, May 2013. 85 All mentioned in FGDs with FFS groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015.



15

production levels. Since they are simple to put into action, they are also easy to teach to others and replicate. The same is true of the basic functioning of sanduk schemes or grassroots business training. There have indeed been several instances of replication within the local communities,86 which implies the coverage is likely to be higher than just the total number of DRC beneficiaries.

3.5. Effectiveness

First of all, it is important to highlight the overall effectiveness of the PEARL initiative. The general impression obtained both from the FGDs and KIIs corresponds to a programme that functioned well and had the desired effects on the local population. This being said, not all parts of the programme were implemented with the same degree of coordination and, therefore, there were differences in their level of effectiveness.

In this sense, according to KIIs, FFSs were described as the least effective feature of the project.87 Participants to FGDs and KIIs asserted that the ineffectiveness was mostly due to three distinct factors, although only one of them was under the control of the DRC. Firstly, last year saw the advent of an unusually long and severe dry season, which had a negative impact on agricultural production.88 In addition, some groups in Aweil Centre happened to have settled on partially barren soil, which affected their levels of productivity.89 Lastly, the remaining factor was linked to the provision of defective seeds within the programme.90 It should be noted that the purpose of introducing new seeds in the local economy was to increase the quality and quantity of production. Therefore, the goal was to provide local communities with seeds that are drought-resistant, have shorter maturity periods, and are more efficient in terms of output. Instead, the effect was the opposite for the groups that received the defective batches, with all of those groups reporting low-level performance, and participants in one of them stating to still be waiting for their seeds to germinate.91

Beyond these factors, the training offered at the FFSs was indeed very helpful, since all interview respondents underscored the importance of the agricultural knowledge they gained, pointing out that they are using the new farming techniques in their fields.92 Specifically, new cultivation methods (including the use of donkeys, crop rotation, specialisation in one seed variety, cultivation planning, and irrigation techniques) were listed as the most relevant concepts learned. However, animal traction and the provision of farming inputs (seeds, pangas, axes, hoes, etc.) were generally regarded as the most useful features of the project.93 In fact, it is likely that the effectiveness of PEARL largely relied on the introduction of these new production mechanisms in the project area, highlighting the importance of basic technology for the improvement of nutritional standards in at-risk areas.

Nevertheless, there were some complaints regarding the distribution of resources. Three of the groups in Aweil North reported a very uneven distribution of inputs among the different FFS groups.94 While one commented on the fact that they had received a much smaller amount of

86FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 87 KII with a SMoAF official and with a DRC member of staff , Aweil Centre, November 2015. 88KIIs and FGDs with PEARL beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 89KII with a DRC member of staff in Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 90FGDs with FFS groups in Aweil Centre and Aweil North, October and November 2015. 91 Ibid. 92 Ibid. Notice that this was one of the expected results of the project. 93 Ibid. 94 FGDs with FFS groups in Aweil North, October and November 2015



16

seeds to plant, another group had received none, and a third only had tomato seeds and no farming tools.

The effectiveness of IGAs, on the other hand, has fewer caveats. All beneficiaries regarded the training in subjects including record keeping, savings management, business strategy, property management, and teamwork as integral to their commercial success. Every group reported encouraging results: most respondents had enough earnings to obtain food, pay for school fees, and some beneficiaries had enough to open new shops.95 Several respondents particularly underscored the usefulness of their businesses in periods where no agricultural work is available. In sum, the scheme was very helpful to develop sustainable income sources throughout the year.

FGD respondents perceived failed businesses to be largely connected to unfavourable weather conditions and external economic shocks.96 Among the latter the recent drop in the value of the SSP has strongly impacted local markets, with two interview groups reporting rising commodity prices.97 Such patterns can greatly harm businesses that require external inputs and impact project sustainability. In any case, these negative factors also indicate that better training regarding business viability and market assessments would be a helpful tool if the concrete goal in a region were to achieve local long-term development.98

VSLA schemes were a success, with participants expressing possessing a clear understanding of the VSLA system and of the relevance of saving money for use during difficult times.99 They also mentioned the importance of the financial training provided, especially in regard to income generation through loans; 75% of the interviewee groups noted the possibility to invest in farming and other IGAs.100 Additionally, the use of the VSLA as a coping mechanism (mostly when family members were ill) was reported by half of the groups.101 There was only one complain in this regard: one VSLA group in Aweil North pointed out that it was impossible to borrow large amounts of money at a time, which they found especially necessary for business development.102

3.6. Impact

A majority of the respondents were grateful for the PEARL project, especially those returnees who were able to successfully integrate in the local communities through the groups they engaged in.103 In fact, almost all of the respondents’ livelihoods directly depended on the activities organised within this DRC project. Precisely for this reason, its continuation over the next years is important for the lasting improvement of economic and nutritional conditions.

The success of FFSs and SGGs has led to more land being cultivated by every group and to higher production, which has in turn reduced the incidence of the ‘hunger gap’ on the local population.104 It should be noted, however, that the desired impact was hard to obtain in locations characterised by strong seasonal flooding (which incidentally cover a large part of the project areas). Indeed, floods often destroy crops, while the dry season impedes cultivation

95FGDs with IGA groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 96Ibid. 97 Ibid. 98 Ibid. 99 KIIs with a SMoAF oficial and a DRC member of staff in Aweil Centre, November 2015. 100 FGDs with VSLA groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 101 Ibid. 102 FGD with a VSLA group in Aweil North, November 2015 103 FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 104KIIs and FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015.



17

during a period of roughly six months every year, rendering the knowledge gained through the FFS groups only useful during specific periods of time. This issue was in fact reflected in all interviews conducted: while trainings and the provision of inputs were classified as very helpful by all FGDs, the lack of resources is still predominant during the months of July and August (the period right before the harvest).105 This factor does not only affect FFSs, but also the VSLA and IGA schemes, since they directly depend on their communities’ purchasing power. Nonetheless, the only long-term solution to the difficult weather conditions would be to invest in infrastructure, thus building water retention mechanisms. Whether water is kept in small tanks that allow for irrigation during the dry season, or larger construction works (such as dams), these measures should be investigated for the long-term economic development of the region.

The previously mentioned effectiveness of IGAs has led to reportedly higher levels of stability of income throughout the year, providing the vulnerable populations with a means to make a living in the region. As a result, more households have enough earnings to spend on food, education, health, as well as business expansion.106 In addition, overall, participants in FGDs expressed that the PEARL programme changed how they spent their daily time. Prior to the intervention, respondents felt that they could not participate in productive daily activities; after the intervention, respondents reported feeling more productive and useful. The overall impression obtained from the interviews is that of a change in the local way of life, with locals now enjoying spending more of their time occupied in productive activities.107

The DRC designed the VSLA scheme as a complement to the other two branches of the project. Given its effectiveness, all VSLA groups interviewed appeared to be well established and committed to the support of their members and the local economy.108 The most noticeable impact is seen in terms of a change in mentality: while before the start of the project locals would immediately spend the money earned,109 all the interview respondents underscored the importance of collecting savings and declared to be very satisfied with taking part in a system that allowed for flexible borrowing in times of need.110 Many of them also seemed to be taking part in IGAs and had used the funds to increase the size of their businesses.111

3.7. Efficiency and Sustainability

While the overall effectiveness and positive impact of the programme have been stated in the sections above, improvements regarding the achievement of better results with the resources available are always possible. This section aims to highlight examples of good practice, as well as to suggest areas where it would be helpful to concentrate more attention and resources in the future.

To begin, defective seeds reduced the positive impact of the programme due to a problem that seemed to be linked to inadequate storage and transportation from a very distant location.112 For future similar endeavour, it would be more efficient to proceed to the testing of seeds (by for example planting them in a small plot of land) before handing them to the beneficiaries. Such an approach could in fact have markedly reduced the number of low-performing FFSs.

105 Ibid. 106FGDs with IGA groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 107 Ibid. 108 FGDs with VSLA groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 109Ibid. 110 Ibid. 111 Ibid. 112Welz, W. ‘PEARL mid-term evaluation’, September 2014.



18

Also regarding the provision of inputs, while both animal traction and farming tools were rated as the best features of the FFSs, higher efficiency and sustainability would require the training of locals in order to be able to build and repair their own tools,113 and take care of the donkeys on a long-term basis.114 To this end, the provision of both male and female donkeys and the programme’s support of animal husbandry are fundamental both in terms of efficiency and sustainability.115 Additionally, the teaching of basic veterinary concepts is important, although the lack of a veterinarian in project areas can nevertheless constitute a notable issue.

The sustainability of the agricultural component of the SGGs of the project vastly depends on the local generation of high quality seeds. However, DRC-PEARL’s functioning has so far lacked a stable connection between these groups and local markets, with many of the seeds being repurchased by the DRC.116 This set-up raises sustainability concerns. A more efficient approach could consider linking the SGGs with other kinds of FFS groups once the first round of seed multiplication has taken place. If possible, the goal should be for all FFSs to purchase their seeds from the SGGs (with some financial help from the DRC if necessary) by the end of the project. This approach would of course require making the SGGs a priority within the FFS scheme.

Importantly, it should be recognised when attempting replications of the project that FFS schemes allow for an adequate combination of theory, practice, and community building.117 Participants are thus taught a new technique; then they are given the opportunity to put it in practice in the field by working as a group and learning from each other. Furthermore, in locations with little prior agricultural teaching, very basic cultivation techniques have the potential to generate important boosting effects on production. FFSs are therefore an efficient mechanism to fight food insecurity in severely underdeveloped areas. In addition, the knowledge transmitted has the advantage of being a permanent asset. Indeed, every FFSs group understood the teachings had been helpful and stated that they would make use of them even if their communities were once again displaced due to a renewed breakout in violence.118

Another important source of concern for all programme branches, as was mentioned earlier, is the extreme weather patterns in the region. While the construction of a dam might prove to be too large a task to undertake in the short term, the project’s sustainability could have been enhanced if some resources had been used to train locals to build small constructions with which to hold and keep water that can be used for irrigation. Another helpful training could have taught locals to store food safely (out of the reach of animals). Any of these could have in turn been set up as an additional type of IGA, thus contributing to the diversification of the regional economic landscape. In any case, the DRC’s attempt to diversify income sources119 should be praised and replicated in the design of future projects.

In general terms, both the VSLA and IGA schemes of the programme can be described as its most efficient and sustainable parts,120 mostly thanks to the entrepreneurial mentality that has

113 Which has only been partially achieved (notice that the exchange rate of the SSP is a very pressing concern in this case). FGDs with FFS groups and with a carpentry IGA group in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. Also found in the DRC’s internal revision report. 114 Ibid. 115Welz, W. ‘PEARL mid-term evaluation’, September 2014. 116Welz, W. ‘PEARL mid-term evaluation’, September 2014. 117 FGDs with FFS groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 118 This feature was not just limited to the FFSs, but to all schemes within the programme. FGDs with DRC beneficiaries in Awel North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015. 119 DRC. ‘PEARL Grant Application Form to the EU Delegation in Sudan’, January 2012, revised in March 2014; DRC’s internal revision report 120KIIs with a SMoAF oficial and a DRC member of staff in Aweil Centre, November 2015.



19

been advanced in the project areas. It is clear that VSLAs constitute not only a business advancement tool, but also a helpful safety net for potential external shocks. Nonetheless, it is important to note that no mention was made in any of the interviews of the rejection of loan requests depending on the expected profitability and efficiency of a business, or its degree of innovation within the local economy. Instead, many examples were put forward for borrowing being undertaken in order to cope with an unexpected disease.121 While this is indeed part of the goal of the scheme, higher efficiency could be gained by providing a specific training on business evaluation, whereby the advantages of investing in the most profitable businesses could be highlighted. This would boost better-targeted investment, rewarding local innovation (even if those businesses are run by non-members).122

121 FGDs with VSLA groups in Aweil North and Aweil Centre, October and November 2015 122 In this sense, a division between sanduks intended to act as a coping mechanism, and sanduks whose functioning is closer to a privately-run microfinance programme could prove to be helpful, assuming the goal of the initiative were local economic development.



20

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

Indicator Findings Recommendations

Relevance/

Appropriateness

FFSs were an appropriate and adaptable means to provide agricultural training in areas where locals lacked this type of knowledge.

Teamwork and community building were relevant tools for the success of the project.

The provision of farm inputs and animal traction were the most appreciated elements of PEARL.

The introduction of new seeds and training on how to cultivate them can promote nutritional diversity and were well received by the local population.

The IGA scheme constituted a relevant way to support local income levels throughout the dry season, although there are concerns as to its level of diversity.

VSLAs were appropriate support mechanisms for FFSs and IGAs, and increased population accountability to their own development.

After the necessary baseline study, the replication of all of the programme’s schemes can be recommended as a successful system to reduce the incidence of the ‘hunger gap’ and complement local income generation. Nonetheless, special attention should be paid to individual preferences before including beneficiaries in any of the groups.

Separate requirements for the IGA scheme should be maintained, giving preference to the most viable business ideas.123

The focus should be set on community building and progressing as a team. Local networks and power relationships should be researched in order to be able to target the most vulnerable.

Connectedness

The DRC’s exit strategy is clear and based on partnerships with the SMoAF and other NGOs operating in the area.

Market linkages are somewhat lacking in spite of their importance for project sustainability.

Beneficiaries showed a lack of awareness regarding the project’s length.

Need for more health and education investment in the region.

Relevant partnerships with local authorities and other aid agencies should always be fostered.

The health and education sectors should be taken into account in the design of future livelihood enhancement initiatives, since they can free up local resources and thus promote development.

123 This recommendation should be given less priority when working in a refugee/IDP context.



21

Coherence

PEARL was designed taking prior aid initiatives implemented in the area into account.

Constant communication with the SMoAF ensures diligent cooperation.

The design of the project took humanitarian considerations into account, specifically targeting at-risk populations.

Any initiative should be aware of earlier projects targeting the region and try to complement them.

Maintaining a two-way communication with the local institutions as well as with the whole community helps to meet local needs and ensures enhanced collaboration.

Coverage

Most of the population in the target areas could have benefitted from taking part in the project but resources were limited.

Both KII participants and FGD groups praised the specific targeting of IDPs, returnees and vulnerable host communities.

There were instances of various schemes being replicated by citizens not included in the project, in general with lower levels of success.

Use local networks in order to identify those who need the aid relief/development scheme the most.

Actively promote the sharing of knowledge within the community, especially with those individuals who have not been included in the project.

Effectiveness

The FFS scheme was considered an effective learning mechanism.

The provision of animal traction and farming tools increased productivity in the project areas

Inadequate storage and transportation led to the distribution of some defective seeds, which damaged the agricultural production of certain FFSs.

The IGA scheme proved to be an effective way to promote income stability throughout the year

VSLAs worked both as coping mechanisms and as support institutions for the other branches of the programme.

A similar organisation of the project should be kept in the future, aiming for a more prominent role of the VSLAs so as to eventually achieve long-term sustainability.

Animal traction and farming inputs should be provided to populations who cannot afford them. However, co-financing should be implemented whenever possible.124 This should ensure a more efficient use of the resources provided.

124 The co-financing recommendation does not apply when working in with refugees/IDPs.



22

Impact

Although extreme weather conditions were an important drag on project outcomes in some areas, respondents reported an overall reduced incidence of the ‘hunger gap’. The months of July and August were broadly defined as those where it was harder to cope.

Increase in income stability, mostly due to horticultural produce (second harvest) and IGA promotion.

Sharp change in local opinions in favour of the importance of saving

VSLAs act as safety nets in the face of unforeseen negative circumstances

Study the possibility of setting up a microfinance scheme in the region, with the main purpose of giving a boost the most viable/locally innovative businesses.125

Aim to promote infrastructure development in the region. Particularly, water collection methods can impact the uni-modal nature of local agriculture, and roads are needed to improve access to markets.

Efficiency and sustainability

SGGs are fundamental for the efficiency and sustainability of the project.

Efficiency issues arose with regard to seed transportation.

VSLAs constitute an efficient way to use idle resources in the economy. Respondents also considered them a sustainable initiative they could replicate even if violence hit.

Extension agents, and connections between all branches of the programme are fundamental for its efficiency and sustainability.

Before proceeding with the distribution of seeds, test their quality by planting them in a small plot of land.

Train local extension agents in order to ensure sustainability. Veterinary trainings could also be helpful.

Since the beginning of the project, aim to develop IGAs which can enhance the sustainability (blacksmithing and carpentry to fix and produce tools with locally available materials, animal husbandry, etc.).

Foster a local market for the products and skills promoted by the programme. Consider the possibility of complementing the VSLA scheme with microfinance, where the focus is instead on innovation and local long-term development.126

125Not applicable in a refugee/IDP context. 126Not relevant in a refugee/IDP context.



23

Annexes

Annex 1: FGD FFS questionnaire

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

INDICATOR 1: General Information

1. First of all, I would like for all of us to get to know one another. Please turn to the person next to you and introduce yourself, you will now have 2 minutes to tell each other about one thing you really liked about the Farmer Field Schools in which you took part. Once you have finished, you will introduce your partner to the rest of the group.

SECTION 2: PROGRAM DESIGN

INDICATOR 2: Relevance and Appropriateness

First we are going to conduct an activity to understand what you have learnt as part of the FFS group, including lessons, techniques, or seeds and tools obtained.

2. Now I would like for us to create a list of all the topics on which you have been trained and the activities that you did as part of the FFS. I will write on these post-its [show post-its] all the activities you tell me and will stick it to the wall!

[Instruction for this Activity: If multiple FFS, assign one post-it color to each FFS. Stick on a separate section of the wall a sample of each post-it color so that the participants can see which color corresponds to which FFS Write on each post-it the activities, techniques, tools, seeds and inputs mentioned by the participants for each FFS and stick them to the table (or the wall) in the meeting room so that they are visible by all participants (make sure you write the right activity on the correctly colored post-it)]

3. What do you think is the most important lesson or technique you have learned? [Or seed or tool you have obtained?] Can you tell me how you applied this lessons or techniques [or use this tool or seed] in your life? [Prompt the respondent to describe a past experience]

4. Do you think that the things you learned [or inputs obtained] in the FFS complemented well the skills you already have? Why?

5. [If returnee] For those of you who have returned to this community, how has the FFS affected your integration into the area? Is this different to what you expected to do before you arrived here? How?

INDICATOR 3: Coverage

6. Do you think that the people that participated to the FFS were the ones that needed it the most or could benefit the most from it? Why?

7. Do you think that there are other people in this community that might have benefitted from the FFS but did not participate? Who? Why?

SECTION 3: PROGRAM RESULTS

INDICATOR 4: Effectiveness

Now we are going to talk specifically about what you have found to be successful and not so successful about the program

8. Can you tell me one example of a person that was part of this FFS or another similar FFS



24

group that you think was very successful? To replicate his success what do you think you would need? These are the things you learned in this FFS [researcher reads back the activities on the post-its], please tell me what you would use out of these techniques and how. You can also add some extra activities or inputs that you think you would need to replicate his/her success but were not part of the FFS.

9. Can you now tell me one example of a person that was part of this FFS or another similar FFS group that you think was not successful? What do you think were the reasons for which he or she was not successful? Please tell me of all the activities we listed, what did he or she put in practice. What do you think went wrong in the way he or she applied these techniques or used these tools?

10. Overall, what do you think were the main achievements of this project? And the main negative effects?

[Instruction for this Activity: The researchers will move the post that are mentioned in the first question to a separate part of the wall and will write on other post its any additional element identified as a source of success. Before moving to the second question and repeat the procedure, the researcher will take a photo of the wall with the post its. Throughout this section make sure to be very specific and probe for specific tools, seeds, techniques etc. as well as to inquire about market mechanisms for the produce of the FFS participants. Take a photo of the post-its and the groups]

INDICATOR 5: Impact

Now we are going to do another activity. We will talk about how the FFS has affected your livelihoods in relation to seasonal and climatic changes

11. Now I’d like for us to talk about your livelihoods throughout the year. Can you tell me when did the dry season begin last year? And the rainy season? [The researcher will draw rain and sun accordingly on the timeline] When do you get your yields for the different crops you cultivate?

12. When do you have enough food for you and your family? And at which time to you find it difficult to feed yourself and your family? Why?

13. When did the things that you learned in the FFS help you? How did they help you?

[Instructions for this Activity: Researcher draws on the flipchart a line with 12 months, will identify rainy and dry season and will ask the participants about food security starting from the beginning of the rainy season all the way to the end of the dry season. He/She will draw on the flipchart red arrows to say that there are difficulties in a certain season and green arrows to say that there is enough food/yields in that season. The researcher should probe about coping strategies and use of extra food]

14. Let's do something similar but now let's talk about your economic situation. When do you have enough money for you and your family? When can you save money? What do you do with that money? [Probe also for future plans]

15. And when do you find it challenging to have enough money? What do you do in these cases?

16. When did the things that you learned in the FFS help you? How did they help you?

[Instructions for this Activity: On a different flipchart the researcher will draw again the yearly cycle of seasons and will draw the times of low money and more money as a “landscape” with hills and mountains to depict the variation in income levels, e.g. a finance stock graph. The researcher should prompt the respondents to state what they do with the



25

extra money or how they cope with the lack of money. Take a photo of the flipchart and the post-its].

SECTION 4: OTHER PROGRAMS AND POLICIES

17. Has participating to this FFS impacted your relationship with the other communities in the area? How?

18. Can you tell me a bit more about these communities - are they from the host community or people who have returned from elsewhere?

SECTION 5: PROGRAM SUSTAINABILITY

INDICATORS 6 & 7 Resilience and Sustainability

Lastly, we are going to talk about how you see the future of the FFS and the skills and knowledge you have learnt through the program

19. If the conflict was to resume in your area and you had to flee from your village for a while, do you think participation in the FFS would help you to rebuild your livelihoods on your return here or if you had to move elsewhere? Why or why not? [Probe on what specifically would be useful]

20. Did you ever notice other people replicating what you were doing? [If yes] Were they more or less successful than you? Why?

21. Do you think that your FFS group will continue to exist or grow in the following years? Why or why not?

22. What do you think are the most important factors that make a group continue successfully in the future?

23. Who do you think should be in charge of leading the group and making sure it has everything it needs to be successful?



26

Annex 2: FGD IGA questionnaire



1. [The researcher should first get the following information from the field officer or the records: How many people are in this IGA group? What kinds of trades do they work in?]



First we are going to conduct an activity to understand what you have learnt as part of the IGA group, including lessons, techniques, or knowledge obtained.

2. First of all, I would like for us to create a list of all the topics on which you have been trained and the activities that you did as part of the IGA group. I will write on these post-its [show post-its] all the activities you tell me and will stick it to the wall!

[Instruction for this Activity: Write on each post-it the activities, techniques and inputs mentioned by the participants for the VSLA and stick them to the table (or the wall) in the meeting room so that they are visible by all participants]

3. What do you think is the most important lesson you have learned in this IGA? Can you tell me how you applied this lesson in your life? [Prompt the respondent to describe a past experience]

4. Do you think that the things you learned [or inputs obtained] in the IGA complemented well the skills you already have? Why?

5. [If returnee] For those of you who have returned to this community/area, how has the IGA affected your integration into the area? Is this different to what you expected to do before you arrived here? How?


6. Do you think that the people that participated to the IGA were the ones that needed it the most or could benefit the most from it? Why?

7. Do you think that there are other people in this community that might have benefitted from the IGA but did not participate? Who? Why?



Now we are going to talk specifically about what you have found to be successful and not so successful about the IGA program

8. Can you tell me one example of a person that was part of this or a similar IGA that you think was very successful? To replicate his success what do you think you would need? These are the things you learned in this IGA [researcher reads back the activities on the post-its], please tell me what you would use out of these techniques and how. You can also add some extra activities or inputs that you think you would need to replicate his/her success but were not part of the FFS.

9. Can you tell me one example of a person that was part of this IGA or a similar IGA group that you think was not successful? What do you think were the reasons for which he or she was not successful? Please tell me of all the activities we listed, what did he or she put in



27

practice. What do you think went wrong in the way he or she applied these techniques or used these tools?


[Instruction for this Activity: The researchers will move the post that are mentioned in the first question to a separate part of the wall and will write on other post its any additional element identified as a source of success. Before moving to the second question and repeat the procedure, the researcher will take a photo of the wall with the post its.

Throughout this section make sure to be very specific and probe for specific tools, seeds, techniques etc. as well as to inquire about market mechanisms for the produce of the IGA participants.

Take a photo of the post-its and the groups.]

INDICATOR 5: Impact

Now we are going to do another activity. We will talk about how the IGA has affected your livelihoods in relation to seasonal and climatic changes

11. Now I’d like for us to talk about your livelihoods throughout the year. Can you tell me when did the dry season begin last year? And the rainy season? [The researcher will draw rain and sun accordingly on the timeline]

12. What is your main livelihood? Does it change throughout the year?

13. When do you face the most risks to your livelihood throughout the year? Why? When instead do you find that your livelihood is prospering and you can save some money? Why?

14. When did the lessons you learned in the IGA or participating in the IGA itself help you? How did it help you?

[Instructions for this Activity: Researcher draws on the flipchart a line with 12 months, will identify rainy and dry season and will ask the participants about food security starting from the beginning of the rainy season all the way to the end of the dry season. He/She will draw on the flipchart red arrows to say that there are difficulties in a certain season and green arrows to say that the livelihood is prospering and allows for savings. The researcher should probe about coping strategies, customers and use of savings.

Take a photo of the flipchart and the post-its]


15. Has participating to this IGA impacted your relationship with the other communities in the area? How?



INDICATOR 6 & 7 Resilience and Sustainability

Lastly, we are going to talk about how you see the future of the FFS and the skills and knowledge you have learnt through the program.

17. If the conflict was to resume in your area and you had to flee from your village for a while, how do you think you will be able to resume your livelihoods after coming back? Do you think that having participated in the IGA would be useful for rebuilding your livelihoods? Why



28

or why not? [Probe on what specifically would be useful]


19. Do you think that your IGA group will continue to exist or grow in the following years? Why or why not?





29

Annex 3: FGD VSLA questionnaire



1. [The researcher should first get the following information from the field officer or the records: how many people are in this IGA group? What kinds of trades do they work in?]



First we are going to conduct an activity to understand what you have learnt as part of the IGA group, including lessons, techniques, or knowledge obtained.

2. First of all, I would like for us to create a list of all the topics on which you have been trained and the activities that you did as part of the IGA group. I will write on these post-its [show post-its] all the activities you tell me and will stick it to the wall!

[Instruction for this Activity: Write on each post-it the activities, techniques and inputs mentioned by the participants for the VSLA and stick them to the table (or the wall) in the meeting room so that they are visible by all participants]

3. What do you think is the most important lesson you have learned in this IGA? Can you tell me how you applied this lesson in your life? [Prompt the respondent to describe a past experience]

4. Do you think that the things you learned [or inputs obtained] in the IGA complemented well the skills you already have? Why?

5. [If returnee] For those of you who have returned to this community/area, how has the IGA affected your integration into the area? Is this different to what you expected to do before you arrived here? How?


6. Do you think that the people that participated to the IGA were the ones that needed it the most or could benefit the most from it? Why?

7. Do you think that there are other people in this community that might have benefitted from the IGA but did not participate? Who? Why?



Now we are going to talk specifically about what you have found to be successful and not so successful about the IGA program

8. Can you tell me one example of a person that was part of this or a similar IGA that you think was very successful? To replicate his success what do you think you would need? These are the things you learned in this IGA [researcher reads back the activities on the post-its]. Please tell me what you would use out of these techniques and how. You can also add some extra activities or inputs that you think you would need to replicate his/her success but were not part of the FFS.

9. Can you tell me one example of a person that was part of this IGA or a similar IGA group that you think was not successful? What do you think were the reasons for which he or she was not successful? Please tell me of all the activities we listed, what did he or she put in



30

practice. What do you think went wrong in the way he or she applied these techniques or used these tools


[Instruction for this Activity: The researchers will move the post that are mentioned in the first question to a separate part of the wall and will write on other post its any additional element identified as a source of success. Before moving to the second question and repeat the procedure, the researcher will take a photo of the wall with the post its.

Throughout this section make sure to be very specific and probe for specific tools, seeds, techniques etc., as well as to inquire about market mechanisms for the produce of the IGA participants.

Take a photo of the post-its and the groups]

INDICATOR 5: Impact

Now we are going to do another activity. We will talk about how the IGA has affected your livelihoods in relation to seasonal and climatic changes

11. Now I’d like for us to talk about your livelihoods throughout the year. Can you tell me when did the dry season begin last year? And the rainy season? [The researcher will draw rain and sun accordingly on the timeline]

12. What is your main livelihood? Does it change throughout the year?

13. When do you face the most risks to your livelihood throughout the year? Why?

14. When instead do you find that your livelihood is prospering and you can save some money? Why?

15. When did the lessons you learned in the IGA or participating in the IGA itself help you? How did it help you?

[Instructions for this Activity: Researcher draws on the flipchart a line with 12 months, will identify rainy and dry season and will ask the participants about food security starting from the beginning of the rainy season all the way to the end of the dry season. He/She will draw on the flipchart red arrows to say that there are difficulties in a certain season and green arrows to say that the livelihood is prospering and allows for savings. The researcher should probe about coping strategies, customers and use of savings.

Take photo of the flipchart and the post-its]


16. Has participating to this IGA impacted your relationship with the other communities in the area? How?



INDICATOR 6 & 7 Resilience and Sustainability

Lastly, we are going to talk about how you see the future of the FFS and the skills and knowledge you have learnt through the program

18. If the conflict was to resume in your area and you had to flee from your village for a while,



31

how do you think you will be able to resume your livelihoods after coming back? Do you think that having participated in the IGA would be useful for rebuilding your livelihoods? Why or why not? [Probe on what specifically would be useful]


20. Do you think that your IGA group will continue to exist or grow in the following years? Why or why not?





32

Annex 4: KII questionnaire


INDICATOR 1: RELEVANCE & APPROPRIATENESS

1. First of all, could you begin by telling me about the needs of the community, in particular relating to returnees and their economic integration?

2. How do you feel the program has addressed those challenges?

3. What do you think have been the most important parts of the program for your community?

4. To what extent would you say that the diversity of communities, including disadvantaged or marginalised people has been taken into account in the program?

INDICATOR 2: COVERAGE

5. Do you think that both the IDP/returnee and host communities have benefited equally from the program? Please elaborate.

6. Do you think there are other people who could have benefited from DRC's program?


INDICATORS 3 & 4: EFFICIENCY & EFFECTIVENESS

7. To what extent are you satisfied with DRC's programme over the last two years? [In terms of contents, participation and quality]

8. Who [men, women, children, disabled, young people] have benefitted most from DRC's programme and why?

9. How has the program impacted women of the community?

10. Do you feel that some interventions (project activities) have been more successful than others? If yes, which are they and why were they more successful? Why would you say others remained less successful?

11. What could have been done to achieve greater effectiveness?

12. [Program staff only] To what extent do you feel the program targets correspond to the resources provided e.g. human resources, time and budget? If yes, would you say that the program contributed to successful and timely delivery? If not, how did it hinder the progress and programme delivery?

INDICATOR 5: IMPACT

13. What have been the short-term and long-term impacts of the programme on the community?

14. To what extent has the DRC programme contributed to improving the communities’ economic wellbeing or livelihoods?

15. If the conflict was to resume in your area and the community had to flee from your village for a while, how do you think they would be able to resume their livelihoods after coming back? Do you think that having participated in the DRC programme would have helped the community rebuild their livelihoods? Why or why not?

16. Have there been any unexpected impacts of the program on the community?


INDICATORS 6 & 7: CONNECTEDNESS & COHERENCE



33

17. [Programme Staff and Local Authorities only] Are there institutional/policy reasons why the programme was not effective? Or have there been other projects or policies that supported the work of the DRC programme? (e.g. building of infrastructures, cash-for-work activities

18. [Programme Staff only] In the past years (and especially after the crisis in 2013), has the DRC programme changed? [If yes] How? Why?

19. Has participating in DRC's program impacted the relationship of your community with the other communities in the area? How?

20. How do you think DRC's program compares with other similar programmes in the area?


INDICATOR 8: SUSTAINABILITY

21. Have you encountered other groups [non-beneficiaries] replicating any of the project activities?

22. What do you think could have been done differently to improve effectiveness of the program?

23. Do you think that the DRC programme activities will continue to exist or grow in the following years? Why or why not?



34

Forcier Consulting

Forcier Consulting is a development research firm that operates in challenging post-conflict environments. Established in 2011 in South Sudan, Forcier Consulting has invested in developing methodologies and approaches to research that are contextually appropriate and feasible, whilst adhering to international standards for social science research and utilizing the latest data collection technology available. Our core services include population and social science research, project evaluations, market assessments for livelihoods and vocational trainings, private sector and market research for feasibility studies, strategic planning and representation, and training and capacity building workshops.

For further information, please visit www.forcierconsulting.com.

programme for economic reintegration and livelihood ... for economic reintegration and livelihood...

Documents