Evaluation of Sustainable Livelihoods Recovery Project in the Lakes State, Sudan

8/7/2019 Evaluation of Sustainable Livelihoods Recovery Project in the Lakes State, Sudan

1/60

Evaluation of Sustainable LivelihoodsRecovery Project in the Lakes State,Sudan

Full Report

Oxfam GB Programme Evaluation

August 2007

Commissioned by: Oxfam GB

Evaluators: C.Odhiambo, P. Oyoo


2/60

Oxfam GB DCI Funded Sustainable Livelihoods Recovery Program Lakes State, Southern Sudan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2

Acronyms -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3

Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4

Background ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6

SECTION 1Assessment Upon the Project Logic ----------------------------------------------------------------- 9

SECTION 2Project Appropriateness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

SECTION 3Community Participation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24

SECTION 4Coordination with Stakeholders ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 26

SECTION 5Cost Effectiveness -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28

SECTION 6Sustainability -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------30

SECTION 7

Challenges, Lessons & Way Forward --------------------------------------------------------------- 32

SECTION 8Best Practices --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37

SECTION 9Way Forward ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38

ANNEXES -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38

Annex I- Assessment of Partners upon the Project Logic ------------------------------------- 39

Annex II-List of People Interviewed ------------------------------------------------------------------ 52

Annex III-Terms of Reference ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 53

Final Report prepared and submitted by Chris and Philip_August 2007

1


3/60


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost the Evaluation team wishes to express their sincere gratitude toOxfam GB for the opportunity to share a learning experience with them through this

evaluation. The evaluation team further acknowledges the support availed to them byboth Oxfam head office in Nairobi and the Field Office in Rumbek Southern Sudan.

Special thanks go to Oxfam GB Deputy Country Representative Ms. Awadia Ogillo,Capacity Building Coordinator Ms. Josephine Namusisi, Livelihoods ProgrammeManager Ashford Gichoi, Livelihoods Project Officer Gabriel Makuac, Gabriel KucConflict Mainstreaming Officer and Project/Community Extension Officer Ms Susan fortheir active participation and providing the valuable information and support that madethis evaluation a success.

Finally, the Evaluation Team wish to convey their sincere gratitude to the CountyAuthorities-SSRRC and Commissioners of both Wulu and Cuiebet, UNFAO

representative/Agriculture Field Officer Yopesi Swaro and Oxfam project partnersSDRDA, Nukta Mang Self Help Women Group, Cop Cok Self Help Group, Pul AruopFood Production Association and their beneficiaries in Wulu and Cuiebet Counties whoshared their honest views and knowledge of project activities that have formed part ofthis evaluation report

Thank you all.

C. Odhiambo and P. Oyoo (Evaluation Team)


2


4/60


ACRONYMS

CBO Community Based OrganisationCSO Civil Society Organisation

GoSS Government of South SudanIDP Internally Displaced PersonsINGO International Non Governmental OrganisationLAF Livelihood Analysis ForumMoA&F Ministry of Agricluture and FisheriesPCM Project Cycle ManagementPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPWD People with DisabilitiesSDRDA Sudanese Disabled Rehabilitation and Development AssociationSINGO Sudanese Indigenous Non Governmental OrganisationSPLA/M Sudan Peoples Liberation Army/MovementSSRRC South Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Commission

UNFAO United Nations Food for Agriculture Organisation


3


5/60


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The evaluation team determined that the Oxfam GB DCI funded SustainableLivelihoods Project implemented through local SINGOs/CBOs in Lakes State SouthernSudan was successfully implemented, by far and large meeting its aim ( to promotesustainable livelihoods by enabling communities (residents and returnees) to identifytheir own livelihood needs, and develop projects that address those needs; to developthe capacity of local SINGOs/CBOs so that they can develop, implement, monitor andevaluate quality community based livelihood programmes) and is perceived bybeneficiaries and stakeholders as having set the basic foundation needed for movingfrom an emergency to a recovery development approach for sustainable impact.

The Oxfam Programme team were highly commended by the implementing partners(SINGO/CBOs), SSRRC, LGA Commissioners, Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry andUNFAO representatives interviewed, for their unprecedented level of effectiveness.Apart from delivering sustainable livelihood activities within a short time frame, the teammanaged to facilitate the organisation and capacity building of viable local communitybased institutions even in an emerging governance and was also able to roll out virtuallyall the identified activities during the intervening period.

The sustainability of the gains made by the programme is a matter of great concern to allstakeholders that were consulted during the evaluation, and is reiterated by theevaluation team. The local SINGO/CBOs established and strengthened to promotesustainable livelihoods will need enhanced and sustained technical support includingstrategic guidance; functions and capacities which are presently either lacking or arevery nascent within the government structure.

Key programme achievements made are presented below:

The projects implemented by beneficiary groups have improved the livelihoods of the

direct beneficiaries, and livelihood prospects of indirect beneficiaries. There is roomfor augmenting the gains.

The SINGO and CBO partners were able to identify their livelihood needs and planfor the implementation of the same. Generally, communities participated in theproject in terms of needs identification, implementation and monitoring progress. Inthe case of kinship based CBO groups, this participation was limited within the widerfamily structure while in the CBO and SINGO groups there was evidence of greaterparticipation in decision making and collective responsibility and needs wererepresentative of the wider community.

Oxfam effectively participated in local and national livelihoods fora over the projectlifetime. The organisation is regarded highly as a source of reference at both Stateand National levels due to the long institutional memory and work undertaken in theLakes region.

Oxfam formulated and piloted methodologies of working with illiterate andinnumerate beneficiaries. However, this needs to be carried forward with a greaterfocus on appropriate development and documentation in order to benefit the widerspectrum of actors/beneficiaries.

The report for the partnership assessment carried out in Upper Nile should beconcluded, shared and used. Consideration could also be given to extending sucheffort to other regions such as in Equatoria. In so doing, Oxfam will be establishing


4


6/60


an effective strategy for partnership and in the process responding to the emergingtrend towards partnership development in Southern Sudan.

The programme was not able to conclusively conduct a capacity analysis for localgovernment structures (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry and the Ministry of AnimalResources & Fisheries) mainly due to the short project time-frame and the either lackof or very nascent state of the structures. For that matter, plans for development of

the same were not formulated. Close monitoring on the development of suchstructures as well as implementation of the plan should be given consideration infuture work.

Oxfam successfully spearheaded the development of an interagency code ofconduct and rolled it out as planned within the capacity building forum. The rollingout effort is yet to be finalised with Oxfam staff.

Collaboration with Oxfam Livelihood team and Gender, inclusion and application ofcross cutting approaches such as gender and conflict sensitivity in programming wasdemonstrated. There is however, the need to support the sustainability of thepartners work and gradually wean them off Oxfams direct funding.

The low level of development of the participating local partners compared to otherestablished INGOs has also meant that realities remain separate with regard to

resource capacities and abilities .Participation and contribution of SINGOs/CBOs ininteragency and government livelihood or capacity building forums thereforeremains a longer term imperative.

Limitations encountered included the short time frame and the attendant logisticalhiccups associated with accessing key resources (material and equipment) fromNairobi. This resulted to some planned outputs and related verifiable indicators notbeing adequately achieved.

All the findings shared above are detailed in the main body of this report and should beread in the context of this highly regarded sustainable livelihood project partnershipaction. Based on the key lessons identified through the evaluation process, the team has

made suggestions with regard to the possible way forward. These are in relation todifferent programming and institutional levels, and capture diverse lessons whichthrough a Learning Process Approach can improve results and lead to more sustainableimpacts.


5


7/60


BACKGROUND

The DCI funded project of Oxfam GB Lakes States Programme is a one-yearsustainable livelihoods capacity building project that started in September 2006 andexpected to end in August 2007. The aim of the project was to promote sustainablelivelihoods by enabling communities (residents and returnees) to identify their ownlivelihoods needs, and develop projects that address those needs; to develop thecapacity of local SINGOs / CBOs so that they can develop, implement, monitor andevaluate quality community-based livelihoods programs.

Four partners (two from each county) from the counties of Wulu and Cueibet wereinvolved in project implementation.

The Objectives of the Project:

Communities (residents and returnees) are able to determine the root causes of theirfood insecurity and threats to the livelihoods of different socio-economic groups anddevelop projects that address the root causes and/or threats.

The capacity of local SINGOs/CBOs is developed so they can formulate,implement, monitor and evaluate effective and high quality community-basedlivelihoods programs.

Training and program tools for illiterate/innumerate partners are developed andimplemented, and lessons learned are shared with the aid community.

Ways of working with local partners to implement community-based multi-sector(livelihoods and public health) programming in Lakes, Upper Nile and EasternEquatoria states are developed.

The needs of the Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry and the Ministry of AnimalResources & Fisheries at the State and/or County levels in Lakes, Upper Nile andEastern Equatoria are identified and a work plan for supporting the ministries isdeveloped.

The participation and contribution of SINGOs/CBOs in inter-agency and governmentlivelihoods forums and analysis is improved in the Lakes State

Oxfam GB improves its participation in, and contribution towards, livelihoods andlocal-partner and governmental capacity building information sharing and analysisforums.

An inter-agency Code of Conduct between INGOs and local SINGOs/CBOs isdeveloped and implemented.

Project Activities:

Baseline assessment of local partners;

Selection, sensitisation and introductory training of SINGOs/CBOs in PCM;

Develop and implement ways of working and program tools for illiterate/innumeratepartners;

Training of SINGOs/CBOs in community based assessments;

Community mobilization and sensitization;

Baseline community-based assessments;

On the job training of SINGOs / CBOs and communities in the identification andappraisal of needs and work plan development;


6


8/60


On the job training of SINGOs/CBOs in log frame and proposal writing, budgetdevelopment, financial management/accountability and logistics.

Learning through practice program implementation and monitoring of livelihoodprograms by SINGOs/CBOs and communities;

Learning through practice program evaluation by SINGOs / CBOs and communities;

Assessments in Upper Nile, Eastern Equatoria and Lakes states;

SINGOs / CBOs attend and contribute to inter-agency and government livelihoodsforums and analysis is improved in Lakes State;

Oxfam GB coordinates with humanitarian and governmental stakeholders andcontributes to the collection, analysis and sharing of livelihoods information;

Development of INGO/local partner Code of Conduct;

Rollout and training of Oxfam staff and Oxfam local partners on the Code ofConduct, internal regulations, roles and functions of partner members etc; and

Local partner and project impact assessment

Purpose of the Evaluation

The evaluation of the DCI funded sustainable livelihood was designed to: Assess the extent to which objectives/targets were achieved.

Evaluate the appropriateness of the activities and indicators with respect to problemanalysis in the proposal and any other subsequent amendments.

Review the level of community participation in project planning and implementation.

Assess the level of coordination with other stakeholders (INGOs, UN, SINGOs,GoSS, SSRRC, local authorities, etc.)

Examine cost effectiveness in the delivery of the project activities/impact and givesuggestions on improving cost effectiveness.

Assess the sustainability of project activities undertaken and make suggestions forenhancement of impact.

Capture the challenges faced and lessons learnt during the implementation of the

project and ways of improving program design/implementation in future. Advise on best practices towards capacity building local partners.

Clarify the way forward to the capacity building programme in Lakes.

Evaluation Methodology

This evaluation was carried out through the application of a mix of instruments andprocesses taking into account different situations and the need for flexibility whileapproaching different people on different issues. The use of the tools also consideredthe duration within which data had to be sourced and the need to view the evaluation asthe property of the stakeholders.

Overall, the methodology was participatory and involved the use of a blend of PRA andempirical measurement. The evaluation process took a Sustainable LivelihoodsFramework action approach, and a chronological flow of events to promote accuratereporting and recall from informants. The evaluation team ensured a participativeapproach that was learner centred, responsive and flexible and used:


7


9/60


i. Conceptual and analytical framework - to measure logic, substitution andsequencing of programme pre-conditions, operations, activities, outputsand impact.

ii. Organisational capacity assessment, COCA and SWOT

iii. PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal),

iv. Sustainable livelihoods framework to measure changes in human,social, natural, physical and financial livelihood capitals/assets.

v. HEA to measure changes in household income and expenditure, foodinsecurity, change in vulnerability to shocks, trends and seasonality.

vi. Participatory planning, review and feedback sessions that at all timeshelped to guide, reflect and inform on progress, facilitate the successfulattainment of the evaluation objectives, and sharing of lessons among theparticipating groups hence a retained capacity to undertake similarevaluations in the future.


8


10/60


SECTION 1 ASSESSMENT UPON THE PROJECT LOGIC

The terms of reference for the evaluation expected the final report to encompass nine stated evaluation tasks otask/output one entailed assessing the extent to which objectives/targets were achieved but also prompted t

determine lessons learnt and possible impact of the same which the team did to the extent possible given exercise. Evaluation of the project logic was the approach of choice for determining project achievements anverification of the final report outputs with third party stakeholders qualified the achievements against those final report. In this section, each project logic or project output is evaluated for process impact (achievements) terms of successes and challenges (gaps), lessons and recommendations made accordingly.

EVALUATION TASK 1 Assess the extent to which objectives/targets were achieved.

Project Logic

Plan at Purpose Level Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Achievements successes andchallenges

Lessons L

Purpose: To promotesustainable livelihoods by

enabling communities(residents and returnees) toidentify the root causes of theirlivelihoods needs, and developprojects that address thoseneeds; and to develop thecapacity of localSINGOs/CBOs so that theycan develop, implement,monitor and evaluate qualitycommunity based livelihoodsprograms.

Numbers of targetedcommunities and

SINGOs/CBOs thatsuccessfully implementmonitor and evaluateappropriate livelihoodsprograms which have apositive impact on the livesand livelihoods of the targetedgroup/s and/or households.

4 groups with community widemembership were targeted

during the project funding andimplementation phase.

The groups participatedactively throughout the projectimplementation cycle andsuccessfully achieved theplanned activities.

.

Basic commu

ability projecttoward



11/60


Project Logic

Plan at Output Level Objectively Verifiable Indicators


Lessons L

Project Output 1: An impactassessment indicates, against

the baseline, that 5SINGO/CBO implementedprojects have successfullyimproved the livelihoods oftargeted communities.

At least 4 SINGOs/CBOs areable to independently

implement PRA techniques.

At least 4 SINGOs/CBOs areable to independently conductcommunity needsassessments.

At least 4 SINGOs/CBOs areable to independently run asuccessful project using PCM.

At least 4 SINGOs/CBOsimplement a project that

fosters sustainable livelihoods.

Although all the four partners(1 NGO and 3 CBOs) were

exposed to PRA techniquesincluding needs assessment,PCM aspects (planning andmonitoring) and activities thatfoster sustainable livelihoodsthrough training, practical onsite programming andtechnical supervisory follow up.It was noted that the capacityof three CBOs was stillnascent and underdevelopedto allow independent andsuccessful implementation of

sustainable livelihoodsinterventions in the absence ofOxfam.

The efforts gained throughservice delivery are yetnascent, confined within theimmediate membership andare yet to trickle or reach out tothe wider community.

Key contrchallenge

underdeveimplement sustainable

A shor

A shorprovidethat wshort trainingreportedays fo

Illiteracmajoritcapacilessonof trancomprothe trinadeqrespecofferedwas alformal the tar

The nparticubased Pul Amembemaking



12/60


hierarcapprecgovernhence group e

A newfrom develothe SINGO

Project Logic

Plan at Output Level Objectively Verifiable Indicators


Lessons L

Project Output 2: At least 5communities are able toidentify their own livelihoodsneeds, and develop andimplement projects thataddress those needs by theend of the program

At least 4 communities areable to identify their livelihoodsneeds and develop project thataddress those needs.

At least 4 communitiessuccessfully implement andrun projects that address theirneeds.

The process applied by Oxfamduring the appraisal andplanning phases that involvedthe selected partner CBOs andSINGO, was instrumental inraising community and groupawareness about the projectand in facilitating theidentification andimplementation of real andvaried livelihood related needs.

The appliedneeds planninactivitiof thegroupsto comprojectdemanactivitistrong particip Interviews and observations

held during the evaluationrevealed that a majority of theimmediate group beneficiaries

were committed, met theircounterpart contribution asdefined by roles andresponsibilities and practicedthrough implementation



13/60


livelihood activities, that helpedaddress their needs.

Project LogicPlan at Output Level Objectively Verifable Indicators


Lessons L

Project Output 3: 5SINGOs/CBOs arecoordinating with INGO andgovernmental stakeholderswithin their catchment are andactively participate in pertinentand accessible livelihoodsforums by the end of theprogram.

At least 4 SINGOs/CBOs arecoordinating with relevantINGO and governmentalstakeholders within theircatchment area.

At least 4 SINGOs/CBOs areactively participating inpertinent and accessiblelivelihoods forums.

Out of all the 4 partners,SDRDA a local SINGO wasthe only active partner withsome level of experience incollaboration with stakeholdersand participation in forumssuch as the livelihood analysisforum. This experience wasbuilt through good workingrelationships with Oxfam, IRCand the government (SRRC).

Other groups mainlyconcentrated theircollaboration with SSRRC anda few INGOs such as UNFAO,which provided some irrigationequipment and groundnutseeds to the groups. They also(especially Nukta MangWomen Self Help Group)collaborated with the ComboniMission Priests of the Diocese

of Rumbek who helped in themobilisation of the group andprovided land and shelter fortheir activities in Nukta Mangand Wulu.

For SDfor cowith INin stathere emergprograthe oacceptgovern

The nlimitedCBOs participin the i



14/60


15/60


partnefor progra



Lessons L

Project Output 5: Toformulate and pilot a way(s) ofworking with, and training andprogram tools for;illiterate/innumerate partners,which enable partners tosuccessfully implement onelivelihoods project; lessonslearned are shared by the endof the programme

Ways of working areresearched, developed,formalised implemented andlessons learned shared withdonors and implementingpartners.

Project planning and progressreports, and activityimplementation andmanagement tools (workplans, budgets and logframes)developed during the fundingand implementation periodprovide a useful data base forinformation managementincluding lesson learning.

At least oneilliterate/innumerate partnersuccessfully implements alivelihoods programme.

However, the project has nottranslated the information intoan effective strategy guide thatwould help operationalisewider lesson learning andpartnership programming toolsincluding packaged/formallearning material for training ofilliterate/innumerate partnermembership groups.

It was monitoefforts (implemmonitogeneraweighthas ricof livand un(SINGof Sou

Project Logic

Plan at Output Level Objectively Verifable Indicators


Lessons L



16/60


17/60


ministries is developed. and assigned to respectiveofficers in the ministries.

operat



Lessons L

Project Output 8: InteragencyCode of Conduct forpartnerships between INGOsand local SINGOs/CBOs isdeveloped with the SouthSudan Capacity BuildingForum and Oxfams staff andlocal partners are trained inthe code.

# of INGOs andSINGOs/INGOs that aresignatories to the Code ofConduct

# of Oxfam staff who adhere tothe Code of Conduct.

# of Oxfam local partners whoadhere to the Code ofConduct.

Reports reviewed indicate thatOxfam GB and ConcernWorldWide spearheaded thedevelopment of the Code ofConduct on behalf of INGOs. Adraft copy was circulated to theSouth Sudan Capacity BuildingForum and feedbackintegrated into further drafts.

In addition, the pre-final draftwas developed jointly withinthe capacity building forum andlaunched through the website.

The code of conduct wascomprehensively rolled out anddiscussed at length with all thefour partners, but yet to befinalised with Oxfam Staff.

The dout obligatSINGO



18/60


SECTION 2 PROJECT APPROPRIATENESS

EVALUATION TASK 2 Evaluate the appropriateness of the activities andindicators with respect to problem analysis in the proposal and any other

subsequent amendments.

Baseline activities of local partners

A baseline assessment of local partners was carried out for five selected SINGOs/CBOsto implement projects that were selected for funding to improve the livelihoods of theircommunities, groups, and or households. The five selected groups were: Cop Cok SelfHelp Group in Lol Buoi location of Wulu County, Nukta Mang Women Self Help Group inNukta Mang, Dolomoto location of Wulu County, Pul Aruop Food Production Associationin Maloupech, Achol Malek location in Cuiebet County, Sudanese DisabledRehabilitation and Development Association (SDRDA) in Cueibet County and WarpacCommunity Based Organisation in Makundi, Billing location.

The baseline assessment process involved Oxfam GB requesting for a call for proposalsof which the guideline/format was presented to communities through local authorities(SRRC), schools, health units, SINGOs, and churches for interested applicants to fill.sent out proposals through churches, schools and local authority for potential partners toparticipate in the sustainable livelihoods project. There was response from thirty groups.

The process of baseline, although not given adequate time, while also lackinginformation in the CSO mapping assessment, was a bottom-up based strategy in thesense that it sought to understand local conditions and institutions to be involved in theintervention.

However, given that the project focus had been articulated beforehand, groups shiftedsome priorities to fit the criteria of participation. In addition, the absence of a CSOmapping report limited options and strategies for partnership.

Selection, sensitisation and introductory training of SINGOs/CBOs in PCM.

From the group of thirty, five groups were selected. These were:Cop Cok Self-help Group and Nukta-Manga Womens Self-help Group from WuluCounty, the others were Pul-Aroup Food Production Association, Sudanese DisabledRehabilitation Development Association from Cueibet County and Warpac CommunityBased Organization of Billing. The last group was however later dropped from theparticipating list due to continuously conflicting information, insecurity and problems of

access.

The following criteria were used to select the five groups;

Groups with a food security focus

Groups from marginalised areas, with no NGO presence.

Clarity of the project

Needs the project was aiming to meet

Resources needed to implement the project


17


19/60


Level of community participation and contribution to the project

Reputation of the submitting community, group or NGO.

The envisaged CSO mapping and partnership survey funded by Oxfam GB whose reportdid not materialise, was supposed to form the basis of the selection. Left with little

latitude and reliable information on potential partners, the selection team had to relymainly on insights from the preliminary assessments conducted with the groups. In twoinstances, the resultant outcomes revealed groups with narrow focus revolving aroundfamily units(Cop Cok and Pul Aruop self help groups). A third group-Nukta Mang womengroup emerged as a genuine entity comprising women with real felt needs that fit theideal description of a CBO. The forth group- SDRDA was an SINGO working with thelocal community.

During the sensitisation phase, discussions took place between Oxfam and thecommunities to reconfirm identified needs. As a result, some of the proposals wererevised in terms of priority. This helped clarify local needs and expectations, while alsodetermining Oxfam mandate in the project.

Generally, a transparent engagement was noted where the community identified theirfelt needs and Oxfam came up with a shared plan during visits to the groups. Also therewas evidence of awareness regarding the project time frame and activities, among thegroups.

Of primary importance was the communities informed change of strategy from anemergency focus to a development orientation where communities would be expected toplay a more central management role of projects in the local set up.

Additionally, the exercise took a period of two (2) days to complete while the team reliedon information from the initial assessment on the groups that provided scanty details in

some cases. For this reason, critical issues related to governance and performance ofspecific groups could not be effectively verified. Groups like Pul Aruop and Cop Cokturned out to be close family affiliated units with narrow community focus.

Development and implementation of ways of working and programme tools forilliterate/innumerate partners:

Develop programme tools for illiterate/innumerate;Discussions held with the management team revealed that the tools were developed butnot packaged into training modules. This was attributed to the short projectimplementation period. However, an attempt was made to apply some innovative skillsand knowledge transfer to illiterate/innumerate partners. These included participatory

learning methods such as role plays and visual techniques like using the ground to mapout activities. These, according to the Capacity Building Coordinator, were however notdocumented as different groups had their own unique circumstances and learning needswhich could not be standardized.

Implementation of ways of working with partners;As a way of working with partners in a structured pattern, the project articulated animplementation plan based on:


18


20/60


Partners developing specific log frames based on their needs, with the help ofOxfam.

Sub grant partner agreements were developed and dully signed between Oxfamand the partners. These outlined clearly specific mandates and obligations ofboth parties which were well met.

Work plans were also drawn for the eight months funding and implementation

period. There was evidence of this from the visits and in project files.

An assessment of groups capacity to articulate and use the planning and implementationtools revealed that out of all the four partners (SINGO/CBOs), members of SDRDAappeared to understand their obligations well while the officials of the other three groups,while generally informed about the project, still had the tendency to shift priorities ortrigger false expectations on members mainly based on personal desires e.g demand formilling machines, water pumping engines and generators even when the option is nottechnically appropriate or economically viable due to physical locations and localresource capacity to sustain the undertaking.

Training of SINGOs/CBOs in community based assessments:

An assessment of the trainings conducted revealed that local peculiarities determinedthe depth and type of competencies transferred to the partners. Overall the context ofSouth Sudan, characterised by high levels of illiteracy and low numeracy skills meansthat the kind of skills imparted were, for the most part basic. The partners were exposedto basic Community Assessment Techniques using the PRA approach, basic principlesof governance, micro enterprise management, basic PCM, conflict management, genderawareness and managing credit.

The training were undertaken in short spans of time and targeted the membership of thegroups particularly the executive committees who were directly responsible for the day today running of the projects .A major feature was the fact that in some instances, the use

of a translator was deemed necessary to help communicate with the mostly illiteratepartners.

However, a few challenges were encountered with regard to training. This included:

The use of translators. The translators were in most cases not knowledgeable of thetraining content, which sometimes compromised the effectiveness of the trainings.Some learners did not benefit much as the second parties may not have effectivelycommunicated the content. During the evaluation the chairperson of Pul Aruop FoodProduction Association in Cueibet group conceded that she could not remembersome training content due to the reasons above.

Women, often the key stakeholder in household livelihood security issues as thetraditional custodian of family food needs, are also the main victim of the problem ofilliteracy, meaning that they are likely to be the most affected by the trainingconstraints, as evidenced by the difficulties in expressing what the benefits of trainingwere. The project team acknowledged this limitation and tried to address it throughadditional literacy classes for members of Cop Cok, Nukta Manga, and Pul Aruopgroups.


19


21/60


Community mobilisation and sensitisation:

Community mobilisation was adequately undertaken in the sense that groups werewidely reached, particularly in the case of the SDRDA group. Two forms of communitymobilisation were observed. These were:

Mobilisation of communities with common felt needs. In this category can be foundgroups like Nukta- Manga and SDRDA.

The other form of mobilisation was characterised by the tendency to coalese aroundfamily based affiliations in hierarchy type structures headed by dominant familypersonalities that was found to be very common in the lakes community. Theinfluence of such groups is limited in scope while the functioning and governancesystems are not well developed. Cop Cok and Pul Aruop fall in this category.

Key lessons learnt include:

In the groups that had wider membership (SDRDA and Nukta Mang) the resultsspread to the wider community thus creating awareness about the project. In thefamily based entities, (Cop Cok and Pul Aruop) activities seemed localised.

Family oriented groups had inconsistent commitments to agreed plans. Reportedly,their pace of meeting their obligations was slow and in the case of the Chair personof Cop cok the notion of keeping to project commitments evoked resistance at timesdue to the desire to be left to do things at their pace.

The incidence of shifting priorities often influenced by the CBO leaders was noted. Acase in point is the false expectation prevalent in Pul Aruop family based groupabout provision of a grinding mill which did not exist in the initial budgets and term ofagreements.

Baseline community based assessment:

This exercise was based on assessment information and was largely group specific. Itwas undertaken with the four(4) identified groups. The process involved assessment ofgroups project objectives, developing shared expectations and work plans.

Over all the Oxfam team used PRA techniques for example wealth ranking andinstitutional analysis which involved identifying groups resources that existed before theproject and problem and opportunity ranking technique.

On the job training of SINGOs/CBOs and communities in the identification andappraisal of needs and work plan development.

Oxfam staff supported the training both through direct facilitation and provision oftraining logistics. SDRDA staff were also used to conduct training to the other threepartners in the area of ToT in small business management using their local languages.The proposed needs were revised and they form the basis of present activities carriedout in the four groups. There was good guidance from Oxfam in terms of follow upscoupled with updated monthly reports from partners and Oxfam. This covered all theGroups.


20


22/60


On the job training of SINGOs/CBOs in log frame and proposal writing, budgetdevelopment, financial management/accountability and logistics

On the job training was undertaken though not comprehensively. On a rating scale,SDRDA ranks highly in respect of skills acquired. This could be attributed to the fact that

being an NGO they reasonably internalised skills in proposal writing, budgetdevelopment, financial management/accountability and logistics. The level of literacyand numeracy is also relatively high compared to the three other partners. In someinstances as noted earlier, they were used to train the nascent groups in basic accounts,basic principles of governance and basic business management in the local languages.

Key notable challenges faced during training included factors related to:

Training duration of one day in some cases

Levels of illiteracy/innumeracy

Facilitating some training through translators.

Learning through practice program implementation and monitoring of livelihood

programs by SINGOs/CBOs and communities.

Learning through practice program was captured by Oxfam in the process of rolling outthe implementation plans during regular follow ups and monitoring rounds .Among theseveral critical lessons include:

the importance of sensitivity to seasonal cycles and patterns with regard to farmingand related activities

conducting needs assessments before interventions commence

clear understanding between partners to ensure that each meet their obligations.

during monitoring rounds it was noted that a devaluation of the old Sudanese poundhad resulted in depreciation of the value which directly affected the loans projectundertaken by SDRDA. As a result Oxfam compensated the loanees the lossesincurred. The same was done for all other groups.

It was noted that with family based groups it was difficult to retain continuity inlearning and practice because decisions and directions were mainly made by familypatriarchs.

In the long term learning through practice was challenged by:

Gap in skills

Inadequate training duration

Level of illiteracy/innumeracy

Lack of effective training/learning tools

Learning through practice program evaluation by SINGOs/CBOs and communities

This evaluation forms the basis upon which learning for both Oxfam and partners couldbe delivered. Being that this was a pilot project for Oxfam is encouraged to share withpartners and other stakeholders lessons drawn from this project including evaluationoutcomes.In addition, following discussions held with the SDRDA management staff, it wasestablished that the organisation had carried out a mid-term evaluation of their project


21


23/60


but had not yet shared the results with Oxfam and the evaluation team could not accessthe document.

Assessment in Upper Nile, Eastern Equitoria and Lakes states:

A strategic decision was made by Oxfam GB during the project implementation not to

work in Equatoria as informed by the Country Programme Strategy. In Upper Nilehowever, an assessment was carried out by Oxfam GB staff and the report is yet to befinalised.

Improvement of SINGOs/CBOs attendance and contribution to inter-agency andGovernment livelihoods forums and analysis in Lake States.

During the assessment rounds, it was established that the only active and regularparticipant in the inter-agency and Government livelihoods forums is SDRDA. The otherthree CBOs were not yet benefiting from the Forums.

Oxfam GB coordination with humanitarian and Governmental stake holders and

contribution to the collection, analysis and sharing of livelihood information:

Oxfam is an active member of the Southern Sudan Capacity Building forum and theLivelihood Analysis Forum(LAF). Oxfam is regarded highly as source of reference atboth State and Local Government circles due to the long institutional memory and workundertaken in the Lakes region, particularly. This was evident during consultations withsenior government officials during the evaluation. An Italian NGO interested inconducting a water quality analysis in the Lakes state sought guidance from Oxfamoffices during the evaluation, based on references from the local government.

Oxfam has also been working with other humanitarian organisations such as FAO toprovide indirect support to partners. Contributions have also been in the form of

providing updated information to the Local Government ,and maintaining regular contactwith other government structures involved in co-ordination of development andhumanitarian programs.

Interviews held with commissioners and SRRC county representatives revealed thatOxfam maintains official and personal contacts with governmental agencies while alsoinvolving these departments in the various stages of the project assessments and otherlevels of the cycle. The relevant state officers are aware of the project proposals, timeframe, inputs and outputs of the sustainable livelihoods project.

Development of INGO/Local partner code of conduct:

The INGO/Local partner code of conduct has been developed jointly at the South Sudancapacity building forum, with Oxfams active participation including taking lead role inspearheading the initiative. At Oxfam, a framework code of conduct was availed to theevaluation team.


22


24/60


Rollout the training of Oxfam staff and Oxfam local partners on the code ofconduct, internal regulations, roles and functions of partner members:

The code of conduct has been rolled out to all Oxfam GB DCI Funded Sustainable

Livelihood Partners. It is yet to be rolled out by the Oxfam Staff.

Local partner and project impact assessment:

The project has been implemented for over a period of eight months now .Realizingimpact will require some time before meaningful change is noticed, should that be thecase. However through this evaluation, there were signs that certain changes werealready taking place. The evaluation team got two case studies of:

a disabled boy who, due to poverty, has lived with nudity since birth. The boy wastargeted by the project as a loans beneficiary and has since been able to clothehimself, pay for schooling costs and run a business through his parents. He hasbecome socially acceptable in an environment that regards disability as a curse; and

a poor, disabled man with two wives and many children was barely able to meet hisfamilys basic livelihood needs before the intervention, but has since established ashop that provides for both the family while also ensuring that he pays back his loanwith interest.

Other tangible changes include:

Through the project people have realized the need to come together as groups, aphenomenon that is only emerging. Collectively, they have learnt to appreciateworking in groups, a fact expressed by members of Nukta Mang women group.

They not only gain from the benefits of social safety nets provided by the group, butalso financial security from the resultant interdependence.

People are able to repay loans within the repayment schedule and the demand forloans has risen. It was noted the one of the shops run by a loanee was betterstocked in assorted goods and commodities than others in the area. The loan projecthas also helped to mobilise many People With Disabilities (PWDs) in CueibetCounty.

The project has improved access to basic commodities and goods which wereavailable only in distant towns such as Rumbek.

As a result of the project, there is now a market diversification of food diet throughthe introduction of vegetable farming in a predominantly pastoral community.


23


25/60


SECTION 3 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

EVALUATION TASK 3 Review the level of community participation in project

planning and implementation.

In the context of South Sudan participation is viewed as working together. Womenreported that they have been working together in farms. To emphasis on their workingtogether, it is worth noting that the name of one of the groups Cop Cok is derived fromworking together to fight hunger.

a)Community participation in project planning:Through the projects, communities were engaged in identification of needs, definingactivities and agreeing on roles and responsibilities. They were also involved in thedevelopment of work plans. For example, when Oxfam provided hardware materialssuch as grinding mills and construction materials, the people provided labour( building of

storage facility for Nukta Manga and Pul Aruop groups), locally available materials(collection of fencing materials at Cop Cok), their time, acquiring of land for building orfarming purposes, and in some cases contributed in financial terms.

Key lessons learnt from the participation process include:

The fact that planning was participatory made it easier for each partner to fulfilproject commitments.

There was enhancement of group awareness and a feeling of project ownershipamong the people.

b)Community participation in project implementation:There was evidence of positive community participation in project implementation. Most

planned activities had been concluded out by the time of evaluation with both parties,largely meeting their obligations as planned.

Given the nature of the activities (farming) in the majority of groups, the type of dominantparticipation in the implementation phase was provision of labour, time and contributionsin kind.In groups with a wider community focus (SDRDA and Nukta Mang), participationwas organic and better organised unlike the family linked groups (Cop Cok and PulAruop) where the nature and direction of participation was determined by the interests offamily patriarchs.

At another level group members participated in monitoring activities such as farmwork(Cop Cok,Nukta Manga and Pul Aruop), taking part in training as trainees, and even

as facilitators as was the case with SDRDA personnel who were used to train othergroups of partner CBOs in local languages to avoid working through translators.

Challenges faced in participationGiven the modestly developed and often informal governance structures, coupled withconstraints of illiteracy/innumeracy the general level of empowerment within familybased groups, particularly with women in such groups (Cop Cok and Pul Aruop)membership, is minimal. This was largely attributed to low self esteem.


24


26/60


Critical levels of participation in relation to decision making especially in the family basedgroups seem to have been left in the hands of the dominant family leaders. In the caseof Pul Aruop and Cop Cok groups the respective family heads- both former SPLAveterans- seem to hold huge sway over other members whose loyalties to the leadersare quite apparent.

The level of participation in benefit sharing is clear in SDRDA and Nukta Mang WomenSelf Help, but a little unclear in Cop Cok and Pul Aruop groups. For example, after thecrop is harvested and sold, it is not clear how the money or benefits would be sharedamongst members. Proceeds from the farms are stored awaiting sales after which theleaders keep the monies on behalf of the groups.

Lessons learntImportance of working with the organic groups that have common felt needs such asNukta-Manga womens group. This is unlike the hierarchical groups where the dictatesof the leadership often limits innovation and open participation.

The context of participation while developing within the community domain, has not

quite grounded well beyond the project environment in ways that would make localauthorities accountable. This is understandable given the fact that partners are onlyemerging now as functional units while the overall institutional framework ofgovernment is not fully operational.

It was noted that people have some psychological challenges working in formalinstitutions with strict time frames, as is the case with some of the partner groups e.gCop Cok and Pul Aruop although members may appreciate structures that go withgroup processes.

The participatory impetus has come with costs. For instance the initial success of theloan scheme rolled out by SDRDA, resulted in other disabled persons joining up in

the expectation that they would be integrated and benefit quickly from the loans. Thegroup managers have not been able to cope with this demand however, therebytriggering feelings of exclusion in some quarters.

The different gender groups may be motivated by different reasons to participate. Forexample, women prefer labour saving tools such as the grinding mills to replace thetime and energy consuming traditional grinding stone. On the other hand, the menwant the same as a source of business for generating profit. For purposes ofsustainability and maintenance of the equipment both men and women gain aconsensus on profit making grinding mills, due to greater benefits realised.


25


27/60


SECTION 4 CORDINATION WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

EVALUATION TASK 4 Assess the level of coordination with other stakeholders

(INGOs, UN, SINGOs, GoSS, SSRRC, Local Authorities, etc).

Oxfams level of coordination with other stakeholders is at four levels:

National level Oxfam GB co-ordinates with INGOs and governmental stakeholdersand has participated in two Livelihood Analysis Forums, makes monthly contributionsto FEWSNET and took part in the Southern Sudan Capacity Building Forum in April2007.This has enabled Oxfam to have relevant data upon which to baseinterventions as well as approaches.

State level working with NGOs, UN Agencies such as FAO and GOSS Agricultureministry in the planning of livelihood activities that are agriculture and livestockrelated. Coordination has also involved planning in the inter-agency needsassessment with GOSS, FAO and SINGOs. Additionally, Oxfam involves SSRRC at

the state level in planning and coordination of activities. County level Oxfam works with commissioners and SRRC in terms of information

exchange and coordination of project activities.

Community level - Oxfam coordinates with SINGOs such as SDRDA/CBOs.

Discussions held with local authority, SRRC and UN (FAO) representatives interviewedduring the evaluation reported that Oxfams approach to programming was transparentand appropriate in realising community priority needs and provided an opportunity forlearning and sharing of available resources. They however emphasised the need forfuture programming work to focus on prolonged project funding time frames, facilitationof capacity building and training programmes that aim to develop local human resource,promotion of multi-sectoral and integrated programmes that focus on sustainable

development orientation and help address wider poverty concerns among the localcommunity.

Overall, the working relationship was good, cordial, transparent and gave the project anopportunity to realize success as demonstrated by the overall project achievement. Inthe process, a mechanism for deepening learning on how to work with and throughpartners has been established for enhancing future programming efforts. In addition,Oxfams level of coordination at the National, State and County levels has developedwith a potential for:

Expanding partnership arrangements to include local CBOs and SINGOs in thedelivery of livelihood services;

Influencing policy formulation and practice at both national and county/community

level; Levering increased funding for WES support in needy communities; and

Building the institutional capacity of the counterpart through provision of workingequipment, material and establishment of relevant systems/policies to enhancepartner capacity to sustain project efforts.


26


28/60


Challenges faced at various levels:

At national level there is a weak policy environment. Policies are yet to beoperationalised although there are frameworks for coordination.

At state level national decisions have not filtered down adequately from the nationallevel. Discussions with the Director General of Agriculture in Rumbek, revealed that

the ministry still does not have access to the national agriculture policy documents. There is lack of skilled staff, inadequate number of field extension staff and a

structure that is not fully developed.

At the county level, the problem of lack of skilled staff is more pronounced coupledwith budgetary constraints, access to policy information and extension gaps.

Contextualisation of policy is yet to take effect hindering budgets and skills, amongother issues.

Poorly developed infrastructure (feeder roads), lack of transportation means, andinadequate manpower add to list of challenges faced.

At the community level there are challenges such as illiteracy/innumeracy, ethnicconflict, poverty and poor infrastructural connectivity.

Inequity in local government capacity vs. capacity of Oxfam GB. This affectscoordination and may cause situations of separate realities where Oxfam maypursue issues related to policy influence while the partners ( e.g local government)emphasis issues of law and order.


27


29/60


SECTION 5 COST EFFECTIVENESS

EVALUATION TASK 5 Examine cost effectiveness in the delivery of the projectactivities/impact and give suggestions on improving cost effectiveness

Evaluation in this regard was not in-depth. A separate planned financial audit willhighlight this better. However, 3 categories of benefits have been realized.

i. Budget structure Euro 262,390

Personnel = 45%; Direct costs = 27%; Capital costs = 11%; Support costs=17%.

The structure of the budget takes the form of emergency programming withonly 27% going to direct costs and again much of which went intoassessment.

ii. Benefits

Economic empowerment beneficiaries are paying loans and on a timely

basis; there is increased availability of household inputs especially staplegrain and diversified household diet e,g, kale, onions, tomatoes, okra. Froman originally pastoralist diet to one that contains a large variety of vegetables.This is one way of sustainable food security.

Rights community appreciation of diversity and that disability is not inabilityhas been realized.

Lessons there is Oxfam learning that will help define subsequent relatedprojects.

iii. Despite challenges (insecurity, weather, terrain, project duration) Oxfamthrough partners was able to accomplish all planned implementationactivities.

iv. Human Resources In general, the staff employed in the programmedemonstrated high levels of competency considering the achievements madewith the short net operating timeframe of about 5 months

v. Recommendations

There is need to balance soft and hard programming to suit the level ofpresent local capacities and allow for adequate time-frame for delivery of theprogramme components.

The populations as well as structures are at an early recovery stage wheremore tangible and immediate benefits are better appreciated. High impact

projects are recommended whose outcome will motivate the beneficiaries sothat they can carry forward the activities in the absence of the funding /supporting partner.

There is need to focus funding areas. 8 objectives are difficult to achieve andspreads resources thinly. A maximum of 3 objectives are advisable andwhere possible, only one in a project with funding of only one year. In theabsence of highly committed and competent staff who are more than willing


28


30/60


to put in more effort into project success like the staff on the on the DCIfunded project, such ambitious objective setting might not be easily achievedin future.

The residual project capacity that benefited from the larger part of the budgetshould be employed to reduce costs of subsequent projects. The programme

is therefore encouraged to use the present infrastructure to extend thepresent one or launch a new project that shall benefit.


29


31/60


SECTION 6 SUSTAINABILITY

EVALUATION TASK 6 Assess the sustainability of project activities undertakenand make suggestions for enhancement of impact.

This program was deliberately designed with sustainability in mind, through the provisionof small much needed grants to grassroots community groups and partners rather thanlarge donor driven grants that often lead to poor accountability, local tension and lack ofownership of projects by the community.

Sustainability in the context of partners:The premise of this program is that donor-partners must focus resources on thesustainable development of local partners. This entails moving towards investment inhuman skills development and concentrating in learning through practise and enforcinggreater accountability between partners.

The Sustainable Livelihoods Recovery Program document states clearly that theprogram is deliberately designed with sustainability in mind through the provision ofsmall, much needed grants to grassroots community groups and partners.

Of the four partners, one- SDRDA- has fairly developed structures that exist upto thegrassroots level. Its loan scheme has resulted in a functional revolving fund that isself-sustaining. Loan repayment is encouraging and thus enhancing the potential forsustainability. However, to maintain a competitive edge, members and themanagement team should be encouraged to develop partner learning skills to marketthemselves to businesses and donors. As it is now, their priorities are still donordriven, e.g relying on Oxfam for transport to reach clients.

Of the CBOs sustainability of project activities in the long term will be hindered byissues related to single leadership, weak institutional capacity, the short termperspective adopted in response to the urgency of the situation( short donor timeframes), and dependence on one large donor.

Sustainability is also determined, in large measure, by the extent to which externalfactors impact on the project environment. These include the existence of enablingpolicies and their articulation, support structures and services. In the context of theLivelihoods Recovery program, this institutional convergence is still fairly weak.

Suggestions to enhance impact:Impact presupposes marked changes in condition of livelihoods after project activities

have taken place. In the circumstances of the Livelihood Recovery intervention, itsimportant to clearly understand the importance of the process, bearing in mind the focuson recovery before the next stages of development. Based on the lessons of thisintervention the evaluation team suggests the following as strategies for enhancingimpact:


30


32/60


Increasing of the project time frame (beyond one year) to allow for among otherthings:

o the institutionalisation of a baseline process that captures capacities forCSO mapping assessment;

o Adequate time for a detailed participatory needs assessment;o adequate time for the promotion of appropriate technologies such as

modern agricultural tools; ando Adequate learning and skills transfer and real partnership engagement i.e

shared understanding, appreciation of weaknesses and addressing ofemerging challenges).

Oxfam should engage in realistic planning and build on past experiences such as thelessons learnt in this pilot project.

Projects that address the felt needs of the people should be encouraged to makeprojects more sustainable.

Playing a supportive role to the Government in identification of resource needs and

resource gaps will also enhance impact.

Capacity building of partners with emphasis on developing effective controls,functional governance structures and institutional strengthening should be furtherpromoted and supported

Multi-sectoral and integrated programming to ensure a holistic approach to tacklinglivelihood interventions would be more beneficial to the people of Southern Sudan,giving the glaring diverse needs of the communities

Participatory learning methods, especially through the development and use ofpicture based learning materials to address illiteracy/innumeracy limitations tolearning should be funded more and encouraged

Supporting adult learning education particularly for women would also go along wayto empower communities and to meaningfully engage them in gender relateddiscussions as well as empowering women in critical matters affecting theirlivelihoods in South Sudan

In future there should be a deliberate effort to influence the Government to take anactive role in fulfilling its mandate through exposure on real needs and problemsaffecting the local community

Training of governmental partners in competencies on coordination, projectmanagement, monitoring and evaluation, and appropriate program techniquesshould be considered to enhance support to continuity and sustainability of thecommunity based programmes

There is need for greater gender sensitization for entire communities where projectsare taking place. This will help everyone appreciate gender roles and help reverseretrogressive cultural mind sets that discriminate against women. The net effect inthe long term will be widespread positive impacts beneficial to the wider community.


31


33/60


SECTION 7 CHALLENGES, LESSONS & WAY FORWARD

EVALUATION TASK 7 Capture the challenges faced and lessons learnt during the implementation of tof improving program design/implementation in future.

Programming Aspect 1 Baseline Survey

Challenges Lessons Way Forward

Absence of CSO mapping report limitedoptions and strategies ofintervention/partnership.

The duration to submit proposals was limitedto a period of 2 weeks given groups limitedcapacities (illiteracy, numeracy, structures)

Although part of the project objective wasmet (to pilot ways of working with illiterateand innumerate community groups), aCSO mapping exercise would haveinformed and guided better selection of thepartners that was deeply rooted fromwithin the community to be at the level of

SDRDA and Nukta Mang

Inability to undertake an elaborate baselineassessment hence simplistic resultsthereby limiting the quality of information

The importancmapping asseselection, asdetermining capacities and

Programming Aspect 2 Selection Process


Poor infrastructure, made travel tocommunities very slow and communicationdifficult.

Language barrier necessitated theassessment team to work through translators

Insecurity concerns limited access to certainlocations leading to dropping of war pac

The resultant outcomes revealed groupswith narrow focus revolving around familyunits (Cop Cok and Pul Aruop)

Despite the challenges, the project stillmanaged to identify potential partners.

Undertaking ofrealistic envirpartner opercapacities.



34/60


CBO.

Programming Aspect 3 Sensitisation


A shift in community priorities duringsensitisation partly due to a desire to fit intoOxfams package input.

Of primary importance was communitiesinformed change of strategy from anemergency focus to developmentorientation.

Sensitisation process and apartnership wadequate time

Programming Aspect 4 Community Mobilisation


Working effectively through hierarchicalstructures that exist within family basedgroups.

Working effectively within the context of amilitarised social fabric and leadership

In the groups that had wider membership(SDRDA and Nukta Mang) the resultsspread to the wider community thuscreating awareness about the project. Inthe family based entities,(Cop Cok and PulAruop) activities seemed localised.

Influencing chatraining and leadership strengthening.

Programming Aspect 4 Assessment in UpperNile, Eastern Equatoria and Lakes


Hopefully OXFAM GB will in future carry outthe assessment of these areas when astrategic decision is made to carry out and orexpand sustainable livelihood activities in thethree areas.

Limited information on CSO capacity. Planning focomprehensive



35/60


Institutional Aspect 1 Programme tools for illiterate/innumerate


Difficulties in communicating effectively as aresult of inadequate appropriate communitybased learning techniques and feedback.

Importance of developing appropriatelearner centred tools that engageparticipants in decision making andpersonal growth

Application of vas the most abreaking barrie

Institutional Aspect 2 Training of SINGOs/CBOs


Learner centred training tools were notdeveloped to help address the problem ofilliteracy amongst most participants hencelimiting the effectiveness of training.

Training through translators alsocompromised the quality of some trainingwith the partners.

Working towards identifying trainable localtrainers in the respective areas as was thecase in this project with SDRDA would alsofurther enhance effectiveness of trainings.

Women, the key stakeholder in householdlivelihood security issues, were also themain victims of the problem of illiteracy andhence the most affected by the trainingconstraints.

Literacy classed empowered women in thepartner groups particularly as far as selfexpression and participation wasconcerned.

Peer trainings by SDRDA who were trainedas trainers was effective in taking part inparticular trainings in the respective locallanguages instead of training through

translators.

Sustained litewith applicationtools to enhancwould help in fu



36/60


Institutional Aspect 3 Improvement of SINGOs/CBOs attendance and contribution to inter-ageGovernment Livelihoods forums and analysis in Lakes State


Limited capacities of participating CBOs

Distance location/venue for forumcoordination affecting nascent partners

Partner overdependence on donor.

Stakeholder inequities limit balancedparticipation in-terms of human andfinancial resources.

Promotion of loto enhance pand networking

Institutional Aspect 4 Programme Start


Delay in the start of the program Delay in the start of the programme has

compromised programming aspects suchas:

o Quality learningo Community needs assessmento Sensitivity to seasonalityo Effective monitoring and

integration of hardware andsoftware aspects of theintervention.

Provision of ad

no-cost extens



37/60


Institutional Aspect 5 Project Inputs


High prices of commodities and services inRumbek, affect operations of partners andbudgets assigned to respective partners.

Limit on effectiveness of services deliveredhence impacting negatively on benefits tocommunities.

Contingency pl



38/60


SECTION 8 IDENTIFIED BEST PRACTICES

EVALUATION TASK 8 Advice on best practices towards capacity building localpartners.

Based on the experiences of the pilot project including the lessons learned andchallenges encountered, the evaluation team captured the following best practicestowards capacity building of local partners. These include:

Horizontal capacity building ( e.g SINGO to CBO and or CBO to CBO) to enhancemutual collaboration and exchange skills at grassroots level.

Collaborating for change through working in partnership and alliances characterisedby effective information sharing.

Support institutional strengthening and organisational development through

systematic training and learning systems approach.

Close follow up and monitoring of partner projects through a programming timeframethat takes full recognition of the key principles for partnership is fundamental toproject success.

Partners learning cost recovery options and negotiation of sub grant partneragreements / contracts, close follow up and monitoring of partner projects success.

Good working relations, consultation and consensus in decision making withcommunities is a key factor in partnership work and success in partnershipdevelopment work.


37


39/60


SECTION 9 WAY FORWARD

EVALUATION TASK 9 Clarify the way forward to the capacity buildingprogrammes in Lakes

As way forward to capacity building in the Lakes region, the Evaluation team would liketo suggest:

Adoption of an Action learning process as a way of maximizing gains and learningfrom challenges experienced.

Focusing on institutional capacity building for greater impact in sustainablelivelihoods.

Creation of a supportive environment and resource availability.

Promotion and support for grassroots based participatory CBO and local SINGOsnetworks engaged in effective collaboration and information sharing.

Gender sensitization and mainstreaming programs within partner organisations andgroups.


38


40/60


Annex I

ASSESSMENT OF PARNTER (Nukta Mang Womens Self Help Group) UPON THE PROJECT LOGIC

Project Logic

Plan at Purpose and Output Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Achievement success andchallenges

Lesson

Project Purpose: Toimprove the quality of life ofmembers of Nukta Mangwomens self help group andtheir families throughsustainable year roundimproved agricultureactivities; establishment andrunning of a grinding mill, and

developing members literacy,group organisation skills, andfarming skills

At least 20 members of NuktaMang Womens Self HelpGroup and their families whohave benefited fromincreased income and/orincreased literacy, farmingand organisational skills bythe end of the project.

By the end of the projectperiod at least 30% women incommunities near thegrinding mill are accessingthe mill and feel that the timethey spend preparing grainfor home consumption hasdecreased.

Although the management capacity ofthe 40 member group is still nascent,the project activities carried out suchas basic literacy, farming and groupmobilisation and participation havecontributed to the establishment of awell grounded community basedorganisation with great potential foraddressing the livelihood needs of the

wider community.

This indicator is yet to be achieved.Discussions held with the groupduring the evaluation revealed that agrinding mill was provided, installedand operated for period of one week.However, it developed a mechanicalproblem and has since been returnedto the supplier in Nairobi for repairs.

Illitof inteduesomeffiinaresgro

apptarg

Uslocthrotrapar

Demagro



41/60


42/60


Output 2: Members of NuktaMang Women's Self HelpGroup increase their income,and women in the

neighbouring communitiesdecrease time spentpreparing grain for homeconsumption, through theestablishment andmanagement of a grindingmill.

Output 3: The capacity andproductivity of Nukta MangWomen's Self Help Group isimproved through: literacytraining, group organisationalskills training, grinding millmaintenance and repair

training and agricultural skillstraining.

At least 25 group membershave increased their incomethrough the sharing ofrevenue generated from the

grinding mill by the end of theproject period

By the end of the project atleast 25 group membersperceive that the incomegenerated from the mill hascontributed towards theimprovement of their standardof living.

At least 10 members of the

group are fully trained andable to operate, and carry outroutine maintenance andrepair of the grinding mill bythe end of the project period

At least 25 members of NuktaMang Women's Self HelpGroup attend literacy classesthroughout the project period.

At least 30 members of NuktaMang Women's Self Help

Group attend improvedfarming skills training by theend of the project period.

40 group members were active.However, the OVIs concerning thegrinding mill could not be achieved asit was not operating. At the time of the

evaluation, it had not been broughtfrom the supplier in Nairobi.

Not achieved

Not achieved

All the trainings had clear attendanceof over 25 participants. This wassupported by information from thegroup members and from reports thatwere reviewed.

TraFuttimintelitedevbas



43/60


At least 10 members of NuktaMang Women's Self HelpGroup attend grouporganisation skills training byend of the project period

At least 10 members of thegroup are fully trained inroutine maintenance andrepair of the grinding mill bythe end of the project period.

At least 70% of the memberswho attend training applytheir new skills by the end ofthe project period.

Indicator achieved since there wasevidence of group decision makingand collective responsibility

Indicator not achieved for reasonstated above

Indicator achieved as there wasevidence of a good harvest. It was notpossible to verify whether memberswould apply the learnt improved skillsafter the project since they had justharvested the crop. But there was

evidence of genuine commitment anda potential to continue in the samespirit.



44/60


45/60


46/60


apply the new skills by theend of the project period.

ASSESSMENT OF PARNTER (Pul-Aruop Food Production Association) UPON THE PROJECT LOGIC

Project Logic

Plan at Purpose and Output Level Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Achievement success and challenges

Project Purpose: To establish PulAruop Food Production Associationas a recognised group that is able topromote the sale, marketing and tradeof grain in Cueibet Town, in asustainable manner and within acompetitive market place.

By the end of the projectperiod Pul Aruop FoodProduction Associationestablishes and operates asorghum grain store inCueibet Town.

By the end of the project

period Pul Aruop FoodProduction Association ispurchasing sorghum fromhousehold farms, storing it inan improved storage facilityand selling it on the localmarket.

By the end of the projectperiod members of Pul Aruop

Food Production Associationapply new businessmanagement andorganisational developmentskills towards the growth oftheir association.

This indicator was yet to be effectivelyfelt as the group suffered from the

hierarchical influence and it was at anascent phase due to its low literacylevel among members. Poor in recordkeeping as well as reporting.

The grain store was established andthere was evidence of some grainsstored.

The stored grains had been bough

from 15 members and the group hadalready loaned to 2 people.

The government had brought free grainas support for the community whichaffected the demand for the grain at thetime of the visit. However, the groupwas optimistic that with time they wouldsell since their price for ground sorghumwas lower than the market one.



47/60


48/60


learning towards groupactivities by the end of theproject period.

identifying grain source and officemanagement/administration responsiblefor procurement . the group is makinggood efforts but the institution systemsare very weak.

ASSESSMENT OF PARNTER {Sudanese Disabled Rehabilitation and Development Association (SDRDA)} UPON TH

Project Logic

Plan at Purpose and output Level Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Achievement success and challenges

Project Purpose: To supportactivities that promote the self-

reliance of PWDs and/or theguardians of CWDs by giving loansand business skills for microenterprise activities; and to improveSDRDA's ability to implement andmanage micro-credit programs.

Number of beneficiaries whomeet selection criteria,

running profit making microe

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	oxfam
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times

Evaluation of Sustainable Livelihoods Recovery Project in the Lakes State, Sudan

Documents