1

Rural Resilience (R4) Process Evaluation Report

October 2013

2

Abbreviations

ANASIM Agence Nationale de l’Aviation Civile et de la Météorologie

ANCAR Agence Nationale de Conseil Agricole et Rural

CBO Community Based Organisation

CNAAS Compagnie Nationale D’Assurance Agricole Du Senegal

DAC Development Assistance Criteria

FFA Food for Assets

GoS Government of Senegal

INP L’Institute Nationale de Pedologie

MEL Monitoring Evaluation and Learning

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PAPIL Programme d’Appui à la Petite Irrigation Locale

P-FiM People First Impact Method

RC Red Cross family including SRC, IFRC and ICRC

SO WFP Sub-Office

UN United Nations

WASH Water, sanitation and hygiene

WFP United Nations World Food Programme

R4 Rural Resilience Initiative

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ……………………………………………….………………………………………………….….

A. R4 contextually relevant …………………………………………………………….…………………………………….. B. Programme design largely appropriate.……………………………………………………………………….……. C. High staff appropriation of R4 vision.…………………………………………………………………………………. D. Synergy challenges among and between partners………..……………………………………………………. E. Coordination and planning………………………………..………..……………………………………………………. F. Recommended R4 action commitments to improve programme performance, scale up and

roll out………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

PART 1 Background………………………………………….…………………………………………………. 1.1.0. Context …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1.1.1. R4 in Senegal …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 1.1.2. Current achievements………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1.1.3. Current expenditure against community priorities……………………………………………………… 1.1.4. Evaluation methodology……………..……………………………………………………………………...............

PART 2 Community findings and perspectives on R4's contextual relevance ……….. 2.1.0. Positive change areas ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.1.1. Improved agricultural production and food security………………………………………………….. 2.1.2. Improved social cohesion (linked to livelihood activities)…………………………………………….. 2.1.3. Increased income and improved nutrition……………………………………………………………………….. 2.1.4. Increased education access………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2.1.5. Improved sanitation coverage………………………………………………………………………………………..

2.2.0. Overall areas for improvement……………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.2.1. Increased poverty……………………………………………………………………….. 2.2.2. Lack of social solidarity……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.2.3. Lack of education access and quality…………………………………………………………………………………. 2.2.4. Lack of access to information and capacity building…………………………………………...…………… 2.3.0. Analysis of the drivers of change………………………………………………………………………………………

2.4.0. Community change aspirations related to R4 programme design……………………………………….. 2.4.1. Agro-forestry, irrigation & nutrition management information…………………………………………. 2.4.2. Social solidarity……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.4.3. Credit access……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.4.4. Girl child education / forced / early marriage…………………………………………………………………….. 2.4.5. Infrastructure (health, roads, village planning)……………………………………………………………………… 2.4.6. WASH…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2.4.7. Registration of births………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.5.0. Proposed community vision actions………………………………………………………………………………….… 2.5.1. Community labour / material / financial contribution…………………………………………………… 2.5.2. Social and behaviour change…………………………………………………………………………………….. 2.5.3. Social solidarity / associations……………………………………………………………………………………… 2.5.4. Petty trading…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2.5.5. Advocacy to Government………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2.5.6. Irrigation dams……………………………………………………………………………………… 2.5.6. Learning……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

4

2.6.0. Community investment priorities related to R4 programme design……………………………………. 2.7.0. Community views on vulnerability…………………………………………………………………………………………….

PART 3 Partner and staff findings and perspectives……………………………………….….

3.1.0. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3.1.1. High staff appropriation of R4 vision…………………………………………………. 3.1.2. Partner capacity building……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.3. Leadership and leadership development…………………………………………………………………………….. 3.1.4. Decentralise management structure……………………………………………………………………………… 3.1.5. Integrate and build on Senegalese experience…………………………………………………….

4.0. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… Annex 1 Terms of Reference …………………………………………………………………………………………. Annex 2 Field exercise participants ……………………………………………………………………………….. Annex 3 People First Change Method Summary……………………………………………………………… Annex 4 Validation Workshop Participants…………………………………………. Annex 5 Action Centered Leadership Model……………………………. Annex 6 Ownership and motivation around decisions…………………….. Annex 7 Communication Pyramid………………………………………….. Annex 8 Model of Team Working Development…………… Annex 9 Herzberg's Motivators and Hygiene Factors………………

5

Authorship

The findings in the report are the statements, views and perspectives of representative community

groups; partner, WFP and Oxfam America staff, as openly shared by them. Paul O’Hagan People First

Impact Method (P-FIM© 2010) presents these findings in the report which are not necessarily the

views of WFP.

Acknowledgments

This evaluation and report was commissioned by WFP and the field exercises convened and

organised in Tambacounda by the WFP Sub-Office. I would like to acknowledge all the 16

organisations that committed staff / volunteers to the field work and thank WFP for making the

process happen.

Limitations

Given the small geographical area (furthest less than 1.5 hour’s drive) and high participation of

various organisations there were no major limitations in the evaluation exercise. Some of the field

work findings represent the changing and seasonal nature of people’s needs and concerns. It was

carried out in the run up to the Eid (Tobaski) festival when there are large scale regional movements

of rams (male sheep) and pastoralists. These are sold and slaughtered as part of this Islamic feast to

remember Abraham’s sacrifice of a ram in place of his son Isaac. Communities were also

approaching harvests of maize, millet and in some areas rice – some are expecting bumper harvests

– so for example the need for grain stores and cereal banks is preoccupying people’s minds. It would

have been preferable if a larger number of organisations had attended the final validation workshop

including partner staff responsible for implementation at field level and; a full day rather than a half

would have allowed longer group work on recommendations.

6

Executive Summary A process evaluation of the R4 Senegal pilot initiative took place between 06 September and

25 October 2013. The overall goal was to i) understand how R4 is working and to document

implementation achievements and challenges for internal learning ii) identify ways in which

the pilot program and the R4 model can be improved and replicated at larger scale. R4

focusses on building the resilience of communities to climatic shocks.

This was done by cross referencing findings from 2 community dialogue processes involving

24 staff and volunteers from 16 organizations. They facilitated in teams of 3, goal free and

goal focussed (resilience) dialogues with 8 representative social and economic groups

(including vulnerable people) spread over 2 days in 7 villages of Koussanar Commune,

Tambacounda Region, Senegal. These involved 281 and 206 community members

respectively. The intention was to understand context from the community perspective as a

basis to understand the relevance and appropriateness of R4.

15 R4 project site visits; 42 key informant interviews; 4 focus groups with 15 staff from 3

implementing partners, Oxfam and WFP; 3 learning and action workshops and; review of

project documentation were also part of the evaluation.

How to use this report

The report is in 4 main parts 1) 8 page Executive Summary covers key findings,

recommendations and agreed actions 2) Part 1: Details on R4 and evaluation methodology

3) Part 2: Community perspectives from field work 4) Part 3: Perspectives from staff of all

participating stakeholders.

Key findings

A. R4 contextually relevant

Assumptions in the R4 project design about resilience challenges (context) of communities

in Koussanar are largely accurate. Addressing poverty and climate related food insecurity

and disasters emerged as the top priorities from the community perspective. People want

to improve agricultural production, food security and manage income and food resources

better. They did not however attribute climate related shocks as the main cause of poverty

or food security cf. 2.3.0 - analysis of the drivers of change. They also appreciate the

importance of improved social cohesion / solidarity. At the same time there are other issues

related to resilience that it is important that R4 is fully aware of. These are education access

and quality and; sanitation coverage. Considerations of these felt community priorities

could be given in the FFA component. R4’s explicit goal is to increase the resilience of the

most vulnerable. Forced and early marriage causing girls to drop out from primary

7

education, while a cultural practice, is often a poverty

related issue 1 particularly at times of shock 2 that

emerged. If R4 has its intended impact then this might

be a monitoring indicator to be considered. Different

cultural groups had various challenges to directly

understand what resilience meant. It was therefore

very important that the concept was captured in the

cultural concepts and local languages before teams

engaged discussion in the field. There is no direct

translation of resilience from French or English into

Wollof, Mandinka or Fula. Heated debate was

prompted among the 24 field work participants to

translate 4 target questions into Soce, Wollof and Fula

in a way that would be understood at community level

– it would have created confusion in the community

discussions if participants had not been clear

themselves. The concept was easier to grasp in Wollof.

Communities were given a voice on what they feel is important in their lives and what is

working and not working over the past 2 years – this goes beyond the R4 project. This

enabled a better understanding of R4 in context related to community issues and priorities.

Positive overall changes in order of priority reflected in the goal free community dialogues

were 1) Improved agricultural production and food security 2) Improved social cohesion

(linked to livelihood activities) 3) Increased income and improved nutrition 4) Increased

education access and 5) Improved sanitation coverage. The first 3 changes may have been

contributed to by R4 – however it is too early to attribute direct impact to R4.

The top negative overall changes in the overall context in order of priority were: 1)

Increased poverty 2) Climate related food insecurity and disasters 3) Lack of social solidarity

4) Lack of education access and quality 5) Lack of access to information and capacity

building. People also mentioned i) Forced and early marriage ii) Poor basic service coverage

including water access ii) Increased livestock disease iv) Agro-Pastoral conflicts and v)

Diseases caused by poor sanitation. The most positive and equally negative drivers of

change were communities themselves and local government departments. When the causes

of these changes were attributed, drought and pastoralist movements were considered

from the community perspective important though lesser negative change drivers.

Several groups found this process a new and welcome experience – to be included and able

to discuss in a free non prescriptive way about their own lives and priorities. The goal free

discussion was critical in establishing respect and trust so that openness was maximised in

1 2003, Early Marriage and Poverty: Exploring links for policy and programme development, Forum on Marriage and the Rights of Women and Girls 2 2013, Minimum standards for child protection in humanitarian action, Global Protection Cluster (search forced and early marriage)

Figure 1 Stone belts protect fragile soils from dispersal with rainwater run off

8

the goal focussed discussion on resilience a day later. In the first discussion communities

discussed what was important to them; In the second they were asked questions that would

be useful for the R4 programme.

B. Programme design largely appropriate

Community groups were given the opportunity to express what they would like to see

changed in relation to their own resilience. In order of priority what they clearly

communicated was: 1) Agriculture and forest management – combined with better

management of their own harvests – improved “how to do” information and more

equipment / tools in these areas 2) Improved social solidarity 3) Credit access 4) WASH 5)

Girl child education and an end to forced and early marriage 6) Infrastructure for health,

roads and planning of the layout of houses (due to fire risk) and 7) Registration of births so

that children are not prohibited from education access or other social protection safety nets

(once registered in primary school and if the household is vulnerable it could be eligible to

FCFA 25000 per quarter) etc.

More consideration in R4 could be given to the critical importance of i) information,

knowledge and communication (communication for social and behaviour change) ii) health

aspects of resilience and iii) opportunities for DRR mainstreaming in schools3 i.e. how

schools can be involved in making themselves more resilient – fire belts etc. Children then

likely to discuss key improved resilience behaviours at home with their parents. The graphs

that present the field findings in Part 2 of the report can help inform monitoring and

evaluation indicators for the programme and a review of the log frame assumptions.

In terms of what communities said that they could do to help themselves without external

assistance in order of priority are: 1) Work requiring community labour, material and

financial contributions 2) acting as agents for social and behavior change in their own

communities 3) forming associations and increasing social solidarity 4) petty trading 5)

advocacy to local government for services 6) irrigation dams and 7) acquiring knowledge.

Some of these findings relate very well to the R4 community assets work. R4 could add

value to these community led initiatives.

When asked if they had additional resources in their families and communities – how they

would spend them, in order of priority they said the following: Trading / Business; Livestock;

Cereal banks; Agricultural equipment / Farm inputs; Education; Public infrastructure; Mutual

support / solidarity; Saving and land purchase. There is good cross over with the core

components of R4. These investments relate directly to existing community based insurance

mechanisms which are important not to be undermined with new products.

3 2007 ISDR, Towards a culture of prevention: disaster risk reduction begins at school, good practices and lessons learned

9

Asked who they felt in their communities are most in need of additional support during a

crisis in order of priority people said 1) Those living with disabilities 2) Elderly 3) Disaster

victims 4) Children 5) Widows 6) Women (this was a general category and could be given

precision in further community discussions) 7) People without livestock or cash for petty

trading. More attention could be given to community based vulnerability criteria in R4

interventions and engaging communities at every stage of programme design - by using a

similar “light but robust” process engaging a cross section of representative community

groups, especially vulnerable people. Consecutive exercises would build an excellent

community based profile and double with other M & E requirements.

C. High staff appropriation of R4 vision

There is a high appropriation of the R4 vision among WFP, Oxfam and partner staff. Some

described R4 as being like a large boat that moves more slowly than a car but can

accommodate a larger number of people. Others described a vision of healthy and resilient

food secure communities.

D. Synergy challenges among and between partners

There has been a lack of synergy particularly in implementation of activities between and

among partners, WFP and Oxfam. The challenge has been in how to make things work more

effectively. Motivation has fluctuated at various stages of the pilot. These are essentially

team working, leadership and structure related issues. R4 was described by one as a “soup

made by many chefs and the challenge was in how to get the soup tasty?” Another person

said that R4 is like a “2 storey house” with many organizations in it represented by lots of

windows. However there is a staircase between the 2 levels which represents challenges of

communication between the different management layers. The long process for drawing up

implementing partner contracts and delayed transfers for seasonally sensitive work is

recognized as a key area to be addressed. The next 5 months will be critical for protecting

and seeing evidence of the utilisation of investments made to date such as dams, erosion

belts, small holder irrigation wells and credit and savings groups.

E. Coordination and planning challenges

For various reasons the process of finalizing

Letters of Agreement between WFP and

partners was felt to be far too long. On the

WFP side there was an expectation that

partners would pre-finance and start their

activities earlier. Expectations may not have

been fully clear on both sides (agreement

may not mean actual “agreement” -

especially if partners have limited options).

This needs to be addressed in the scale up

Figure 2 Rice planted late

10

“Learn from your mistakes

once and then make new

ones.”

and roll out. Fund transfers for seasonally sensitive work such as dam construction, rice

seed distributions and well digging were late. A dam wall collapsed partly because it was

being constructed too late in the season to withstand flooding (combined with negotiation

over budgets and materials required) (communities are aware of delays and the impact of

management and planning and feel these should be addressed).

Due to planning delays rice is not seeding yet in most places and its maturation will depend

on water retention through the dry season in the marsh areas – whether this happens is yet

to be seen. The best rice viewed during field visits was of a women’s group who had planted

their own seeds on seeing the delay with seed distributions.

Slow contract agreement, under budgeting and late transfers had a high impact on de-

motivating staff and partners - some felt that an added complication was that not all

partners were used to working together. Responsibility needs to be taken for the impacts.

Remaining work

needs to be done in

coming months to

ensure that

investments to date

are guaranteed and

not lost including – back planting the stone belts with

Vetiver and creation of a second stone line back planted

with Vetiver. It will not be known until first quarter 2014

if the dry season market gardens are fully in use.

Partners particularly PAPIL felt that inputs had been

under-budgeted (future discussions should be very

robust and frank on both sides); In the case of the rice

field dams from an external lay person’s perspective they

seem to have been constructed quickly and “on the

cheap.” Reducing budgets and late transfers combined

with other factors to produce the quality of work existing. Water and particularly flood

water is powerful – it requires the resources and quality of materials to withstand it e.g.

more expensive asphalt instead of local laterite for the concrete mix. For a new project the

choice of construction contractors can be haphazard in this sub-region - given the variable

quality and spread of technical schools etc – most people learn “on the job”. There is a lot of

trial and error involved to find (companies) people who know what they are doing and can

do the job to standard. This requires very close monitoring (daily) of all construction work by

staff with the relevant level of experience to see that it is on track – especially at the early

stages. This does not require civil engineering qualifications but a good combination of

common sense and practical experience. For example a “lay person” might ask why the

longer dams had no supporting pillars on the rear side to support the structure? All of these

Figure 3 Collapsed dam wall constructed at wrong time of year

11

issues can be worked out with good leadership and relationships of synergy between WFP

and among partners and WFP / OA where questions are freely asked in all directions.

Collectively there is enough capacity to get it right. Decisions on construction design should

take into consideration what communities have experienced and seen locally – otherwise

there is a risk that communities will be “participated in but not own the outcome.” Work it

out with the partners and communities at the outset with due regard to the skills and know-

how of communities and local artisans before implementation. Working alone in isolation

with a top down authoritative approach will not get the required results. It is OK to make

mistakes – the challenge is to develop a working culture among the R4 team (inclusive of all

parties) and on all sides to review, learn and then work differently. Criticism and blame will

not achieve the desired results. Last quarter 2014 will determine if the rice field dams,

gabions and stone belts have withstood a second rainy season.

Longer term issues for the impact of the

market gardens are: The water table at

garden wells visited are deep (40 metres) for

the region. Experience in the similar context

of The Gambia has raised concerns of

uncovered market garden wells posing a risk

to young children falling into them – this

should be considered. One group in the field

work spoke about the punishing nature of a

“woman’s” work as something that they

wanted to see changed. Lifting water this

distance for bucket irrigation is a huge task.

Consideration could be given to low cost small holder irrigation options that alleviate the

labour burden on women. If women can do dry season gardening at another location with

less work (lowland marshes), then that could jeopardise these investments. Likewise

attention to land tenure issues and support of women’s groups to obtain occupancy rights

and land leases for the gardens is critical in strengthening long term resilience and safe

guarding rights.

Key recommendations

Greater attention to “soft” side aspects of effective team working - Decentralisation of

decision making and management structure to as close as possible to the regions. These

emerged as valuable lessons from the evaluation. Recommended areas for review and

improvement are 1) Capacity building of partners 2) Leadership 3) R4 management

structure and 4) Capitalization of Senegalese experience (particularly in relation to insurance

products). These aspects were fully explored in 2 learning workshops at the end of the

evaluation process. Key lessons learned from the Koussanar pilot can be applied in the scale

up and roll out to other regions – while emphasizing the need to understand context and

capacity in each

Figure 4 Garden well at Dawadi

12

F. Recommended R4 action commitments to improve programme performance, scale up and roll out

No Finding Recommended Action Response Responsible Deadline

1 R4 contextually relevant

R4 documentation on climate related shocks in light of the attribution findings in this report (and other community based evaluations on the impact of the drought4) needs to consistently say that climate change is a negative impact but not the only one from the community perspective – the challenge is adaptation and response

2 Programme design largely relevant and appropriate

Programme activities align closely with community needs and change aspirations – attention needs to be given to integration and coverage of activities to ensure impact.5 Annual community based participatory goal free and goal focussed assessments. Responsively amend strategies and activities based on findings

3 High staff appropriation of R4 vision

There is a major gap between the external profile and publicity surrounding R4 with lack of supporting evidence from the Senegal pilot. Vision without action is a dream and activity without a dream is empty.

4 2012, FAO, Giving Voice to Disaster Affected Communities East Africa - Mwingi, Kenya, www.alnap.org/resource/6495.aspx, 2012, FAO, Giving Voice to Disaster Affected Communities East Africa - East Pokot, Kenya, www.alnap.org/resource/6496.aspx, 2012, FAO,Giving Voice to Disaster Affected Communities East Africa - Turkana, Kenya, www.alnap.org/resource/6494.aspx Communities themselves and government followed by UN, NGO and Red Cross inaction or lack of coverage of services were found, as in this exercise, to be greater drivers of negative impact than climate related factors. 5 There will otherwise be challenges for R4 in Senegal (how the different components jointly create actual impact) to stand up to a rigorous external evaluation using the OECD DAC criteria endorsed by the UN Evaluation Groups Norms and Standards.

Figure 5 Participatory ranking of key issues requiring attention

13

This gap needs to be closed based on actual evidence and learning emerging from application of a “light” user friendly and useful (to communities) M&E system – it is otherwise misleading to the public

4 Synergy challenges among and between partners

Capacity needs to be in place or developed (with external input if necessary) that understands and is able to create team working, two-way communication (not theory) and develop synergies to get the best results

Joint participatory development and simplification of core project

documentation – log frame, M&E strategy and plan

Development of a constructive feedback dynamic between and among partners, OA and WFP with an emphasis on improvement in all directions

Key meetings should involve key staff from field level both partner and WFP (OA)

5. Coordination and planning challenges

Partner capacity building

Involve implementing staff and partners in key programme design

processes at all stages

Simulation exercise to highlight team working dynamics involving

implementing partners in planned roll out regions before work begins

Capture and agree key learning points and team working practices emerging from the above

6. Decentralise

management

structure

Put capacity at the frontline line of implementation both in partners and

WFP

Ensure that Rome / Boston and Dakar levels play a more responsive and

demand based field support role

Draw on external facilitation for key processes so that management staff can fully engage as participants in these events

14

7. Integrate and build

on Senegalese

experience

Communities to be fully involved at all social levels in all stages of

programme design – the findings in this report demonstrate how they

can be meaningfully involved in a “light” manner useful to them

Involve implementing staff, partners and communities in programme

design processes at all stages especially in insurance products (be open

to changing minds and direction based on learning and local input)

15

PART 1 Background

1.1.0. Context

In Senegal, poverty is a predominantly rural phenomenon, affecting agriculture and

livestock-dependant households. Weather-related shocks are a cause of food insecurity

alongside poor farming practices and lack of adaptation, extension services and inputs;

markets and lack of infrastructure etc. Such shocks trigger food crises, such as the one

experienced in 2012 and contribute to cyclical food insecurity. Supporting vulnerable rural

households to manage climate-related risk has been identified as a priority in Senegal.

1.1.1. R4 in Senegal

R4 was officially launched in Senegal in December 2012. The Rural Community of Koussanar,

located in the Tambacounda Department, was chosen as the first pilot location for R4 in

Senegal. This area was chosen based on three main criteria: high relative food insecurity

levels, high climatic variability and drought risk, and the presence of Oxfam and WFP

programmes. The Koussanar pilot is under way, having entered the implementation phase in

January 2013. Local implementation partners have been contracted, and activities started

in March 2013. Activities include building community assets which improve productivity

and reduce flood and drought risk, including lowland development for rice production and

vegetables gardens (Risk Reduction); creating new savings groups and introducing financial

literacy and professional training services in existing groups (Risk Reserves); testing a credit

system linked to cereal banks and providing non-financial services to women and farmers’

16

associations to facilitate access to credit (Risk Taking); and testing a non-commercial rainfall-

deficit index-insurance product (Risk Transfer).

The Senegalese Government is starting to formulate a country-wide rural resilience strategy.

WFP and Oxfam have been invited to assist the Government in designing this strategy, and

the R4 pilot will provide key practical insights for this process.

The Initiative’s Risk Transfer component, in particular, fits within the government’s recent

efforts to leverage insurance for food security. R4 insurance products are being developed

in close partnership with the government’s recently-created specialized body for provision

of agricultural insurance (CNAAS), as well as international experts. R4 is working closely with

national and international research institutions to understand the relevance and

appropriateness of its insurance products. This includes an ongoing ‘Remote Sensing for

Index Insurance’ research project undertaken by the WFP-IFAD Weather Risk Management

Facility (WRMF).

1.1.2. Current achievements

Activities realised in the 1st quarter of 2012 have been:

Risk transfer design workshop from 26-27 February 2013. The risk transfer component is particularly complex because of the many partners, steps and processes involved. The workshop established a detailed schedule of activities for 2013 outlining the responsibilities of each partner and initial planning of 2014 activities

A local 4R technical committee was established in Koussanar. The committee meets monthly and is responsible for the local coordination of the project and its implementation.

Koussanar participatory planning workshop with partners

Community support in the formulation of requests for land (60 ha for rice and approximately 10 ha for gardening) to the President of the Rural Committee

Establishment of a development committee in each of the 4 main project sites

Public awareness raising on development activities

Starting site characterization studies (topographical surveys of the valley are finalized)

Commencement of soil protection and restoration activities: collecting stones for making bunds and gabion frames (400)

1.1.3. Current expenditure against community priorities

It was not possible on the basis of the information or time available to produce an analysis

of the current expenditure against community priorities found in the field work. Budget

information needs to be available in simple accessible formats – basic monthly budget

expenditure reports. It is strongly recommended that this aspect is reviewed in future R4

evaluations.

17

1.1.3. Evaluation methodology

The People First Impact Method (P-FiM) was used for the field work. It allows communities

to speak for themselves in identifying the important changes in their lives and to whom /

what these are attributable. The approach highlights key contextual dynamics within the

social, political and economic life of a community - about which implementing agencies may

not be fully aware. It thus enables stakeholders to ‘take the temperature’ in order to align

their work more closely with local priorities.

Standard agency approaches are agency and programme centric – typically seeing the world

through the eyes of the organisation and its programme. The starting point for P-FIM is

people, not projects or organisations. This is a fundamental difference in standard practice

and approaches6 making it both different and complimentary. P-FIM understands context

from the perspective of the people. It provides agencies with clarity on the primary role and

ability of a community so the agency can positively engage with local capacity and what is

working in a timely, appropriate and cost effective way. P-FIM recognizes that community

ownership is present from the outset – their response to their issues. Agency interventions

are only part of a wider context and often only a small part. P-FIM brings openness, humility

and honesty about what is happening and what kind of impact is taking place. How can we

know what is working or not working by only looking at our organisation and its work? The

impact and contribution of an organisation emerges naturally in community discussion and

statements.

P-FIM takes a representative geographical area where people are getting on with their lives.

Local people are trained who have basic inter-personal communication skills, fluency in local

6 Sep. 2012: Expert Independent Researchers Group – Current Challenges in Evaluation. Dr. Orla Cronin positively referenced the P-FiM

approach when discussing the need to move beyond an over reliance on traditional evaluation methodologies. July 2012: Quality &

Accountability Workshop – UN Food & Agriculture Organisation. Presentation on P-FiM delivered at the inter-agency course on quality

and accountability standards in Naivasha in July 2012 hosted by FAO/IAWG. July 2012: ALNAP State of the Humanitarian System Report.

"Results from these evaluations (using P-FiM) do give a better sense of the perceptions of aid recipients on a range of issues." Feb 2012:

Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB II) – People First Impact Method & Joint Standards Initiative (HAP, People in Aid, SPHERE)

Presentation Kampala, Uganda. P-FiM presented the findings of a P-FiM exercise carried out jointly with the Joint Standards Initiative in

Mwingi, Kenya at the ECBII Inter-Active conference. Haiti Earthquake Response Mapping and analysis of gaps and duplications in

evaluations, February 2011, ALNAP, DAC, UNEG, K. Haver. "These are also opportunities to consult beneficiaries in a more meaningful

way. The CARE / Save the Children evaluation (using P-FiM) intentionally reduced the focus on the specific agency or project ". June 2011,

J. Patrick, Haiti Earthquake Response. DFID, UNEG, ALNAP Report on Emerging Evaluation Lessons – P-FiM is widely referenced in this

report especially in relation to the CARE-SCF Joint Haiti Earthquake Evaluation Report. ILRI Technical Consortium, IGAD, REGLAP -

Knowledge Management & Research (Draft) “P-FiM impact assessments repeatedly highlight dryland communities desire for information

and the fact that even basic information about livestock diseases etc. is often not accessible”. May 2012 Review of Emergency Cash

Coordination Mechanisms in the Horn of Africa: Kenya & Somalia, "FAO conducted qualitative evaluations in northern Kenya using the

People First Impact Method (P-FiM). Though the reports from these studies are not yet available (now available), the approach appears to

be appropriate: focusing more on the overall changes that have occurred within a community rather than trying to attribute all changes to

the impact of aid. This broader look at change takes other factors into account - changing context, economy, state policy, weather

patterns, etc - and looks at impact from the perspective of communities themselves." Olivia Collins (Groupe URD), May 2012 Swedish

International Development Cooperation Agency. "For example during the Haiti ACT Appeal Evaluation a wide range of beneficiaries were

surveyed using the People First Impact Method, whose rigorous methodology this evaluation could not hope to repeat." Sue Enfield & Linda

Forsberg.

18

languages, insider cultural knowledge and are trusted, respected and accepted locally. The

method (i) enables a qualitative process where impact changes – whether positive, negative

or neutral – are openly discussed with a wide cross section of representative groups in a

community (including vulnerable groups) and accurately recorded (ii) the method then

works backwards to determine in a quantitative way where change is attributable to e.g. the

community, government, business, NGO, UN, Red Cross, faith organizations or an event e.g.

drought, flooding, disease etc. This inter-agency process creates honesty, objectivity,

ownership, responsibility and accountability. Programmes add to what communities and

others are already doing. On-going community based M&E can catch timely information and

changes made accordingly and; evaluations are honest, objective and rich in insight and

learning. For example during a 2011 P-FIM exercise in Haiti (when most donors and agencies

had completely stopped work in psychosocial support), psychosocial difficulties emerged as

the key community issue. In Wajir, Kenya (2012), pastoralists said that ‘cash transfers’ would

only make them poor unless underlying issues and the need for infrastructure and services

are addressed first.

The field work was carried out by 24 Senegalese people from 16 organisations with two

years as the reference period for the exercise. All community groups spoke local languages

– Wollof, Fula and Soce (Mandinka). Recommendations in Part 2 of the report are drawn

from the changes identified and responses to focus questions on resilience that followed

goal free discussions. A deliberate “goal free” approach was used in the first field work using

inter-agency teams of 3. This was followed by goal focussed discussions during a

consecutive field exercise to determine community change aspirations related to resilience.

The inter-agency team participants undertook a combination of two days training and

planning the field work. This was necessary to get the team to a place where they fully

understood the exercise objective and had understood and practiced the communication

Figure 6 Field work team

19

skills and open questioning techniques to achieve it. They were deployed in teams of three

as facilitators, reporters and observers from different organisations (to objective results and

avoid single agency bias) to meet 8 representative community groups in 7 different villages

(2 discussions took place in the same village – however in other exercises several discussions

with different groups have taken place simultaneously in the same community. The aim is to

get a representative sample of views.

The participants randomly selected and prioritised in a ranking exercise the following groups

out of a total of 24 social / livelihood groups, whom they felt were important to meet in

order to achieve the exercise objective which was to 1) “Give communities a voice, identify

and attribute change” – positive, negative and neutral 2) capture the communities own

vision of change related to resilience. This was done by people who knew the language,

area and culture and are trusted and accepted as “sons and daughters” in the community.

Our aim was to facilitate ordinary conversations with ordinary people.

No Group selected for field work Place R4 Intervention Area

1 Femmes des Foyer Kouthiacoto Yes

2 Agriculteurs Sare Hamet No

3 Groupes Promotion Feminine Koussanar Centre Yes

4 Eleves Filles Dawadi Yes

5 Eleveurs Sare Sambourou Yes

6 Exploitants Forestiers Kabiron Yes

7 Personnes Agees Pakirane No

8 Handicape Koussanar Centre Yes

No Group not selected Ranking

1 Filles Victimes Excision 7

2 Femmes Victimes de Violence 7

3 Enfants Talibes 5

4 Veuves 4

5 Chefs de Village 3

6 VIH/S 3

7 Eleves Garcons 3

8 Imams 2

9 Groupement Interet Economique 1

10 Elus Locaux 0

11 Services Techniques 0

12 Les Castres 0

13 Transporteurs 0

14 Communicateurs Traditionelle 0

15 ASC 0

16 Commercants 0

20

Group Place Girls Boys Women Men Youth F Youth M Total

Eleves Filles Dawadi 9 0 2 4 9 0 24

Femmes au Foyer Kouthiacoto 0 0 15 4 0 0 19

Exploitants Forestiers Kabiron 1 17 10 25 0 8 61

Agriculteurs Sare Hamet 1 3 22 19 0 5 50

Personnes Handicappe Koussanar Centre 0 0 1 5 1 0 7

Personnes Agees Pakirane 0 0 11 14 0 0 25

Groupements Promotion Feminine

Case Foyer Koussanar 0 0 12 0 0 0 12

Eleveurs Sare Sambourou 3 8 20 36 6 10 83

A total of 16 discussions with community groups including vulnerable people were

conducted. 8 of these were goal free and 8 goal focussed. 281 people participated in the

goal free discussions - 44% female and 56% male.

206 people participated in the goal focussed discussions – 52% female and 48% male.

Participants of varying ages included adults, youth and children.

Group change statements form the report’s part 2 findings and recommendations. These

qualitative statements have been presented quantitatively through a systematic grouping

and ranking by their frequency of occurrence. To ensure the reliability and objectivity of the

0

100

200

300

Girls Boys Women Youth F YouthM

Men Total

Nu

mb

er o

f P

arti

cip

ants

Disagregation of representative goal free discussion groups

0

50

100

150

200

250

Women Girls Youth F Men Boys Youth M Total

No

. Pe

op

le

Disagregation of representative goal focussed discussion groups

21

findings, scoring and ranking exercises were an integral part throughout the debriefing and

feedback in plenary to reduce single agency bias on the results, to accurately record

statements, test assumptions and findings. Focus was not on what the teams “thought” but

on what the groups “said” and at what communication level. Participants in the group

discussions declared 72 change statements – 29 negative, 13 positive and 2 neutral

The first exercise established a level of acceptance, respect

and trust between the community groups and inter-agency

teams that ensured the quality and honesty of the second

discussion. People in the groups found the opportunity to

freely talk about the most important things that happened

to them as therapeutic and liberating. People were

generally not used to an approach focussed on establishing

qualitative two way communication within communities

themselves that recognised and valued their lived

experience and knowledge. They very much welcomed the

approach.

The second ‘goal focussed’ field exercise was conducted by

the same inter-agency teams and with the same

representative community groups in the same locations. It focussed on: i) What changes

people wanted to see in their communities related to resilience ii) What they felt they

themselves could do to realise those changes iii) If they had additional resources of their

own how they would invest them to improve resilience and iv) Who they felt in their

communities were most in need of a “helping hand” at times of crisis. The findings from the

field work is enabling a “reality check” and qualitative deepening of the R4 resilience

approach.

Separate focus groups with WFP, OA and partner staff requested participants to 1) draw an

image without words capturing their feelings about R4 to date 2) once this was done to

write brief bullet point explanations on post it notes to illustrate their drawing 3) individual

presentations in plenary. Participants were then tasked with drawing a motivation map

highlighting the points at which they were motivated and de-motivated during their R4

journey so far 4) individual feedback in plenary. Both exercises rapidly captured insights into

key management, leadership and structural challenges. 5) Writing up of key learning points

and recommendations in plenary.

Figure 7 Participatory group ranking

22

Part 2: Community findings and perspectives on

R4's contextual relevance

This part of the report provides an opportunity to revise and develop a contextually relevant

R4 “Theory of change” based on the change aspirations of the communities themselves. It

provides feedback from the community perspective on the overall context of change –

positive, negative and neutral. These are not necessarily related to R4 interventions. This

provides R4 an opportunity to ensure that the programme is relevant and appropriate.

What is working overall? Overall improvement areas

Improved agricultural production and

food security

38% Increased poverty 66%

Improved social cohesion (linked to

livelihood activities)

31% Climate related food insecurity and

disasters

10%

Increased income and improved

nutrition

15% Lack of social solidarity 10%

Increased education access 8% Lack of education access and quality 7%

Improved sanitation coverage 8% Lack of access to information and

capacity building

7%

Between 30 September to 04 October 2013, 24 staff and volunteers from 16 organisations

based in Koussanar and Tambacounda, Tambacounda Region, Senegal, conducted

participatory field work on an inter-agency basis to give communities a voice about their

context, identify and attribute changes in their lives. These are the deeper more meaningful

“below the surface” most important differences to people in their lives (“So what”

questions) over the past 2 years and identification of the causes of these changes. The

overall context of change are the findings of the goal free discussion. This was important in

order to confirm whether or not R4 is relevant to the local context and peoples own

challenges. The overall context refers to the major events or factors impacting any part of

community members’ lives and the improvement areas reflect people’s level of satisfaction

with their life situations. The overall change findings enables the R4 partners to better

understand the relevance and appropriateness of R4 in relation to peoples wider priorities

and the areas that communities want to see change in. These findings do not necessarily

relate directly to R4.

The table above shows the most important overall positive and negative changes indicated

by community groups met in field work. In some change areas e.g. food security, people

reported positive changes, while others reported negative in the same sector. This usually

suggests uneven or unequal coverage of services.

23

Community perspectives were received firstly through a goal free discussion with group’s

representative of a cross section of people in communities. The aim of this was to

understand the context from the community perspective and to find out what were the

most important things that had happened in their lives over the past 2 years. This enabled

us to determine whether this had anything to do with the priorities set out in R4.

A second goal focussed discussion took place with the same people and the same inter-

agency teams to discuss resilience. What they would like to see changed in their

communities in relation to it; how they themselves would go about realising these changes;

how they would invest their own resources in resilience if they had surplus and; who they

felt in their community was in greater need “of a helping hand” at times of crisis.

The goal free discussion established relationships of respect and trust between the field

teams and community groups – so that the following goal focussed discussion was more

open and productive. The goal focussed discussion enabled an appreciation of what the

communities’ feelings and ideas about resilience are. Agencies involved were from

Administrative Government Departments, Community Based Organisations, Red Cross,

Caritas and National Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs). The findings in this section

are a sample based on the field work conducted.

2.1.0. Positive change areas

Change statements were consolidated into categories - positive, negative and neutral. The

13 positive change differences are reflected above and show the areas or sectors where

people felt most positive change had taken place. These are reported in detail below.

5 4

2 1 1

Improvedagricultural

production andfood security

Improved socialcohesion (linked tolivelihood activities)

Increased incomeand improved

nutrition

Increased educationaccess

Improved sanitationcoverageN

o.

Ch

ange

Sta

tem

en

ts

Koussanar overall positive change areas September 2013

24

2.1.1. Improved agricultural production and food security

Key Findings

Importance of community based veterinary services

Importance of information and knowledge to modernise farming practices

Importance of timely food assistance to protect food security investments

Recommendations

Ensure that R4 properly integrates community needs for farming information and

knowledge

Closer integration of seasonal livelihoods planning to ensure that hunger safety nets

assistance has its intended impact

Livestock farmers at Sare Sambourou felt that veterinary extension services had helped to

improve animal management. This had focussed on training people in the community who

could provide services within the community e.g. vaccinations etc. This was largely seen as a

government and community led initiative. Farmers at Sare Hamet felt that due to their own

efforts that crop production had increased. SODEFITEX was very positively viewed by the

same group as helping farmers to modernise their farming methods. Food aid from WFP and

distributed by the Senegalese Red Cross at the right time and in the right quantity (improved

ration) had enabled the Sare Hamet farmers to protect their seed stocks and focus on

farming. Likewise the elderly group at Pakirane who benefitted from the same distribution

(they spoke of receiving 13 tons) felt that this had protected their food security.

2.1.2. Improved social cohesion (linked to livelihood activities)

Key Findings

Importance of social dynamics and work in associations to achieve positive results

Importance of women’s leadership development

Importance of training in value addition

Recommendations

Invest in and pay particular attention to social solidarity issues

The group of house “wives” at Kouthiacoto said that social cohesion was reinforced by

project support received. They particularly felt that women’s leadership was developed by

training. They attributed this primarily to their own efforts and equal degrees to

government, parish, UN and NGO actions. Forest exploiters (non-timber forest products) felt

that more could be achieved when people grouped together and understood organisational

25

dynamics. They spoke positively about the support of an NGO to women’s groups in value

addition to products such as Baobab fruit and “Jujube” and in vegetable gardening. This

group also felt that increased solidarity was emerging from the increased number of “forest

exploiters” – this gives them more bargaining power.

2.1.3. Increased income and improved nutrition

Key Finding

Market gardens and micro-finance positively viewed

Recommendation

Look at developing synergies with local actors positively viewed by communities

The house “wives” group at Kouthiacoto felt that their nutrition and income had improved

because of the market gardens. They attributed this to a combination of their own,

government and UN action. Development of petty trading as a result of micro-finance

support was positively voiced by the elderly at Pakirane. They attributed this to NGO and

parish activity.

2.1.4. Increased education access

The school girls group at Dawadi were very positive about the expansion of their school and

attributed this entirely to the community and government. They also felt that increased

space had improved results.

2.1.5. Improved sanitation coverage

A joint action by an NGO (Badianugox) and government was positively viewed by the elderly

group at Pakirane as increasing sanitation coverage by the construction of IDEV toilets.

26

« Tout s'achete, rien n'est

gratuit »

« Everything is paid for,

nothing is free »

Expoiltants Forestieres

Kabiron

2.2.0. Overall areas for improvement

From the 44 statements made by community groups, 29 were negative. These are reflected

in the graph above and show the areas or sectors where people felt most negative change

had taken place followed by a detailed report on negative findings.

2.2.1. Increased poverty

Key Findings

Increasing poverty was the most widely found change occurring

This confirms the intended purpose of R4

R4 does not address all the resilience challenges

Recommendations

Consider and address the full range of issues that are undermining resilience in order

to ensure coverage and integrated impact

People talked about the increasingly fragile nature of

their livelihoods and a degradation in their standard

of living – low nutrition particularly of children due to

low milk and meat production; increasing food

insecurity; poor soils; erratic rainfall and flood related

damage e.g. to houses; reduced crop yields; low

income and inflation of basic commodities; forced

and early marriage; recurring conflicts between

herders and farmers blamed by farmers on non-

compliance with the laws governing livestock

22

3 2 2

Increased poverty Lack of socialsolidarity

Lack of educationaccess and quality

Lack of access toinformation andcapacity building

Koussanar context Global Negative change areas September 2013

27

movement; increase of livestock diseases as pastoralist and local herds come into contact

with each other; lack of livestock feed; bush fires; loss of draft animals; lack of financing and

credit; punishing labour intensive work; diseases caused by poor personal and

environmental sanitation e.g. malaria; lack of water and declining water table; lack of

services – all factors contributing to rural urban exodus.

2.2.2. Lack of social solidarity

Key Findings

Communities are divided

Recommendation

Social cohesion or “unity” is the single greatest driver of development in a community

– major attention should be given in R4 to support people on how to work together

and address causes of conflict and social upheaval

Food / Cash / Vouchers for carefully and participative agreed community assets work

could help re-enforce social cohesion

The second biggest change was related to what people felt is a lack of social solidarity. This

was viewed as a barrier to mobilising people to work on issues of common interest that

would benefit the whole community. People living with disabilities felt that they were not

considered as equal members of the community. Political interference in community

dynamics with the giving and taking of assets was felt to be divisive (this is separate from

the regular functions of administrative government departments e.g. health and agriculture

– and the activities of elected officials).

2.2.3. Lack of education access and quality

Key Findings

Education access and quality is a key part of the change aspirations of young people –

particularly girls who have more barriers to completing primary and secondary school

Recommendations

Properly understand in context issues relating to girl’s life chances; design

programmes that are locally accepted and bring about positive change

Explore how FFA activities could support education facilities

Examine how R4 DRR activities could be mainstreamed in schools

28

Partner extension staff

need to be substantially

available to communities

in the field for practical on

hand exchange of ideas,

advice and support.

The school girls group at Dawadi spoke about the lack of teachers and class rooms to cope

with the growing number of students. Late construction of planned class rooms meant that

the community built provisional class shelters with local materials. Overall people spoke

about service provision not keeping up with population increases.

2.2.4. Lack of access to information and capacity building

Key Findings

Critical importance of information and knowledge in themselves

Recommendations

Information needs should be primarily determined by what communities want and

need to know e.g. practical agricultural and risk reduction input – the risk otherwise is

that organisational information needs become dominant - with communities given

little or no space to share their experience and knowledge

Various groups felt that there was a lack of

information available to them – how to do

information and knowledge relating to agriculture

and livestock rearing. Likewise other groups

particularly women felt that they needed more

capacity building – coaching approaches that

would develop their skills and knowledge. People

living with disabilities felt that they were

uninformed about what opportunities they could

access and demand from local service providers.

29

2.3.0. Analysis of the drivers of change

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Community Government Faithorganisations

UN agencies Red Cross NGOs Business Drought Other (largelypastoralistmigration)

Ran

kin

g

Koussanar change driver attribution September 2013

Positive Change Negative Change Neutral Change

30

The communities and

Government themselves

are perceived as being the

primary drivers of

important positive and

negative changes in

Koussanar

Fundamentally linked to evaluation is attribution of

change and how the various causal factors relate to

each other. This underlines the value and importance

of multi-partner approaches with strong community

based approaches working closely in support of

government services. Who and what is making a

direct difference or otherwise contributing to

positive, negative or neutral change in Koussanar?

From the perspective of the community groups the

actors and factors in the diagram above reflect the

issues that have caused or contributed to changes in

their lives over the past 2 years. This is the community perspective. NGOs, UN Agencies and

Red Cross were seen as playing an overall positive role with communities and government

playing a greater role. Some R4 partners were mentioned positively by communities for

their contribution to positive change. Further analysis and examination of funding

allocations would facilitate greater precision on the value of these interventions. The

drought event in the diagram took place in 2011. Negative attribution to communities is

usually related to factors within communities themselves e.g. conflict over livestock

corridors etc. Negative change by government, NGOs, UN, Faith Organisations and Red

Cross Member agencies is usually related to lack of coverage of services, poor community

participation and communication in interventions or non delivery on expectations raised.

The analysis in this section examines attribution of the overall change statements (it does

not attribute specific change to R4) from the perspective of the community groups. This

weighs accountability from the perspective of the affected population to reflect the

performance of all actors (including the community itself) – which may be helpful to

government and donor decision makers and agencies seeking to improve their programmes

and accountability to communities. Stakeholders are rated positively, negatively and

neutrally. Each change statement receives a 0-10 score attributed to different actors /

factors that people see as creating change in their lives. These totals are combined giving

the results in the charts above and shown against the numbered left axis.

The size of the attribution column (positive, negative, neutral) is important. If the height of

the positive attribution column is greater than the corresponding negative attribution

column then an actor or group of actors may feel they are on the right track. However the

size of negative attribution should be seriously considered, as should the overall size of the

attribution to external humanitarian actors (even when positive). If negative change

outweighs the positive change an actor or actors are making, or if the attribution column of

positive change by external actors is too high, then this provides an opportunity for

reflection, further community discussion and a possible change of strategy, to ensure that

31

positive local community, government, business and civil society results are increased. In a

healthy context; community, government, local business and local civil society action should

be strong and provide the foundation for robust and locally sustained development. Even

the smallest margin of negative of negative impact by UN agencies and NGOs should be a

cause for concern and the primary starting point for reflection.

A review of the positive attribution results clearly demonstrates the substantial positive

perceived space occupied by the community, Administrative Government and NGOs in

relation to positive change and to a lesser extent the role of UN agencies over the past two

years.

In some instances groups named agencies both positively and negatively in their

statements. Sometimes, people may not know how to differentiate between agencies e.g.

UN, NGOs and Red Cross and the community appreciation of organisations is often

horizontal regardless of whether an agency is large or small. UN agencies are in some cases

funding NGO, FO and government activities, and this is sometimes unknown by

communities. What matters to them is what and who are having results from their

perspective. A review of exercise findings alongside logframe outcomes and assumptions

would reveal what is working or not working and what requires change or additional

support. This underlines the fact that sector performance is collective from the perspective

of those on the receiving end, and that organisations are not insulated from judgement on

their performance by the affected populations. The results above show (albeit from a

relatively small representative group) who and what people feel are responsible for these

changes. These results are typical of over 21 P-FIM exercises conducted in 8 countries

experiencing humanitarian emergencies over the past 2 years. The situation on the ground

is dynamic in relation to long-term changes and can vary considerably from area to area.

The graphs provide a clear appreciation of the context within which actors are working.

Learning from the attribution results raises important questions about the need to build

positive links between communities, local actors and local government.

2.4.0. Community change aspirations related to R4 programme

design Community groups in the goal focussed discussions were given the opportunity to i) express

what they would like to see changed in relation to their own resilience ii) what they could

do to help themselves without external assistance in order of priority to realize these

changes iii) if they had additional resources in their families and communities - how they

would spend them iv) who they felt in their communities are most in need of additional

support during a crisis. These findings follow in this section.

32

2.4.1. Agro-forestry, irrigation and nutrition management information

Key Findings

Agro-forestry is the area where communities want to see greatest change

High community demand for information, knowledge and training

Lack of water viewed as a brake on development

Key recommendations

Budgets and investment in agricultural, nutrition and forestry extension services need

to reflect demand

The area where communities want to see the greatest

change is in gaining more control and knowledge in agro-

forestry and management of their food resources. They

particularly want training in forestry, agriculture and market

gardening; gain knowledge and equipment in post-harvest

processing; planting of forest and fruit tree species; food

assistance during the hungry period between June and

September when there is no harvest and; better

management of their existing food resources. People

mentioned that a lot of food is simply wasted by poor daily,

weekly, monthly and annual calculation of how much cereal

they require. Groups felt that the lack of water was a “brake”

0123456789

10

Agro-forestry,irrigation &

nutritionmanagementinformation /

equipment

Socialsolidarity

Credit access Girl childeducation /

forced - earlymarriage

Infrastructure(health, roads,

villageplanning)

WASH Registrationof births

No

. sta

tem

en

ts

Koussanar population change aspirations September 2013

Figure 8 Milling millet - challenges of cereal management

33

on their development for example in the development of dry season vegetable gardens.

These are things that they want to see changed.

2.4.3. Social solidarity

Key Findings

Social solidarity is a key area where people want to see change in their lives

Key recommendations

Engage with existing competencies at community level and address causes of conflict

from this basis

Substantial engagement in activities that support social cohesion and joint working

There is clearly a lack of social solidarity in the community that many groups said they

wanted to see changed. For people living with disabilities they want to see changes in

people prejudices and behaviour towards them.7

2.4.4. Credit access

Key Finding

While related - credit access - emerged as a lower change aspiration compared to agro-

forestry, WASH and social solidarity

Key recommendations

Consider creation of demand driven linkages between community groups and local

government funds to access agricultural inputs greater than what “Savings for Change”

can support

Groups want to access credit for income

generating activities; support to youth; flour mills;

agricultural materials and; materials to fight bush

fires. While very attractive because of the low

amounts involved and community control - it is

not at all clear whether the “savings for change”

programme will enable the kind of change that

communities want to see in terms of agricultural

inputs that they require i.e. draught animals,

7 2012 People First Impact Method, “Giving Voice to Communities Affected by Crop Failure in West Africa”

www.alnap.org/resource/6960.aspx Pg. 8. “Communities and groups who were able to come together as a unified voice fared considerably better at securing engagement of development partners and bringing development benefits to their communities”.

Figure 9 Savings for Change in Kouthiacoto Village

34

ploughs and milling machines etc. The principles of « Savings for Change » appear good

given the low amounts involved and community control. The consultant could not obtain

any evaluation evidence to demonstrate whether the approach results in significant

household asset creation and the kind of investments that communities require, to increase

agricultural production etc. People said that they want credit, but it is not clear whether this

is what they mean.

2.4.5. Girl child education / forced / early marriage

Key Findings

Forced and early marriage is a key barrier to girls completing primary education

It is substantially related to culture and poverty as well as other factors

Key recommendations

Consider increased retention and learning outcomes of adolescent girls in upper

primary as an indicator of R4 success

Consider reduction in forced and early marriage as a long term indicator of R4 success

Forced and early marriage, often as a means for the poorest families to survive times of

crisis through dowries and gifts, is a barrier to girls completing primary education when they

reach adolescence. It is often related to hunger at times of stress. Girls said that they would

like to see more completing school and receive support in communicating with their parents

about forced and early marriage. They want greater access to quality education.

2.4.6. Infrastructure (health, roads, village planning)

A number of groups felt that the lack of distance between their homes were a fire risk and

also vulnerable to destruction in heavy rains and winds. They would like to increase the

space between homes which requires government planning support. Those whose homes

had been damaged in floods would like to reconstruct with cement. The poor state of roads

which cuts of rainy season access to some villages and absence of health posts are things

that people want to see changed.

2.4.2. WASH

Key Findings

WASH is an important priority

Key recommendation

FFA activities particularly during the hungry season (rainy) when water borne disease

risks are highest could support community change aspirations related to improving

environmental sanitation

35

Aspirations related to WASH also includes better personal and environmental hygiene. They

spoke about increasing household latrine coverage and organising “Set Setal” i.e.

community cleaning days.

2.4.7. Registration of births

Non registration of their children’s births by parents created barriers to the practical access

to basic services and rights such as education.

2.5.0. Proposed community vision actions

The responses above relate to the question: What can you yourselves do to achieve the

changes that you want to see in your community related to resilience?

2.5.1. Community labour / material / financial contribution

Groups talked about contributing manual labour; local materials such as sand and gravel in

the case of borehole or well construction; rental of equipment and facilities that they

possess; they also mentioned financial contributions and; applying greater determination to

see things through.

2.5.2. Social and behaviour change

People especially women felt that there was more that they could do in sensitising others

about disaster risk reduction including on health such as malaria reduction through use of

bed nets. Likewise they could assist others to better manage their food rations.

2.5.3. Social solidarity / associations

Social solidarity was seen as key to 3 different groups and they felt that this was a priority to

invest their energies in including through formation of associations.

0

2

4

6

8

10

Communitylabour /

material /financial

contribution

Social andbehaviour

change

Socialsolidarity /

associations

Petty trading Advocacy toGovernment

Irrigationdams

Learning

No

. Sta

tem

en

ts

Proposed community vision actions Koussanar Commune September 2013

36

2.5.4. Petty trading

Petty trading was viewed as an activity that people could undertake themselves to improve

household level resilience.

2.5.5. Advocacy to Government

One group talked about requesting the state to make their community a “communaute

rurale” as this would mean greater likelihood of service provision. While they did not

express this in terms of advocacy it does open up the idea of supporting communities to

advocate to local service providers.

2.5.6. Irrigation dams

Irrigations dams were put forward as a means to increase resilience through food

production. Time did not allow an opportunity to further explore how communities felt they

could do this without external assistance.

2.5.6. Learning

Learning and applying knowledge was something that people felt that they could do

themselves. This complements findings from other evaluations quoted in this report where

farmers and pastoralists often people want access to information and knowledge to

increase yields, rather than hard inputs from agencies.

37

2.6.0. Community investment priorities related to R4 programme design

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Trading /Business

Livestock Cereal banks Farm inputs /equipment

Education Infrastructure Solidarity Saving Land

No

. Sta

tem

en

ts

Community investment priorities Koussanar Commune September 2013

38

Key Findings

The highest community investment priorities are trading / business, livestock, cereal

banks, farm inputs / equipment and education

Key recommendations

These findings could inform fine tuning of R4 DRR activities

Knowledge, attitudes and practices study on savings and insurance

Build R4 concept around community investment priorities

The 8 focus groups were asked what how they would invest to improve their own resilience

- if they had additional resources available. The responses to this question reflected in the

graph above directly complements thinking around R4 design and especially priorities for

credit and insurance. Investment in trading and business; livestock; cereal banks; farm

inputs and; education are people’s highest investment priorities. It is not clear if people had

surplus resources whether they would convert them into cash for savings or insurance. The

traditional insurance strategy would be to invest in business, livestock, farm inputs and

education of children. These findings should inform the contextual appropriation of what R4

becomes in Kousannar. As mentioned previously in the report it is not clear how “Savings

for Change” meets the vision of change that communities have for themselves in relation to

resilience. It would appear that some fine tuning of R4 activities would be appropriate.

39

Disagregation of investment Priorities Group Disagregation of investment Priorities Group

Trading / Business Cereal banks

Faire du commerce (acheter des produits à bas prix pour ensuite les revendre au moment propice)

Filles élèves Mise en place les banques céréales Femmes de foyer

Ouvrir une boutique Personnes âgées Créer les banques de céréales Agriculteurs

Développer le commerce pour les femmes Personnes âgées Agrandissement banque de céréales Exploitants forestière

Octroyer des crédits par les recettes générées par le forage

Personnes âgées Education

Vendre le surplus et acheter du bétail à revendre en case de crise (besoin)

Agriculteurs Acheter des fournitures pour les élèves Femmes de foyer

Ouverture vers d'autres coronaux (activités génératrices de revenus)

Handicape Investir de l'éducation de nos enfants Promotion féminine

Commerce Exploitant forestière Public infrastructure

Réinvestir de l'achat d'une unité de transformation a installer dans une autre communauté pour générer des ressources

Promotion féminine Constructions d'infrastructures (puits, forages, mosquées, case de santé)

Filles élèves

Acquisitions chaises et bâche matelas à louer Promotion féminine Mutual support / solidarity

Livestock Entraide et solidarité Handicape

Acheter les animaux domestiques Femmes de foyer Saving

Acheter des animaux domestiques Filles élèves Épargne Exploitants forestière

Faire l'embouche bovine et ovine Personnes âgées Land

Vendre le surplus et acheter du bétail à revendre en case de crise (besoin)

Agriculteurs Achat terrain / construction et laça mise en location

Promotion féminine

Agricultural equipment / Farm inputs

Achat des matérielles agricoles (moulins à mil, décortiqueuses a mil, égreneuses de maïs)

Femmes de foyer

Acheter des semences, de l'engrais et du matériel agricole

Filles élèves

Achat de matérielle de transport - moulins Exploitants forestières

40

2.7.0. Community views on vulnerability

Each group at the end of the focus discussion were asked who they considered as needing a “helping hand” in their community at times of

crisis. Asking this target question at the end of a conversation characterised by respect, trust and openness (depth of communication) added

to the significance of the responses. The aim was to gain a view of community perspectives on vulnerability and insights into community based

protection mechanisms. The community groups had a good idea themselves about who requires additional support. Further work in this area

could help to refine targeting with full community buy in and representation of everyone in having their “say.”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Handicapped Elderly Disastervictims

Children Widows Women Peoplewithout

livestock orcash for

petty trading

Those eating1 meal orless a day

Sick Orphans Femaleheaded

households

Unemployedschool

graduates

No

. se

lect

ion

s

Vulnerable Groups (Community perspective) Koussanar Commune September 2013

41

R4 should not become an

ideological mantra – the

starting point is

communities and not

projects or organisations

PART 3 Partner and staff findings and perspectives

3.1.0. Introduction

The findings in part 3 are based on A) feedback in the

key information interviews in response to 2 questions:

i) what do you feel has gone or is working well with R4?

ii) What do you feel needs to be improved or addressed

in R4? Each interview lasted approximately 30-60

minutes B) Focus group work with WFP, Oxfam and

partner staff C) Validation workshops that focussed on

learning and action.

3.1.1. High staff appropriation of R4 vision

A number of people commented that R4 represents a learning curve for WFP. Government

partners welcomed the fact that it was moving beyond the organisation’s traditional ways of

working. One staff member described the R4 process to date as an ice-breaking ship and

another to a person on a bicycle pedalling up a very steep hill pouring with sweat! It is a

slow and hard path but one that needs to be pioneered.

3.1.2. Partner capacity building

R4 with the existing partnerships in place provides an excellent

opportunity to support and create synergies with and between

Senegalese Government ministries in their service of

communities in their endeavours to become more resilient.

One staff member portrayed the communities of Koussanar as

a sick person being treated by various partners. Each partner

had a different diagnosis of what the problem was. The key

learning point that this expressed was the challenge of

understanding context, making the right assumptions and

improved coordination and communication. In a ranking

exercise on how R4 was performing conducted with separate

focus groups of implementing partners, WFP and OA staff

there were clearly different appreciations of this. The challenge

is to develop a joint appreciation. Some staff expressed the idea of working with a single

partner to implement all activities. Partners felt that they had already gone through the

“storming” stage of team development cf. Annex 8 and were on the verge of “reforming”

and “performing.” The government already has a structure for rural development and it

would seem best to work with and in support of this rather than “re-inventing the wheel” -

which was mentioned in several Key Informant Interviews. Capacity building both of

partners and WFP / OA in creative facilitation techniques aimed at maximising productivity

Figure 10 Coordination challenges

42

and the usefulness of meetings may be something worth considering - especially to build

collaboration and ensure community perspective is central.

There was a strong tendency for staff at various levels both in Dakar and Tambacounda to

be locked into laptops, tablets and smart-phones rather than being “present” in a form

other than bodily – able to participate and achieve the job at hand – a default mode for

meetings seemed to mean laptops open and smart-phone multi-tasking (one meeting was

observed with at least 10 participants undertaking smart-phone and tablet tasks completely

unrelated to the workshop being conducted). This dynamic was deliberately controlled by

the consultant throughout the evaluation. It does however raise the question of

effectiveness in working with partners to tackle qualitative as well as quantity of tasks.

3.1.3. Leadership development

There is a real need for clear in-country leadership in R4 with the capacity to be able to

facilitate two way processes of planning, discussion and feedback between WFP, Partners

and OA. There was high consensus between partners, WFP and OA on this point. Leadership

is this context is understood as exerting deliberate influence to realise the R4 vision based

on values - within a culture of mutual respect and trust with an appreciation that

improvement through openness to two-way feedback is necessary individually and

collectively on all sides. Decision making based on input shaped and influenced first of all by

communities and then by partners at every stage of the programme cycle is strongly

recommended. Leadership and leadership development at all levels is critical to improving

R4 delivery and roll out. This is also related to simplifying and decentralising the existing

complex management and communication structure. Capacity needs to be in place or

developed (with external input if necessary) that understands and is able to create team

working, two-way gut level communication (not theory) and developing synergies to get the

best results. Focus needs to be given to personal and collective ownership, responsibility for

results and personal and professional improvement at all levels – creation of a feedback

culture in an atmosphere of respect, trust and openness. Annexes 5-9 provide some basic

ideas and models for improving team working8. These were distributed at the final

validation workshop.

3.1.4. Decentralise management structure

The current management structure is multi-layered and centralised. One person described it

as “A lot of people at different levels to support a small community.” It is felt as heavy with

no clear leadership. It risks that no-one takes ownership and responsibility for R4 as there is

always a layer above and the role of the community can often be lost. Staff, at key levels,

are demotivated as they do not know what is happening. There is a strong feeling that sub-

offices should be fully involved from the start and; in the choice of partners and elaboration

8 Easy reading is, Not Bosses but Leaders, John Adair, Kogan Page 2009

43

of roles and responsibilities. Group work recommendations from the final validation

workshop are that:

Head Quarters – Dakar: Progressive retreat from HQ leaving operationalization of R4 to

the R4 Dakar team

Dakar – Sub-Office relationship: Increased engagement and responsibility of the sub-

office with a joint role of coordination between the SO and 4R Dakar team

Full engagement of the SO heads in R4 management decision making

Relationships with partners: Put in place a light coordination team facilitated by the SO

Organise an annual 4R planning meeting with external facilitation

Partner responsible for leading thematic groups with the sub-office

3.1.5. Integrate and build on Senegalese experience

Some staff questioned the cost effectiveness of some of the investments to date and

whether there had been a real capitalisation of studies already done in Senegal on the

various R4 components. Involving partners including in CNAAS at the outset in the analysis

and decision to engage in Tambacounda first may have brought about greater synergies on

the development of the insurance products. CNAAS want to expand to all regions but in

their national poverty analysis it is not the highest priority region. PlanNet Guarantee also

felt that the processes around insurance could be significantly improved by looking at what

is going on locally. The feeling among partners is that there are a lot of researchers coming

from abroad when there is experience with various products. The sense is: design the

products with local actors, build on what is already learnt – capitalise on local experience. At

least 2 Key Informants from different organisations had provided information and

participated in key processes without feedback or copies of the reports produced. In total 7

respondents from 5 different organisations including WFP particularly felt that on the

insurance products that there had been a case of “re-inventing the wheel.” Resilience is

fundamentally linked to sustainability and therefore local ownership from the outset is key.

The challenge seems to be one of creating processes where everyone feels that their voice is

heard and respected – while benefitting from wider international experience and insights.

How things are done are as important as what is done. Key Informants certainly

acknowledged these 2 aspects.

Participants in the field work experienced a major « sea change » in how they approached,

valued and engaged with communities. This might suggest the need for review of

community engagement practice to ensure that communities play their fully role.

More widely there is a substantial wealth of experience in smallholder irrigation and farming

systems, market gardening, value chain research, agroforestry, lowland and upland

development in Senegal, Gambia and the wider sub-region that could add value to the DRR

44

aspects of 4R in Senegal. Models from East Africa and elsewhere have been piloted in

Gambia and Senegal on small holder irrigation (APROTEC Super Money Maker, treadle, drip

and solar irrigation systems) with very different attitudes to social and cultural acceptability

of these technologies.

4.0. Conclusion

There was an overall sense during the evaluation that everyone involved could see the “forest but not the trees.” The evaluation process highlighted the widespread consensus that exists on the key issues that need to be addressed to progress. This provided an opportunity to gain a “helicopter vision” of the leadership and management challenges.

45

Annexe 1 Terms of Reference R4 Senegal Program Process Evaluation 2013

Background

The R4 Rural Resilience Initiative, is a multi-country initiative, resulting from a partnership between Oxfam America and the World Food Programme, to enable poor households to strengthen their food and income security through a combination of four risk management components: improved resource management (risk reduction), insurance (risk transfer), microcredit (prudent risk taking), and savings (risk reserves).

In Senegal, the R4 Initiative will test and develop a new set of integrated tools to strengthen investments in disaster risk reduction assets that protect communities against the changes of climate variability and to extend coverage of financial risk transfer and risk taking tools such as insurance and credit to the most vulnerable populations.

The Communauté Rurale (CR) de Koussanar, located in the Tambacounda Department, has been selected as the site for the R4 Pilot project in 2013. The selection of Koussanar was based on high relative poverty and food insecurity levels, high climate variability, and the presence of Oxfam’s community finance programme (Savings for Change) and WFP’s Food-for-Assets programme in the area.

In 2013, the R4 Pilot in Koussanar will target an estimated 500 participants9. The plan is to rapidly scale up in the following years, with a target of 6,000 participants in 2014 and 18,000 participants in 2015 and 2016. Scaling-up will follow a 2-pronged approach:

expand in areas neighbouring Koussanar CR with similar agro-ecological conditions and livelihood systems, to exploit R4 pilot’s partnerships and knowledge of the area.

expand progressively to new départements to diversify contexts of implementation and perhaps develop partnerships with programmes and institutions that best complement and enhance R4’s risk management approach.

During the Senegal R4 inception workshop in Tambacounda, the General Objective of the Initiative was defined as “Promote resilience in Koussanar CR”. ‘Resilience’ was broadly defined as “the ability of members of communities to increase their assets and standard of living in ‘normal’ years, and to protect their assets and maintain adequate levels of consumption after a shock”. It was also proposed to measure ‘resilience’ using indicators from a number of dimensions, including food security, livelihoods and assets, as well as health and nutrition status.

Specific objectives of the intervention were defined as:

Increased investments, assets, and agricultural production among target households

Protection of consumption levels and assets of target households against shocks

Increased technical and financial capacity, particularly of women, in the target villages

Increased solidarity within the targeted communities.

Activities will be organised under 4 components (risk reduction, risk transfer, prudent risk taking and risk reserves) and outputs under each of them will contribute to all project objectives.

9An R4 participant is defined as any person who participates in any R4 activity provided directly by Oxfam America, the World Food Programme or their grantees, or who registers for an R4 financial service provided by R4 partners. For example, An R4 participant could be a R4 financial literacy participant; R4 risk reduction participant ; R4 community savings participant; R4 insurance participant (paying with labor); R4 insurance participant (paying with cash); R4 credit participant

46

In this framework, WFP and Oxfam America intend to set up an Evaluation and Learning system to inform the implementation of the R4 initiative in Senegal. It would be comprised of two distinct but closely related components:

A system to evaluate the process for delivering outputs, including coordination mechanisms (Process Evaluation);

A system to evaluate outcomes and changes of the initiative (Outcomes Evaluation)

These ToR will focus only on the first component.

Process evaluation In 2013, the Process Evaluation will be managed by an external consultant who will conduct a preliminary analysis of existing documents and then carry out field work in Senegal.

The process evaluation will be conducted between August and October 2013, with final results to be available latest in November 2013.

Objectives of Process Evaluation:

1. To understand how R4 is working and to document implementation achievements and challenges for internal learning.

2. To identify ways in which the pilot program and the R4 model can be improved and replicated at larger scale.

Deliverables:

1. Presentation(s) to WFP and partners of preliminary conclusions and recommendations at the end of the field mission.

2. Draft report within 15 days of field mission; 3. Final report within 15 days of receiving comments from R4 team;

Both the presentation and the report will include:

1. Conclusions about the 2013 project performance; 2. Recommendations on how to improve the following, in light of the scaling-up in new areas:

a. Design of outputs (products); b. Delivery of outputs; c. Implementation and coordination mechanisms among partners at country level and

globally. Both presentations and the main report will be in English, with a summary of conclusions and recommendations in French.

The questions leading the Process Evaluation and the Methodology to be followed are presented in Annex 1 and 2 below.

Annex 1: Leading Questions Effectiveness

Were outputs delivered as expected?

Were there constraints for the delivery of outputs?

Were these constraints anticipated?

47

Were there differences across sites?

Why did these differences occur?

Efficiency

How do implementation costs compare with similar (including quality) ‘resilience’ building interventions in the country / region?

Does the scale up approach lead to economies of scale?

How can unit costs per participant be substantially reduced without compromising quality?

Access:

Who accessed R4 outputs (gender, HH types)?

Have there been (social, economic, physical) barriers for accessing the products (insurance, savings, credit) by the target group?

How can the design of the products be adjusted to improve access?

Satisfaction:

How satisfied are R4 participants with the program and its components, including the timeliness of delivery?

How can different products and processes be improved to better meet the needs of participants?

Partnerships and coordination:

How well are local partnerships functioning (coordination, trust, relationships between R4 staff and partners)?

How can they be improved?

What additional criteria should be used in selecting partners?

Gender:

How are the experiences of male and female participants different? How can the program be implemented in a more gender-sensitive way?

Scaling up:

What are potential challenges to scaling up the initiative in the area selected?

What adjustments to the program will facilitate this?

Implications of inclusion of Cereal banks in the R4 strategy?

Annex 2: Methodology Document review:

Logical Framework Matrix and Theory Of Change

National and local assessments

Quarterly reports

Work plan

48

Expansion area and strategy

Other R4 documents and reports Secondary Analysis

Analysis of monitoring data on participation in program: trainings, DRR works, savings, credit, insurance take-up (all broken down by gender and amounts of $, with analysis of overlap among different R4 components).

Semi-structured interviews:

R4 Participants10

Non-participants2

Partners

Staff (field, CO and HQ)

Community leaders (chiefs, elected officials, CSOs)

Regional government leaders

Central level

WFP and Oxfam11

Relevant UN agencies

Donors (?)

Focus groups discussions:

Savings groups

DRR project teams

Insurance purchasers and non-purchasers

Staff

Project Site Visits

10

Randomly selected, though stratified sampling can be considered. 11

Consider preparing a questionnaire to consult R4 Global and National Team and institutional partners.

49

“P-FIM is fantastic in

successfully putting

people first.”

“P-FIM is fantastic in

successfully putting

people first.”

Annex 2 People First Impact Method (P-FiM) Summary

P-FIM is a simple low cost methodology that fully allows communities to speak for themselves, in identifying impact changes in their lives and what the drivers of impact difference are attributable to. In this way the starting point is people and communities and not organisations and projects. It is a powerful tool that highlights issues humanitarian and development agencies may often be poorly aware of. P-FiM as a mainstream approach and tool directly complements aspects of Sphere, the Good Enough Guide, Participatory Impact Assessment (Tufts) and HAP etc. P-FiM enables humanitarian actors to accurately ‘take the temperature’ in order to properly align interventions with local priority issues, ensure they are engaging properly and where they can have the greatest possible impact. P-FiM simply recognises the primary driving force of people and communities at all stages of an intervention as essential. It adds value to existing collaborative and inter-agency initiatives.

Potential P-FIM Benefits to Agencies:

(i) Impact measured in the context where a programme or programmes are delivered

(ii) A series of P-FIM actions will provide a basis for advocacy/mainstreaming of people first approaches.

P-FIM takes a representative geographical area (e.g. 1-5 year programme) of people and communities who are

getting on with their lives. Local people are trained on P-FiM who have basic development skills, understand

language and culture and are trusted locally. The method (i) enables a qualitative process where primary

changes are openly discussed with representative groups making up a community - whether positive, negative

or indifferent - and recorded (ii) the method then works backwards to determine in a quantitative way where

change is attributable to e.g. leadership in the community, government actions, local business, NGO, UN etc.

The method makes no assumptions about impact and what drives it - with often surprising impact results

revealed. It is community owned and driven. P-FiM fundamentally asks “So what?” questions . . . “So what

difference has that made to people’s lives?” and “who or what is responsible for the change or impact?”

There are two biases that often colour project and organisational impact evaluation approaches:

What impact are we actually having? Typically organisations and their programmes are the focus of

impact/ evaluation measurement to meet standard quality, accountability and donor requirements.

How can we know the actual impact of a project/programme if we only consider projects and

organisations? What about the depth and breadth of what is around the project or organisation in terms

of change impacts? P-FIM measures impact in the context of the project and as such, the impact of the

project can be tested.

While participatory approaches and accountability at community level are given increased importance, the

standard organisation/project focus is still emphasised by donors and agencies. A typical end of project impact

evaluation involves external (sometimes local) evaluators who carry out desk and field exercises to determine

the positive or negative qualitative and (mostly) quantitative impact achieved by a project (which in itself is

important). However, by over focusing on the organisation and project and the role of external evaluations -

the full honest views of local people and communities on what is working or not working (or whether correct

or needed in the first place) and what other factors (often not actions of the project) have caused impact - are

typically unheard or not considered.

Why People First Impact Method (P-FIM)? Our fundamental question is “Are we doing things right and are

we doing the right things?” To put this into a programme/project context, the assumption column of a

logframe requires that donors and agencies fully consider the wider context to ensure that proposed

programmes are relevant. In this way it can be said that ‘impact lives in the assumptions’ - weak assumptions

lead to inappropriate responses. P-FIM references ‘project cycle approaches’ and effectively links with other

50

evaluative / impact tools in humanitarian and development contexts. It is a simple methodology that can

bridge an essential gap within existing approaches.

The knowledge base and pedigree underpinning P-FiM draws on key concepts from Existentialist and

Personalist Philosophy, Psychosocial Methods and beyond. It is an integrated and holistic view of human

nature, freedom and potential - people’s needs and rights. Key concepts are: people come first; local

relationships of trust are fundamental; people have a right to life with dignity; a non agency centric and non

project approach facilitates objectivity and honesty; an integrated holistic appreciation of human development

is vital; quality and depth of respectful communication with people is essential.

Since 2010, 598 national front line staff from 240 organisations have been trained and engaged 5,602 community members in multiple inter-agency exercises as part of major evaluations and assessments convened by the European Commission, National Drought Management Authority (Kenya), FAO, Action of Churches Together (ACT Alliance), UNHCR, War Child Canada, War Child Holland, Norwegian Church Aid, Trocaire, Children in Crossfire, UNICEF, CARE, Save the Children, Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECBII), WFP and Global Communities in 8 countries – Senegal, Kenya, South Sudan, Haiti, Sudan (Darfur), Burundi, Gambia and Liberia. P-FiM has been referenced independently in major humanitarian learning reports and presented at international conferences on community voices / DRR / Climate change / Humanitarian standards / Global Evaluation Reviews.

For more information: contact@p-fim.org or http://www.linkedin.com/pub/people-first-impact-method-p-

fim/53/339/841

51

Annex 2 Field Exercise Participants

No. Name Position Name of Organisation

1 François KITAL Chef Division Genie Rurale Direction Régionale du Développement Rurale

2 Cheikh Sidy COLY Animateur CARITAS

3 Amy DIOP Agent de Développement CARITAS

4 Aissatou DIALLO Représentante communauté Communauté de Koussanar

5 Marie SOUARE Professeur Alphabétisation Représentante communauté

6 Mohamed SEYE Stagiaire PROGEDE

7 Fatoumata DIALLO Relais La Lumière

8 Thiané THIAM President Association des handicapés Association Régionale des Handicapés

9 Moussa SANE Membre Association des handicapés Association Régionale des Handicapés

10 Dagua DIALLO Conseiller polyvalent Bamtaare/Sodefitex

11 Ousseynou SAKHO Relais Bamtaare/Sodefitex

12 Boubacar DABO Directeur regional de la jeunesse et des operations de secours

Croix Rouge

13 Youssouf DIEDHIOU

Enseignant secouriste Croix Rouge

14 Coumba GINDO Member GPF Comité consultatif des femmes

15 Seynabou NDAO Membre GPF Comité consultatif des femmes

16 Kéba Bourama DIATTA

Agent technique Services des Eaux et forêts

17 Estella NAKOUYE Employée Sama Mbéy

18 Ali Bocar ANNE Agent de Suivi Agence Régionale de Développement

19 Evelyne BENDIA Représentante Présidente GPF Groupement des femmes bassari de Koussanar

20 Agnes MANE Représentante Présidente GPF Groupement des femmes Catholiques de Koussanar

21 Mamadou Lamine DABO

Etudiant SCHOOL?

22 Martial FAYE Etudiant SCHOOL?

23 Khady DIOUF Etudiant SCHOOL?

24 Madeleine DIOUF Etudiant SCHOOL?

52

Annex 3 Key Informant Interviews

No. Name Position Name of Organisation

1 Dr. Bakayoko Tech. Advisor Min. Agriculture Office Prime Minister

2 Inge Breuer Country Director WFP

3 Ebrima Sonko Country Director Oxfam

4 Tenin Fatimata Dicko Snr. Prog. Officer R4 Oxfam

5 Natalie Manga MEL Officer Oxfam

6 Aliou Bassoum Reg. Communication & Advocacy Officer Oxfam

7 Mamadou Wane National Prog. Officer R4 WFP

8 Robert Dekker Head of Programmes WFP

9 Jean-Noel Gentille Prog. Policy Officer WFP Rome

10 Phillipe Crahay Resilience and Prevention Unit Consultant WFP Rome

11 Isabelle Confession M&E Officer WFP

12 Cheikh Wade M&E Assistant WFP

13 Amadou Ndiaye Director General CNAAS

14 Omar Diouf Proj. Officer CNASS

15 Yacine Fall Training & Distribution Expert PlaNet Guarantee

16 Galine Yanon Index Expert Assistant PlaNet Guarantee

17 Wanja Kaaria Dep. Country Director WFP

18 Amayel Sow R4 Prog. Assistant WFP

19 Fabio Bedini R4 Prog. Advisor WFP Rome

20 Bibata Sankar Head Sub. Office WFP Tambacounda

21 Florence Ndour R4 Focal Point WFP Tambacounda

22 William Dick Insurance Expert Independent Consultant

23 Niels Balzar Risk Transfer Advisor WFP

24 Sophia Belay R4 Global Lead Oxfam

25 Digane Joof R4 local coordinator CADL

26 Sada Niane Resp. Suivi & Evaluation ANCAR

27 Mamadou Ndiaw Resp. Suivi & Evaluation WFP SO

28 Lansana Diedhiou WFP SO

29 Mare Ndiaye Delegue INP Tambacounda

30 Fary Der Thiam R4 Point Focal PAPIL

31 Djiby Tamsa President Com. Gest. Dawady

32 Abelau Karin Yafa PAPIL

33 Bady Ndao Relais Communautaire Com. Gest. Kouthiacoto

34 Cheikh Sadibou Sy Chef du Service Financier (DG ai) ANCAR

35 Babacar Kebe Responable Suivi & Evaluation ANCAR

36 Khaly Sylla Responable de Capitalisation ANCAR

37 Pape Diagne Technical Director INP

38 Thiendella Babou Agent Comptable Particulier INP

39 Younoussa Mballo Coordinateur National du PAPIL PAPIL

40 M. Ballo Directeur PAPIL

41 PAPIL

42 Ousman Ndiaye Chef de Department Climat ANASIM

43 Oumar Konte Chef Service Climatologique ANASIM

53

“P-FIM is fantastic in

successfully putting

people first.”

“P-FIM is fantastic in

successfully putting

people first.”

Annex 4 Validation Workshop Participants

No. Name Postion Name of Organisation

1 Issa Amadou Ndiaye Directeur General ANCAR

2 Aliou Bassoum Charge de Communication / Plaidoyer Oxfam

3 Arona Doumbia RSEC pi PAPIL

4 Tenin Fatimata Dicko Snr. Prog. Officer R4 Oxfam

5 Diabel Ndiaye Chef Bureau Climat Application ANACIM

6 Aliou Bassoum Reg. Communication & Advocacy Officer Oxfam

7 Mamadou Wane National Prog. Officer R4 WFP

8 Robert Dekker Head of Programmes WFP

9 Moustapha Fall Directeur General Ajoint CNAAS

10 Malick Ndowe Conseiller Politique R4 Oxfam

11 Mamadou Dabo Chargee de Programme PAM

12 Bakalilou Diaby Chargee de Programme DR PAM

13 Amadou Ndiaye Director General CNAAS

14 Fatouma Diadie HOSO Ziguinchor PAM

15 Ousmane Badju Chargee de Programme PAM

16 Galine Yanon Index Expert Assistant PlaNet Guarantee

17 Fabio Bedini R4 Prog. Advisor WFP Rome

18 Bibata Sankar Head Sub. Office WFP Tambacounda

19 Florence Ndour R4 Focal Point WFP Tambacounda

54

Annex 5 Action Centered Leadership Model (John Adair)

Team

Task

Individual

55

Annex 6 Ownership and motivation around decisions

Leader decides

Leader presents decision

Leader consults

Team participates

56

Peak

Feeling & Emotions

Ideas & Judgement

Fact and Data

Greetings and Small Talk

Withdrawal

© This version People First Impact Method 2013

Annexe 7 Communication Pyramid

57

Annex 8 Model of Team Working Development (based on Tuckman)

Forming

Storming

Reforming

Performing

58

Annex 9 Herzberg's Motivators

and Hygiene Factors

company policy and administration

relationship with peers salary

work conditions relationship with supervisor

supervision

personal life

relationship with subordinates status security

achievement

recognition

work itself

responsibility

advancement

personal growth

'motivators'

'hygiene' (or 'maintenance') factors

Hygiene factors are merely a launch pad - when damaged or undermined we have no

platform, but in themselves they do not motivate.

© alan chapman 2001-4