empowering women and girls affected by migration for

EMPOWERING WOMEN AND GIRLS AFFECTED BY MIGRATION 1

Empowering Women and Girls Affected by Migration for Inclusive and Peaceful Community Development

Baseline Assessment

Analytical Report UN Organizations: IOM, ILO, UN Women Consultant Organization: M-Vector

Bishkek 2020

Photos made by M-Vector research team within assessment upon receiving personal consent


CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................ 7

II. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE BASELINE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................ 11

2.1. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................... 11

2.2. TARGET GROUP, KEY INFORMANTS AND LOCAL ACTIVISTS...................................................................................... 13

2.3. MIXED METHOD APPROACH AND SAMPLE ............................................................................................................... 15

2.3.1. Outline and assumptions ...................................................................................................................................15

2.3.2. Sample frames and sample design ....................................................................................................................15

2.3.3. Quantitative survey sample size calculation .....................................................................................................16

2.3.4. Qualitative research sample ..............................................................................................................................18

2.3.5. Sampling approach ............................................................................................................................................19

2.3.6 COVID-19 adjustments approach .......................................................................................................................22

2.4. DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ....................................................................................... 23

2.4.1. Data collection ...................................................................................................................................................23

2.4.2. Data analysis ......................................................................................................................................................24

2.4.3. Quality control protocols...................................................................................................................................26

2.5. LEVELS OF CHANGES FOR ASSESSMENT.................................................................................................................... 27

III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. RESULTS OF INDICATORS’ ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 28

GENDER EQUALITY AND HARMFUL GENDER NORMS ...................................................................................................... 28

PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PEACEBUILDING INITIATIVES ..................................................... 29

KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND SOCIAL SERVICES ............................................................................... 30

ACCESS TO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................. 32

GENDER-RESPONSIVE PLANNING AND PEACEBUILDING ................................................................................................. 32

BASELINE INDICATORS ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 35

IV. HOUSEHOLD AND INDIVIDUAL PROFILES FOR THE BASELINE ............................................................................... 38

4.1. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................................ 38

4.2. RESPONDENTS’ SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE ...................................................................................................... 41

4.3. MIGRATION EXPERIENCE .......................................................................................................................................... 46


V. GENDER EQUALITY AND HARMFUL GENDER NORMS ........................................................................................... 50

Outcome Indicator 1a - Proportion (%) of the population (men and women) who support gender equality and stand

against harmful gender norms concerning women in migrant communities. ................................................................. 50

VI. GENDER PERCEPTIONS IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ................................................... 58

A. Outcome Indicator 1b – the % of target community members (men and women) who believe that women affected

by migration play a positive role AND contribute to peacebuilding and community development ............................... 58

B. Output Indicator 1.1 - % of community members who report increased awareness on the role of women and girls

in community development and peacebuilding .............................................................................................................. 63

VII. PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PEACEBUILDING INITIATIVES ......................................... 67

A. Outcome Indicator 2a - % of women from the target group participating in peacebuilding initiatives ...................... 67

B. Output Indicator 2.1.4 - # of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected by migration. ................... 72

VIII. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND SOCIAL SERVICES................................................................... 75

A. Outcome Indicator 2b - % of women from the target group who refer to social services for protect. of their rights 75

B. Output Indicator 2.1 – the % of women and girls from target communities who are equipped with knowledge and

skills on how to advocate for their rights ......................................................................................................................... 83

IX. ACCESS TO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................... 89

Outcome Indicator 2c: % of women from target groups with (“who have” for the baseline) increased access to

economic and community development opportunities. ................................................................................................. 89

X. GENDER-RESPONSIVE PLANNING AND PEACEBUILDING ....................................................................................... 95

A. Outcome Indicator 3b - # of target municipalities, which support women and girls affected by migration through

consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding ................................................................................. 95

B. Outcome Indicator 3c - # of target municipalities who claim to be applying gender-responsive peacebuilding

principles in support of women’s participation in community development (LAPs) ..................................................... 100

C. Output Indicator 3.2.1 - # of Local Action Plans were claimed to be developed on gender-sensitive PB 104

XI. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENDLINE ........................................................................ 106

XII. ANNEXES TO THE DOCUMENT ........................................................................................................................... 117

ANNEX 1. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS (TOOLKIT) ............................................................................................... 117

ANNEX 2. DATASET WEIGHTING APPROACH ................................................................................................................. 143

ANNEX 3. INDICATORS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................... 146


ACRONYMS

AO Ayil Okmotu (Region or Cluster) BPFA Beijing Platform for Action CC Coordination Committee CD Community Development CEDAW Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 CPA Conflict and Peace Analysis FGD Focus Group Discussion GALS Gender Action and Learning System

GDF Gender Dimensions Framework

GPsI Gender Parity Sub-Index GPI Genuine Progress Indicator HH Household ILO International Labour Organization JIA Association of legal entities (Business Association) IOM International Organization for Migration KPI Key Performance Indicator LAP Local Action Plan

LSG/LSGB Local Self-Government/Bodies

M&E Monitoring and Assessment M/F Male/Female NAP National Action Plan NGO Nongovernmental organization

NSC National Statistical Committee of the Kyrgyz Republic

PB Peacebuilding PPP Peacebuilding Priority Plan PSUs Primary Sample Units PWD People with Disabilities RUNOs Recipient UN Organizations SALGA State Agency for Local Self-Government and Interethnic Relations under the Government of the Kyrgyz Republic SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences SRS Simple Random Sample UN United Nations UNSCR United Nations Security Council Resolution UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund WAM Women Affected by Migration WEAI Women‘s Empowerment in Agriculture Index WHO World Health Organization


DISCLAIMER The Baseline assessment for the Empowering Women and Girls Affected by Migration for Inclusive and Peaceful Community Development project was implemented by M-Vector Research and Consulting Company Kyrgyz Republic from November to December 2020. The funding for the baseline was provided by United Nations (UN) Women, International Labour Organization (ILO), and the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The assessment will serve as a benchmark for establishing the baseline indicators across the planned changes. The baseline data helped inform management decisions on the overall interventions of Recipient UN Organizations (RUNOs) and its partners in Kyrgyz Republic. The assessment fits into the broader project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework and serves as a basis for RUNO’s broader M&E plan. Additional information about the Baseline assessment for the project in Kyrgyz Republic may be obtained from the following organizations: UN Women 195 Kievskaya Street, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic IOM Business Center Victory at Ibraimov 103, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic ILO 197, Tynystanova Street, Bishkek, Kyrgyz Republic Recommended citation: Nail Haybulin, M-Vector Company, Baseline assessment for “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for inclusive and peaceful community development”, December 2020. All rights to this publication belong to UN Women, ILO, and the IOM. The views expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of UN Women, ILO, or the IOM.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This assessment is a result of the interaction, contribution, and support of many people and organizations. The authors would like to thank RUNOs team members Mamatova Diana, Boronbaeva Aijan, Aitkurmanova Anara, Khamidova Dildora, Meimankanova Aisuluu, and Atambiev Almaz for their supervision and counseling in undertaking difficulties during the research toolkit development, data collection, processing, and analysis, as well as for their overall support in the framework of this Baseline assessment. Different state and nongovernmental institutions were involved in the data collection process. Their activities are closely interconnected with the tasks and objectives of the project and opinions were examined and incorporated in this document. Partners’ inputs were considered during the whole course of data collection activities. Among those who presented important strategic information and served as key informants for the assessment were Kasymalieva Aida, Forum of Women Parliamentarians, Bishkek; Urmat Janaliev, JIA Business Association Labour and Employment Committee Associate, Bishkek; Achikeeva Cholpon Chekirovna, Head of Organizational Work, Methodological and Information Support Department, State Agency on Local Self-Government (LSG) and Interethnic Relations, Bishkek; Mambetova Toktokan, “Omur Bulagy” public fund director, Batken; Temirbekova Gulmira, Head of the Center for the Development of Civil Initiatives “Aikol,” Talas; and Zholoeva Nurgul, “Aimira” Project Coordinator, Jalalabad. The report was prepared by M-Vector‘s assessment team in close interaction with RUNOs team members. M-Vector executives were Nail Haybulin (Company Director), Vicktoriya Akchurina (Head of Research Department), Margarita Dmitrieva (Fieldwork Manager), Kseniya Boldyreva (Data Processing Manager), Vitaliy Dergunov (Monitoring and Assessment Expert, Senior Analyst), Daniyar Bogachiev (Senior Analyst), Ekaterina Voronova (Analyst), and Kamila Sulaimanova (Analyst).

http://m-vector.com/en/


I. INTRODUCTION Problem statement When elaborating the joint proposal, IOM, UN Women and ILO took into consideration the results of the 2016 UN-led nationwide Gender in Society Perception Study on Women and Labor Migration1 (GSPS) with over 350 respondents to ensure that the proposed joint intervention is fully aligned and will address the main recommendations of the GSPS Study, related to the (i) provision of greater state support and advice to potential migrant workers and returnees to ensure they know their rights and can access services including health care, social insurance, civil documentation (such as birth registration) and legal aid; (ii) awareness-raising campaigns on the feminization of migration and the positive contributions that migration can make to the development-rights nexus to address popular negative perceptions of women working abroad; and (iii) support for mentoring schemes and networks between successful women migrants and women who are considering working abroad; support women’s self-help groups to be able to claim their rights and improve their access to empowerment opportunities. The below description of the problem statement and analysis derive mainly from the results of GSPS report but also additional data from national consultations and few other sources. In total, 59.6%2 of all labor migrants from Kyrgyzstan (approximately 476,800 people) are women. Most of them come from less privileged social backgrounds and from Southern provinces of Kyrgyz Republic. The main drivers of migration among women and men are similar: poverty, unemployment and community tensions over resources, power, market/sales information and other. However, according to GSPS report women are more vulnerable to being forced by their families to migrate; this constitutes the main reason for women’s migration.

In addition, GSPS found that women and girls are perceived differently in terms of family and community stereotypes. Often forced to migrate to work abroad, they are perceived as more enduring, hardworking and willing to make sacrifices for their family. Women, girls and their family members perceive migration for their families’ well-being as a last resort solution, due to economic and financial necessity, rather than the expression of their fully personal free and independent will. Families also perceive migration for their daughters as the only way to escape from gendered risks and vulnerabilities at home, including kidnapping for the purpose of forced marriage (bride kidnapping) or post-divorce stigmatization, not seeing any other options including employment opportunities at the local level. As a result, girls and women forced to migrate face a highly uncertain future during migration and face the risks of becoming victims of potential conflict or violence if they stay in their community. Women returned from labor migration after divorce or because of other reasons become stigmatized in their communities for so called “immoral behavior” and are psychologically and economically isolated in households where they reside. Consequently, families’ desire to avoid stigma and social isolation forces women to ‘settle’ in the country of migration permanently. In other words, the reasons which provoke migration of women and girls from their communities turn into causes for their systematic exclusion and negative attitudes upon their return home. GSPS results also highlight that forced migration of women and girls is connected to the level of gender-based discrimination and violence against women, which is why an increase of forced migration is observed in southern provinces of Kyrgyz Republic, where traditional patriarchal views on women’s role dominate on top of conflict tensions leading to gender-based violence. Both at the community and family levels, women’s role is often limited to being an obedient wife, housewife or caring mother. Women are considered to “belong” to male family members, with young women and girls at risk of being kidnapped for the purpose of marriage or being burdened with disproportionate chores in their households. Women’s opinions on public matters are generally valued less, with men taking responsibility for decision-making and community leadership roles. These harmful gender norms and stereotypes are being imposed on women and girls affected by migration as well. Thus, because of entrenched gender roles and perceptions in society on what women can do, women migrants are limited in decision-making and accessing resources throughout the whole migration circle. First, girls and women are forced to

1 Gender in Society Perception Study on Women and Labour Migration, 2016, UN Women/IOM/UNFPA, available at:

https://eca.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/04/gender-in-society-perception-study-kyrgyz-republic 2 Conflict and Peace Analysis Report for Kyrgyzstan (unpublished), 2019, PeaceNexus


migrate to support the livelihood of their families. Due to scarce knowledge about migration women become more vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking during migration and are obliged to send most of their income back in their country of origin to support their families and households. Many studies that confirm women are not allowed to decide how to spend their remittances; these decisions are made by family members, particularly by household heads (men), which means that women-migrants do not gain an ownership over their earnings during migration. Upon return from migration, women and girls often lack recognition for their hard-earned money from their families either. Once they return, they commonly get assigned hard work within the household without any recognition or credits. Even though the government and migrant communities recognize the importance of remittances as a crucial source of income for the families and the development of the country, women migrants, who make up a majority of labor migrants, generally are not recognized for their contribution even though the remittances gender gap has been closed. Similarly, communities rarely recognize women’s ability and rights to participate in decision-making and conflict resolution efforts. Eventually, excluded from decision-making, gaining insufficient recognition from family members or their community, often stigmatized and at times forced to leave back to the country of migration, women migrants and girls forced to migrate seem to be completely removed from their community’s life. Despite the disproportionate effects that violence, exclusion and migration have on women, exacerbated by harmful gender norms in the community, unfavorable attitudes of the community to recognize women’s rights, other obstacles to women’s full participation in community development and conflict prevention initiatives, economic barriers (low differential access/control of financial resources), gendered poverty caused by inequitable division of labor between men and women and community discord create a lack of understanding of the gendered drivers of conflict and the importance of women’s participation and potential in community development in Kyrgyz Republic. Gender-based discrimination of women and girls resulting increased migration outflows can exacerbate conflicts at the community level. According to CPA (2019), there is a strong correlation between increased returned migration and the spread of conflicts in communities. Communities with increased return migration became more prone to conflicts due to social disbalance characterized by youth and women isolation and stigmatization. This leads to non-inclusive decision making, pervasive marginalization or underrepresented groups, non-representative power structures and increased incidents of discriminatory practices which can give a rise to community tensions and intercommunity conflict including examples of multi-ethnic communities in Osh and Jalalabad or cross-border communities in Batken province. Such communities are characterized by lack of women’s inclusion in conflict prevention due to increased migration outflows among women and girls and unequal distribution of power and economic resources towards male domination. They are more vulnerable to conflicts and to the further escalation of community tensions since women can act as engines of peace in conflict resolution as well as in preventing conflicts. As an example, during the tensions that broke out in March 2019 along the border between Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan causing two deaths and large-scale displacement, activists and women from the affected communities reported that women were generally not informed about the situation and were excluded from peace negotiations. On the other hand, conflict risks include tensions between home communities and returning migrants, including women and girls, over the scarce of resources and frustration with lack of prospects can also undermine peacebuilding efforts in the country. Given the country’s multiple political and economic challenges, the significant impact of women’s leadership and participation in ensuring sustainable peacebuilding and conflict prevention and resolution has been proven by the review of the NAP on UNSCR 1325 implementation (2018) which states that women serve as an engine of peace (peacekeepers). The Kyrgyz Republic has ratified major international conventions on women's rights and gender equality and occupies a leading position in the sub-region of Central Asia in developing a national legal framework on women's rights in compliance with international standards. The Kyrgyz Republic reaffirmed the implementation of international obligations in its Agenda 2030, through the nationalization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It established the Coordination Committee (CC) on SDGs involving national experts on key dimensions of the Agenda 2030 in governance, economy, social development, gender equality and environmental sustainability, to identify national priorities, objectives and indicators. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol ratified in 1997 and 2007 is a binding international treaty that guarantees the equality of men and women and prohibits gender-based discrimination. The Beijing Platform for Action (BPFA) was adopted in 1995, and the National Action Plan on UN SCR Women, Peace and Security 1325 is being implemented since 2013.


Overall, the national consultations with state partners contributed to identify challenges and needs to be addressed in Kyrgyzstan:

• There is a lack of institutional capacity to tackle migration related issues targeting women and girls, and a poor alignment of migration national policies to peace and conflict prevention.

• Women migrants are increasingly advocating for their rights while voicing the challenges they face during and post migration, including stigma from families and communities; women migrants pledge for a better recognition from both the authorities and the society, for their sacrifices and contribution, including through remittances.

• While the Kyrgyz government recognizes the issues related to migration among women and girls, including returning women migrants, and the challenges of harmful gender norms in the community, there is a lack of understanding of the role and contribution that women and girls can bring to peacebuilding and community development.

• The coordination between state bodies, local authorities and communities on the field of gender, migration and peacebuilding is minimal. There is no government agency coordination mechanism to register and provide assistance to returning migrants, including women and girls, and there is no state program to ensure their sustainable reintegration on community level.

Overall, based on the results of the problem analysis as per above, the dynamics of migration in and out of localities where exclusion and marginalization prevail create particular vulnerabilities for two specific groups of women and girls affected by migration: a) Girls and women, who have less control over the decision to migrate than men due to harmful gender norms, are often

forced to migrate by their families, often have no information and have not reached the level of self-decision-making and independence; and girls and women, who consider potential migration in future

b) Women returning from migration to their communities of origin, including women who return as a result of divorce or

family break-up, are forced to find resources to take care of children, become victims of post-divorce stigmatization from family members and are forced to re-migrate

Project background IOM (leading), ILO and UN Women are jointly implementing a project under the Women, Peace and Security portfolio: “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for inclusive and peaceful community development”. The project duration is between 25 November 2019 and 22 May 2021. The project is funded by the UN Peacebuilding Fund. This joint project proposes a comprehensive approach to promote a community and policy environment favorable to women's and girls’ empowerment and their active involvement in peacebuilding as well as inclusive community development in communities affected by migration and prone to conflict in the Kyrgyz Republic, and particularly in Osh, Jalalabad, Batken, and Talas provinces. The overall goal of the project is to make a tangible contribution to peacebuilding in target provinces of Kyrgyz Republic by promoting the full recognition of the role of women and girl migrants in inclusive community development and peacebuilding. Given the fact that feminization of migration has grown rapidly for the past 5 years3, the project aims to work at different levels, including: a) The community level, by working with community members to change public perception and social norms and build a

community environment favorable to women migrants’ engagement in peacebuilding b) The policy level to introduce gender responsive policies recognizing the role of women migrants and their contributions

and c) With women and girls migrants to empower their participation in community development, decision-making and

peacebuilding initiatives at the local level.

3 International Migrant Stock, 2015, UNDESA, available at: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.asp

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/data/estimates2/estimates15.asp


The underpinning logic of the project is based on the consideration, based on GSPS results, that migration of women and girls constitutes a destabilizing factor for social cohesion and creates visible barriers to women’s engagement in peacebuilding in the country as whole. Purpose and scope of the baseline assessment – in brief M-Vector research and consulting company was hired to conduct a baseline assessment for the “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for inclusive and peaceful community development” project. The overall objective of the baseline assessment was to establish the baseline of seven outcomes and four output indicators in the project logic framework. The baseline assessment was implemented in the selected project localities - six target municipalities (Ayil Okmotus) of Batken (Kadamjai district), Jalalabad (Suzak district), Osh (Nookat district) and Talas (Kara-Bura district) provinces. The assessment applied mixed-method methodology with qualitative and quantitative approaches. Target populations included women and girls affected by migration, community members, community level decision makers and activists (such as social workers, women’s council representatives, local leaders, representatives of elderly courts and other), representatives of LSGs, national partners and local NGOs. Overall the baseline interviewed 1,500 respondents through the quantitative survey, 64 participants through 8 FGDs, and 12 participants through in-depth interviews. More detailed methodology of the baseline assessment, including information on populations approached for data collection and the sampling strategy, is presented below under the Section II Design and Methodology for the Baseline Assessment. The timeline for the baseline assessment was shifted and aligned to the project timeline due to epidemiological situation with COVID-19 and political turbulence in the country. With that after the prolonged inception phase of the project, the implementation phase started in September 2020. The baseline assessment was launched in October 2020, with data being concluded in November 2020 and prior to the start of project interventions in target locations (note: from project activities only project assessments were started to be designed at that time). Initial analysis and results of the baseline were made available in December 2020 with the aim to inform project relevant stakeholders. The baseline will serve as a benchmark for assessing the changes brought about by the project interventions. The baseline data informs management decisions on the overall interventions of IOM, ILO, UN WOMEN (RUNOs) and their partners in Kyrgyz Republic as the assessment fits into the broader program M&E framework and informs RUNOs' broader M&E plan. The data collected during the Baseline assessment will also inform and shape interventions by RUNOs at the regional and national level in accelerating the implementation of the 2017-2020 Peacebuilding Priority Plan (PPP), while addressing the outcomes of the review of the National Action Plan (NAP) on UN SCR 1325 implementation.


II. DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE BASELINE ASSESSMENT

2.1. PURPOSE, OBJECTIVES, AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT The Baseline assessment was implemented in the selected six target municipalities (ayil okmotus/AOs) of Batken (Kadamjai district), Jalalabad (Suzak district), Osh (Nookat district) and Talas (Kara-Bura district) provinces where the

project will be completed in 2021. Detailed information on the selected municipalities is provided in the methodology

section. M-Vector executed the following activities within the preparation and implementation stages:

Activity 1: Conducted a desk review to understand project rationale, design, and context and produced an inception report for carrying out the baseline assessment. M-Vector audited all project indictors and confirmed the final list of 11 indicators to be assessed. Selected indicators were discussed and approved by the RUNOs Project Management Team.

Activity 2: Designed a baseline assessment plan/methodology. Given the complexity of the context and information required, M-Vector deployed a mixed-method approach, focusing on collecting and analyzing qualitative and quantitative information using a set of appropriate up-to-date techniques: interviews, surveys and focus group discussions (FGDs) with stakeholders and project beneficiaries, secondary data review techniques relevant for collecting the required information, and monitoring activities.

The Baseline assessment is based on comprehensive gender-sensitive qualitative and quantitative data (with gender and age disaggregation) used for analysis to determine the value of each outcome/output indicator at the project start according to the project result matrix and the planned activities.

Activity 3: Development of data collection instruments in Russian language in line with the project outcome/output indicators including the qualitative and quantitative questionnaires, and interview and focus group discussion guides. All the data collection tools were translated into Kyrgyz and Uzbek languages prior to the fieldwork for data collection. An English version of the toolkits was provided to RUNOs after approval of the Russian version.

Activity 4: Extensive testing and discussion was conducted to validate the quality and comprehension of the toolkit. For example, for a survey questionnaire, in addition to discussions within the research team, a series of test interviews were carried out. Test interviews were not inherently different from actual fieldwork interviews. The only difference is that the interviews were aimed at testing the respondent’s behavior: understanding of the questions, availability of answers, and readiness and willingness to conduct a conversation. After the pilot was conducted, the questionnaire were adjusted and agreed with RUNOs.

Activity 5: Fieldwork – collecting gender and conflict-sensitive data in the six target municipalities across Osh, Jalalabad,

Batken, and Talas provinces with the focus on the individual, environmental, and institutional levels, where applicable.

The collected data was disaggregated by gender, age, and vulnerability where possible. All data was collected, stored, and shared in line with the relevant Data Protection Policy and M-Vector’s data protection practices, following the company’s ethics standards.

Activity 6: Producing the first and second draft baseline assessment (analytical) reports and organizing a debriefing. Producing the first draft baseline assessment report with clear baseline estimates of eleven (11) outcomes/output indicators according to appropriate format and data request. Organizing a debriefing with the Project Management Team, M&E Specialist, and PBF Secretariat and collecting feedback, oral and written. Before the analysis was carried out and conclusions were drawn, all information obtained during the fieldwork went through a technical and logical quality check. Technical verification provides checks for mandatory presence of answers where they should be, and logical verification implies an assessment of the accuracy and relevance of the answers from the point of view of the question asked (whether the respondent answered the correct question, did he/she understand the essence of the answer, how the answer to one question correlates with other questions etc.). Also, at the initial stage, before the analysis of the quantitative study was carried out, the database was checked for correct distribution of respondents in each AO by gender and age compared to the official statistical distribution. This is to ensure that each group of respondents is represented in the sample in the same degree as it is present in the general population. Weighting was done in SPSS software. The weighted calculation approach is described (with weight values) in Annex 3 to this report.


For each chapter of this report a certain outcome/output-level indicator is assigned with the list of questions used from the quantitative survey questionnaire and qualitative guides. The summary of each analysis section presents the total value of the indicator in regards to the migration status and AO distribution parameters, as well as the indicator value for the overall project intervention area. Additional breakdowns of indicator values regarding vulnerability, income level, and other socioeconomic parameters, were done on RUNOs’ request. Activity 7: Producing this final version of the baseline assessment report in English, incorporating feedback/comments from Project Management Team, M&E Specialist, and PBF Secretariat and preparing the final baseline assessment report.


2.2. TARGET GROUP, KEY INFORMANTS, AND LOCAL ACTIVISTS The project did not have a specific description of target groups and community members/local activists, only a general idea. Thus, the assessment team composed the following definition at the inception (desk review) phase of the assessment. In accordance with the purpose and objectives of the baseline assessment, the specifics of the project and the theory of change, definitions of the target group of respondents were drawn up and engaged with a survey mixed-

method methodology to be representatively captured. All data was disaggregated by the following groups (if applicable)

during the analysis and writing stage: A. Quantitative component respondent groups, providing numeric assessment to output and outcome-level indicators: 1. Women and girls affected by migration (WAM). This target beneficiary group consists of two sub-groups:

a) Potential migrant women and girls: Women and girls aged 15+ who lived most of the past year (the previous 12 months) in a rural settlement who were willing and/or forced to migrate to another country or region within the country for work in the next 12 months.

b) Returned migrant women and girls aged 15+ (returnees, regular or irregular, remigration): Women and girls living most of their lives in Kyrgyz Republic, who are at their place of residence (village) at the moment of survey, who have been abroad for work (not tourism, education, etc.) in the past 3 years.

2. Community members, key informants, and community-level decision makers:

a) Local population (community members) aged 15+ in the program implementation area (target communities), men (and boys) and women (and girls).

b) Men and boys in targeted communities to be engaged in awareness-raising activities including Gender Action and Learning System (GALS) activities.

c) Migrant family members – this is not a specific/separate target group with specific project activities, but they will be engaged as family members of the target group (women and girls affected by migration) in the GALS activities of the project, awareness raising activities, and trainings on entrepreneurship.

3. Other vulnerable categories prone to labour migration were defined during the data collection and delivered as a

sub-group criterion for the analysis. The following vulnerability criteria were considered in the baseline: a) Household/personal income level (monetary) b) Income sources (migrant remittances, pensions, social insurance) c) Number of children/people at the household (families with many children) d) Oppression of rights of women and girls in the household/in community, disempowerment e) Education/skill level f) Access to justice/public services/having necessary documentation (registration) g) Household, headed by a woman h) Divorced/widow i) Girl without parent(s) (orphan) j) Employment status (unemployed) k) Job contract applicable (formal/informal status) l) Disability status (PWD – Persons with Disabilities) m) Access to irrigation water

To reveal the status of these criteria, additional questions were included in the questionnaire to make sure the vulnerability analysis would be possible in the report and for disaggregation of indicators. For the qualitative support of findings and gender context description, the following key informants and implementing partners of the Project were identified and involved in the qualitative component assessment: Group participants 1 for focus group discussions (FGDs):

1. Social workers 2. Deputies of the local assembly / local kenesh / councils


3. Women’s council representatives 4. Local leaders / activists of communities / civic activists 5. Social pedagogues from schools 6. Representatives of aksakal courts 7. Representatives of the youth committee 8. Migration fund representatives (if present in localities)

Group participants 2 for FGDs:

1. Potential migrant women and girls and returned migrant women and girls (mixed focus groups) Group participants 3 for in-depth interviews (IDIs):

1. State Agency on Local Self-Government (LSG) and Interethnic relations 2. JIA Business Association (Bishkek) 3. Forum of Women Parliamentarians 4. Heads or representatives of LSGs 5. Local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)

Target groups definitions were designed and approved by RUNOs. M-Vector detailed groups’ identification and recruitment principles and interviewing aspects in the survey toolkit (questionnaire and guides). (See Annex 1.)


2.3. MIXED-METHOD APPROACH AND SAMPLE

2.3.1. Outline and assumptions The assessment team provided a statistically sound approach for the baseline assessment, considering methodology for the baseline will be used in the future assessment (Endline) to capture the Project’s progress in achieving community recognition and support for women’s and girls’ role and contribution to PB and CD. The methodology design will allow the survey team to document contributing factors driving changes in the project implementation area at the overall population and project beneficiary levels, separating project-related factors from non-project effects. It will make it possible to provide a pure endline assessment on the project’s impact, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability, using a mixed-methods qualitative and quantitative approach. The survey design focused on gender (age and sex) aspects when designing the toolkit, sample design, and data collection methods. M-Vector proposes the following number of assumptions and compromises to be applied and perceived in the baseline survey methodology in reporting, highlighting some of the aspects of assessment design and limitations of the survey:

1. When selecting potential participants from the individuals/households listed in each sample unit (settlement), the survey team had no personal data or contact information about them and used a simple random selection approach.

2. A proportionally distributed sample (size) approach was used in each cluster (AO) for the baseline in order to elaborate a larger sample portion for the larger villages (in terms of population size) for more precise estimation, and to avoid overestimating small villages.

3. A fixed size approach was used, assigning each AO the same number of observations. This required data weighting procedures applied prior to data analysis to correct non-representativeness of the sample (adjust the distribution of population across AOs according to the general population). Capturing the project objectives, the following criteria were applied for weighting requirements:

● Regional/district distribution of population ● Age intervals ● Gender of the respondents

The data frame for weight calculation was taken from official statistics from the National Statistics Committee census data (2019 round).

4. The baseline approach will allow to create a panel sample, capturing changes and reasons of these changes in given households, settlements, districts and provinces (more proximity) in the future assessments (Endline).

5. The research process used gender analysis frameworks (Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index, Gender

Analysis, and Gender Dimensions Framework). Assessment methods, including household selection and interview where appropriate, were random and relevant to both women and men.

6. Mixed-methods were applied (quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and analytical approaches) to provide different types of data from different points of views on matters related to the project.

7. The research team ensured the collection and analysis of gender-sensitive and age-disaggregated data (men/women and age groups 15–24, 25–54, and 55+).

8. The assessment team does not perceive it necessary to use control/treatment group breakdown at the baseline. The point of the baseline is to measure the start point (baseline outcomes) for further follow-up and Endline assessment, not to compare control/treatment status at the baseline.

2.3.2. Sample frames and sample design The assessment team used census data in each province to design sampling frames. The sampling frames are the lists of each settlement (village) including the following information:

✔ The macro-stratum, which included top-level administrative units (provinces, districts, and AO information)

✔ The rural substratum containing the list of all rural settlements in all macro-strata

✔ The settlement’s population size, with gender and age breakdowns


Table 2.3.1. The outline of the sample frame (general numbers)4

Province District Ayil Okmotu

(municipality) Settlement

Population, # of people 15+

Men5 Women

15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54 55+

Batken Kadamjai Ak-Tupak Jany Jer 3 535 486 1 051 276 445 965 312

Batken Kadamjai Ak-Tupak Min Chinar 4 449 612 1 322 348 560 1 214 392

Subtotal: 7 984 1 098 2 373 624 1 006 2 179 704

Batken Kadamjai Orozbekov Uchkun 1 263 174 375 99 159 345 111

Batken Kadamjai Orozbekov Kuduk 942 130 280 74 119 257 83

Subtotal: 2 205 303 655 172 278 602 194

Osh Nookat Tolos Murkut 3 887 535 1 131 290 512 1 075 344

Osh Nookat Tolos Merkit 3 746 516 1 090 279 493 1 036 331

Subtotal: 7 633 1 051 2 222 569 1 005 2 111 675

Osh Nookat Bel Bel 5 066 698 1 475 377 667 1 401 448

Osh Nookat Bel Borbash 7 028 968 2 046 523 925 1 944 622

Subtotal: 12 094 1 666 3 520 901 1 592 3 345 1 070

Jalalabad Suzak Kyzyl Tuu Tashtak 3 268 455 961 241 435 892 282

Jalalabad Suzak Kyzyl Tuu Tala-Bulak 1 389 194 409 102 185 379 120

Subtotal: 4 657 649 1 370 344 620 1 272 403

Talas Kara-Bura Kara-Buura Kyzyl-Adir 13 486 1 945 3 852 1 103 1 832 3 378 1 377

Talas Kara-Bura Kara-Buura Chon Kara Bura 1 928 278 551 158 262 483 197

Subtotal: 15 414 2 223 4 402 1 261 2 094 3 861 1 574

TOTAL: 6 6 12 49 987 6 990 14 543 3 870 6 594 13 370 4 620

M-Vector applied a multistage sample design using the Simple Random Sample (SRS) approach through the following techniques: 1. Primary Sampling Units (PSUs) were selected from each stratum via SRS. 2. The rural settlements (villages) were used for PSUs. 3. Within selected settlements, households were selected for interviews via a random walk, a form of systematic

sampling that approximates a simple random sample. 4. Within selected households, target respondents were selected using the Kish table approach, which provides

random principles in selection without any bias. To reveal the reasons of the dynamic of quantitative indicators and understand the effects and efforts made by the project, a qualitative survey (FGDs, in-depth interviews) was implemented with a number of primary and secondary project partners and stakeholders. M-Vector confirms the present methodology as the best practice and guarantees its conformity to the survey goals and objectives.

2.3.3. Quantitative survey sample size calculation

The quantitative survey is aimed to collect quantitative information about WAM in the project area. The main purpose of the quantitative survey is the numeric assessment of the current situation and of respondents’ knowledge and current practices. The quantitative research study is be used to get precise and statistically reliable data on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of community members. The face-to-face interview method using a structured questionnaire meets all necessary data quality standards as well as gives way for possible further statistical analysis. The survey captured several target groups (please, see Target groups section). The number of respondents in each AO was calculated to provide a 95 percent confidence rate with a margin of sample error under 6 percent. This will provide estimates, where we can be 95 percent sure that any indicator revealed within

4 Demographic Year Book of the Kyrgyz Republic 2015–2019: http://stat.kg/media/publicationarchive/55287abf-e4b9-4380-a2ce-

d73d3156a8a2.rar 5 An assessment based on the regional breakdown of sex and age.

http://stat.kg/media/publicationarchive/55287abf-e4b9-4380-a2ce-d73d3156a8a2.rar

http://stat.kg/media/publicationarchive/55287abf-e4b9-4380-a2ce-d73d3156a8a2.rar


the baseline survey differs within +/-6 percent from the situation in the general community population. The formula for the calculation of the sample size for each stratum (province) is the following:

Where: N = General population of the strata Z = Value of normal coordinates for the desired level of confidence (used Z = 1.96)

Ƹ = Margin of errors (Confidence interval)

P = The variance in the answers (used P = 0.5)

The total sample size according to the formula is 1,500 respondents from target communities. This sample makes analysis possible with a margin of error within +/-2.5 percent, with the 95 percent confidence interval at the national level. The sample size and composition correspond to the baseline survey significance criteria whereby the outcomes of the survey will be aggregated for the entire province and compared using advanced statistics tools. Thus, a total number of 1,500 respondents were surveyed in four provinces to get statistically significant6 outcomes. A sample proportional to settlement size within each AO was used, rather than equal-sized samples. This proportional distribution approach allocates more sample interview units to the settlements with a larger population (e.g., Uchkun), and a smaller sample to a smaller settlement (e.g., Kuduk). This approach gives more accurate estimates (a larger territorial coverage) for large settlements and does not cause huge accuracy loss in the small ones.

Table 2.3.2. Sample structure


(municipality) Settlement

Population, # of people 15+

% structure

Sample, people

Margin of sample error,

+/-% Men Women

Including

WAM Other women (non-WAM)

Batken Kadamjai Ak-Tupak Jany Jer 3 535 44,3% 111 9,2 57 54 36 18

Batken Kadamjai Ak-Tupak Min Chinar 4 449 55,7% 139 8,2 71 68 45 23

Subtotal: 7 984 8,2%7 250 6,1 128 122 81 41

Batken Kadamjai Orozbekov Uchkun 1 263 57,3% 143 7,7 73 70 46 23

Batken Kadamjai Orozbekov Kuduk 942 42,7% 107 8,9 55 52 35 17

Subtotal: 2 205 2,3% 250 5,8 128 122 81 41

Osh Nookat Tolos Murkut 3 887 50,9% 127 8,6 64 63 42 21

Osh Nookat Tolos Merkit 3 746 49,1% 123 8,7 62 61 41 20

Subtotal: 7 633 4,9% 250 6,1 126 124 83 41

Osh Nookat Bel Bel 5 066 41,9% 105 9,5 53 52 35 17

Osh Nookat Bel Borbash 7 028 58,1% 145 8,1 73 72 48 24

Subtotal: 12 094 7,7% 250 6,1 126 124 83 41

Jalalabad Suzak Kyzyl Tuu Tashtak 3 268 70,2% 175 7,2 89 86 57 29

Jalalabad Suzak Kyzyl Tuu Tala-Bulak 1 389 29,8% 75 11,0 38 37 25 12

Subtotal: 4 657 2,6% 250 6,0 127 123 82 41

Talas Kara-Bura

Kara-Buura Kyzyl-Adir 13 486 87,5% 190 6,6 97 93 62 31

Talas Kara-Bura

Kara-Buura Chon Kara Bura

1 928 12,5% 608 12,5 31 29 20 10

Subtotal: 15 414 39,8% 250 6,2 128 122 81 41

TOTAL: 6 6 12 49 987 6 1 500 2,5 763 737 491 246

The baseline assessment did not include an age/gender quota sample (due to the data collection tight timeline), thus this (sex/age) breakdown proportional to official statistics was not targeted as a requirement during the data collection process. Applying a simple random selection and taking into account the past experience of M-Vector, the team assumed that the structure of the sampled population (in terms of gender/age) approximates the structure of the general

6 Margin of error is interval estimate of a population parameter. Instead of estimating the parameter by a single value, an interval likely

to include the parameter is given, e.g., X = 40 (±5%). 7 The share of surveyed area (AOs) population to total district rural population 8 For Chon Kara Bura we used a cutoff point of 60 interviews, because, if using proportional principle 12.5% * 205 = 31, which is very

small number of interviews for analysis.


population; however, some deviation might occur during the data collection (women might be oversampled compared with men, because men are more often out of the household for seasonal work and agriculture). These deviations (sample vs. general population) will be adjusted using the weighting procedure during the finalization of the database for analysis.

The research team used the multistage stratified sample approach.

2.3.4. Qualitative research sample

For a deeper qualitative review of the project targets, identifying cause-and-effect relationships, and exploring discrimination against women and girls through laws and policies, gender-based stereotypes, and social norms and practices, a qualitative research using FGDs and in-depth interviews with key informants and other stakeholders was conducted. As an alternative and most suitable option, the online method for data collection was proposed.

Group 1 participants: 1. Social workers 2. Deputies of the local assembly / local kenesh / councils 3. Women’s council representatives 4. Local leaders / community activists / civic activists 5. Social pedagogues from schools 6. Representatives of aksakal courts 7. Representatives of the youth committee 8. Migration fund representatives (if present in localities)

Group 2 participants: 1. Potential migrant women and girls and returned migrant women and girls (mixed focus groups)

Table 2.3.3. FGD sample

Number of FGDs Geography of Implementation FGD Structure Toolkit (Annex 1)

1 Talas province Kara-Buura ayil okmotu - Kara-Burinsky district

8 participants from Group 1 above

Guide #3

1 Osh province Toolos ayil okmotu - Nookat district Bel ayil okmotu - Nookat district


1 Batken province Orozbekov ayil okmotu - Kadamjai district Ak-Turpak ayil okmotu - Kadamjai district


1 Jalalabad province Kyzyl-Tuu ayil okmotu - Suzak district


1 Jalalabad province Kyzyl-Tuu ayil okmotu - Suzak district


Guide #4

1 Talas province Kara-Buura ayil okmotu - Kara-Buura district


1 Osh province Toolos ayil okmotu - Nookat district Bel ayil okmotu - Nookat district


1 Batken province Orozbekov ayil okmotu - Kadamjai district Ak-Turpak ayil okmotu - Kadamjai district


8 Total: 64 participants

In-depth interview is an informal one-on-one conversation with a respondent, carried out according to a predetermined plan and based on the use of techniques that induce respondents to carry out long, detailed and thorough discussions on a range of issues of interest to the researcher. An in-depth interview involves getting detailed answers to research questions from the respondent, and not filling out a formal questionnaire.


Table 2.3.4 In-Depth Interviews Composition

Number of Interviews

Geography Composition of In-depth Interviews Toolkit

(Annex 1)

1 Bishkek State Agency on LSG and Interethnic Relations

Guide #1 1 Bishkek JIA business association (Bishkek)

1 Bishkek Forum of Women Parliamentarians

6

1 – Talas province 2 – Osh province 2 – Batken province 1 – Jalalabad province

Heads or representatives of local self-government (LSGs) (ayil okmotu)

Guide #2

3 1 – Talas province 1 – Batken province 1 – Jalalabad province

3 Local NGOs

12 Total

2.3.5. Sampling approach

A four-stage sampling approach was designed and implemented, with cluster determination in the first stage, primary sample unit in the second, rural household selection in the third, and respondent selection within the households in the fourth stage.

The First Stage of Sampling: Clusterization

The joint project team proposed a comprehensive approach to promote an enabling community and policy environment favourable to WAM and their active involvement in PB and inclusive CD in communities affected by migration and prone to conflict in the Kyrgyz Republic, and particularly in the Osh, Jalalabad, Batken, and Talas provinces of Kyrgyz Republic.

Thus at the first stage, the country was divided into strata. Stratification was based on the administrative divisions (provinces) breakdown principle. The number of strata was identified and corresponds to project objectives and migration specifics. According to the project specifics and under RUNO decisions, it was decided to include 4 regions (provinces) in the survey: Talas, Osh, Jalalabad, and Batken.

Each stratum was analyzed through the impact of the migration processes on the status of women and girls, having defined the list of administrative zones within which significant effects on social and economic consequences were observed. The list of these AOs agreed within the project team was taken as clusters. In total there were 6 clusters identified.

The Second Stage of Sampling: Primary Sample Unit (PSU) selection

The target provinces (communities) of Kyrgyz Republic (PSUs) were identified at the inception phase by applying the overall development goal of the project to make a tangible contribution to PB by promoting the full recognition of the role of women and girl migrants in inclusive CD and PB.

A total of 12 PSUs was determined (2 PSUs in each cluster) for project interventions. One PSU was defined as one rural settlement.

1

2


Figure 2.3.1 Sample geography

The selected rural settlements were included in the second step of sampling.

The Third Stage of Sampling: Households (Farmers/Smallholders) Because the survey aimed at obtaining statistically reliable information for extrapolation at the cluster level, a size of households (HHs) proportional to settlement size was surveyed in each PSU based on the population structure of the village.

Because there was no total list of households available for the PSUs, a method of data collection using the systematic stepwise household selection approach was implemented. This method of sampling enables the following:

✔ Collection of quantitative data without methodological bias

✔ Collection of data without any quality loss or empty/blanked cells in the dataset

✔ Applying random principles in the sampling at the household level

Each PSU (settlement) in the research strata (provinces) was divided into three administrative zones (sectors). Within the selected areas a specific method for territory spread selection was arranged, to ensure full coverage (coverage of respondents) throughout the territory and the different targets of population.

PSUs were divided in three sectors: the center of the settlement, the outskirts of the settlement (remote areas), and the area between the center and the remote areas.

Approximately 40 respondents were interviewed in the central and remote sector, while 45 interviews were conducted in between these two sectors. Each PSU was assigned to one interviewer.

3


Figure 3.3.2 Primary sample unit assessment approach

Within each sector, households were selected for interview via random walk, a form of systematic sampling which approximates a simple random sample.

An administrative building school, shop, or the first household at the end of the sector was randomly selected as the starting point to begin collecting information for each sector. The interviewer started from this point, remained on the right side of the street, and continued to turn right whenever reaching a crossroads. Each interviewer was given step instructions (protocols). The step size was determined for each PSU depending on the size of the settlement.

After an interview was secured, the interviewer proceeded to the next household using the step protocol. Respondents could not be relatives, friends, or neighbors of the interviewer. The interviews were mostly held in the evening hours so that the respondents were at home and not involved in any activity.

Fourth Stage of Sampling: Respondent selection

Two respondents in each household were randomly targeted and interviewed. One respondent was a randomly selected man and the other one was a woman (according to the quota of migration affected). This approach provided data on both beneficiaries (women target group) and their family members for further comparison and statistical analysis. Because the survey targets are randomly selected within different groups (returned migrant women, potential migrant girls, and community members), a well-designed transparent respondent selection approach was the key factor for precise and unbiased assessment. This is very important in terms of Endline assessment, when similar techniques of random selection must be applied.

Figure 2.3.3 Household profiling approach9

9 Photos were taken during data collection and upon verbal consent of respondents.

4


To ensure a representative (random) sample, a simple random selection technique was used among the household members in case there was more than one person (men or women) living in it. The interviewer wrote down the name and birth date of all men over 15 living in the household who met the requirements. Then, based on the random principle, one respondent was selected. The same procedure was applied for female members of the household. M-Vector uses the Kish table approach for random selection of respondents within the household. If the selected family member was absent, the interviewer returned up to two times to the given household to survey the selected respondent.

To identify the person to be surveyed, the interviewer made a list of all people in the target residing in the household. The list included everyone who actually lives at this address, regardless of whether they are registered there. If no one in the selected household responded but the household was occupied, the interviewer attempted up to two more visits to the same household.

According to M-Vector’s practice, to ensure the quality of a survey, a contact data sheet is used to record the details of

each visit to the household and all the information that is identified regarding the household. M-Vector provided the best

solution to decrease any emotional or negative perception of the interviews among the respondents.

2.3.6 COVID-19 adjustments

The company has experience in conducting research in an instable epidemiological and emergency situation with COVID-19 in Kyrgyz Republic. M-Vector conducted a wide range of preparation activities prior to the fieldwork, organizing a series of trainings that focused on adherence to World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations and on restrictive measures implemented by the government. The following basic rules were followed during the data collection implementation phase:

1. Transport. No more than three people in the car including the driver; hygienic treatment of hands with antiseptic spray, obligatory usage of disposable masks to be changed every two to three hours, hygienic habits of behavior in transport, limitation of touching surfaces and body parts, disinfection of the passenger compartment.

2. Meetings/trainings. Social distance is maintained, no more than six people in a room at a distance of 1.5 meters from each other, participants are provided with personal protective equipment, body temperature is checked at the entrance; preference for an online format of meetings and briefings with remote participation of field workers, clients, and company employees. 3. A backup team. We have trained a pool of backup human resources to replace any employee with another employee in case of slightest suspicion of deterioration of well-being, and thereby the health situation does not lead to quality loss in the research. In case of suspected symptoms, we strongly recommend that the person stay in self-isolation and take sick leave, and encouraged them to consult a doctor and take all necessary treatment and non-proliferation measures. 4. Personal hygiene. We provide soap, liquid hand sanitizer, and masks for everyone and explain how to use them. We also held briefings on the formation of hygienic behavioral habits both during interviews and outside of working hours, and we provide health monitoring and take preventive measures to reduce the risk of infection in accordance with WHO international standards and recommendations of the Ministry of Health of Kyrgyz Republic. 5. Interviewing. We maintain a social distance of 1.5 meters during the interview and provide both the interviewer and the respondent with disposable masks and use all the necessary hygiene products. Our interviewers pay attention to precautions during the interview (not touching eyes, not gathering more than three people in one room, etc.). After the fieldwork started, it was decided to implement In-depth interviews online via Zoom and Skype).


2.4. DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS, AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

2.4.1. Data collection

The data collection team was methodically selected to ensure a holistic mix of highly qualified staff, meeting all main requirements for the baseline survey: experience designing and conducting surveys of a similar size, strong understanding of data collection and analysis methodologies, experience in designing and conducting assessments, and experience in conducting assessments in Kyrgyz Republic. For interviews, considerable efforts and resources were devoted to preparation and logistics prior to the fieldwork. A two-level interviewer selection process was applied to select data collectors. The first selection criterion was the knowledge of local spoken languages including Kyrgyz, Russian, and Uzbek. Only interviewers who fluently spoke the language of a specific area (in terms of their ethnic group as well) were involved. The data collection team included professionals with postgraduate degrees in sociology and pedagogy. The fieldwork team consisted of 39 field staff involved in the interview and controlling process: 31 interviewers, 4 supervisors, 4 control managers, and 2 operators (data processing specialists). The assessment team was engaged during the entire implementation of the assessment, in accordance with the specific tasks and objectives of the project schedule. Training. After the pilot testing and toolkit adjustments, all interviewers and supervisors from all target settlements were trained during a one-day session in the cities of Osh and Bishkek. The training covered all main methodological principles, as well as the respondent selection criteria. Every item of the questionnaire was reviewed individually in detail. The trainings covered the following areas:

● Survey strategy and goals ● Organization of fieldwork ● Rules, specifics, and procedures of face-to-face interviews ● Gender-sensitive approach during data collection and in the general supervision of the project ● Practice and review of potential case scenarios in a random walk, respondent selection, and interview ● Practice sessions with and between the interviewers ● COVID-19 protection measures to be strictly monitored

Upon completion of the trainings, the interviewers could interpret all questions consistently and answer all questions in the prescribed manner. All interviewers were trained and understood the Questionnaire Manual for the survey they were conducting. Supervisors and enumerators had previous experience in similar household survey implementation, were available throughout the entire duration of the fieldwork, and had experience implementing assessments with a gender-sensitive approach.

The assessment team managers provided timely comprehensive answers and advisory support to all supervisors and interviewers. To increase the quality of interviewers’ performance and minimize methodological and technical errors, M-Vector prepared a cover letter and a customized fieldworks instruction manual for interviewers.

Pre-test of the toolkit. After the project management team approved the translation, M-Vector pretested the full questionnaire with 15 randomly selected representative interviews that were not included in the final sample. The pilot interviews were executed in full accordance with the set fieldworks standard. Fifteen pilot interviews in rural and urban areas were conducted: 2 in Russian and 13 Kyrgyz. The pilot interviews were not included in the total 1,500 interviews.

Table 2.4.1. The language structure of the test interview

Number of interviews

Gender Interview language

2 1 man / 1 woman Russian

13 5 men / 8 women Kyrgyz


All screening questions, toolkit questions, and tablet-assisted scripts and methodology were tested in real situations. Based on the results of the pilot survey, the toolkit was improved and adjusted to the local context. Changes were addressed in all survey documents, including enumerators’ manuals, data processing policies, and computer-assisted script managing instructions. The main issue researchers faced during the pilot tests was the duration of the one face to face interviews, which exceeded 1.5 hours (instead of initially planned 30 minutes for these interviews).

Barriers and difficulties faced and overcame. The fieldwork lasted 19 calendar days in November and December 2020, including instruction, reception, editing, control work of interviewers, coding of open answers in the database, and provision of transcripts for FGDs and IDIs. The average duration of each questionnaire / IDI / FGD excluding the recruitment process was as follows:

• Questionnaire survey for men – 22 minutes

• Questionnaire survey for women – 35 minutes

• Focus group – 110 minutes

• In-depth interviews – 90 minutes

1. Difficulties that arose due to tight deadlines. The project faced difficulties at the inception phase, and it took over a month to develop and approve the indicators assessment approach as well as the toolkit and samples. After this, short delays were left for the implementation of the fieldwork. For this reason, to avoid wasting time on transportation, the briefing for supervisors was organized online, which in turn created certain difficulties.

● Three additional briefings with each supervisor and interviewer were conducted. ● The complexity of the questionnaires was high, which led to increased non-response interviews. ● Dissatisfaction from fieldworkers also increased.

For the endline, it is strongly recommended to provide high-quality in-person briefings and trainings for interviewers. It will then be possible to visually show and explain the questionnaire to supervisors and to interviewers alike.

2. Non-final toolkit. It took quite a long time to develop and approve the toolkit. The questionnaire for the quantitative research survey was changed even on the day of the briefing/training. Field supervisors received instructions on 7 December from 11.00 to 13.00, and the questionnaire was finalized by 10.00 on 8 December, when one-third of the interviewers were already in the field. This should not be allowed for the endline.

3. Cold weather. The project was implemented when the weather was cold; half of the interviewers in Talas province caught the flu after working for two days. We had to promptly deploy additional interviewers.

4. Refusals. Along with the above difficulties, there were non-responses, for the following reasons: ● Lack of understanding and unwillingness of the respondent to step into the purpose of the study and take part

in the survey ● Lack of time, busyness (holiday, guests, small children) ● Illness ● Not in the mood for a survey ● Tired of conducting endless surveys (pessimism – why is all this needed, nothing will change anyway) ● Bulky questionnaire that takes a lot of time, etc.

2.4.2. Data analysis

The data was collected on values and perceptions toward women and girls affected by migration’s role in PB from WAM,

community members, and other relevant stakeholders from national and local authorities in target communities. This information will be vital for the interpretation and understanding of patterns of change observed among project beneficiaries during the outcome and impact assessments to be carried out at the end of the project.

From the statistical point of view, the analysis deployed approaches and techniques such as descriptive statistics, analysis of mean values, and the use of test statistics to assess the statistical significance of differences. The key approach was based on applying statistical tools (SPSS software) to assess the statistical significance of the conclusions, considering the sample margin of errors and assumptions.


The quantitative data, obtained from the direct beneficiaries of the program, was also supported by the conclusions and inputs obtained from the context and content analysis during the qualitative research process. For example, discussions with representatives of local self-government bodies allowed to comparatively look at the situation from a local and administrative point of view, and to understand the LSG’s level of readiness and interest in gender equality in the decision-making process at the administrative level. Information was compared with the responses of the residents to understand which party wants to act and is able to do something towards achieving the goals of the project.

The numeric outcomes from the quantitative survey should be perceived through representativeness limitations. This means that each question addresses a certain number of respondents, some of whom were answering/selecting different options (providing frequencies), some were refusing or providing “other” type of responses. When reading this report, it is important to understand these numbers and recognize that a small number of answers in terms of frequencies should be treated as opinions or situations of individuals and do not necessarily represent the entire community or municipality trends/cases. If some answer option is provided by a small number of people (for example, by 8 people), then this data cannot be trusted from a statistical point of view as representative for the entire community because the margin of error will be too high. Usually analysis can use answers whose frequency is not less than 30 observations (this is a certain threshold used among researchers, any numbers below mean data become not representative and must be interpreted with caution).

Applying a gender-oriented approach. The assessment team conducted surveillance and a literature review of gender-oriented approaches and tools. Each approach provided insights and understandings of indicator assessment metrics using different cross-cutting criteria and vulnerability parameters. The following approaches and models of gender analysis were analyzed:

1. The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), which measures the empowerment, agency, and inclusion of women in the agriculture sector in an effort to identify and address the constraints that hinder women’s full engagement in the agriculture sector. The WEAI is composed of two sub-indexes:

● Five Domains of Empowerment (5DE) sub-index (Production, Resources, Income, Leadership, and Time), which measures the empowerment of women in five areas

● Gender Parity sub-Index (GPsI), which measures the average level of equality in empowerment of men and women within the household.

The WEAI is an aggregate index reported at the impact area level and is based on individual-level data on men and women within the same household and data on women living in households with no adult male. The 5DE is a measure of empowerment rather than of disempowerment. The 5DE score ranges from zero to one, where higher values indicate greater empowerment. A woman is defined as empowered in the 5DE if she reaches the threshold of empowerment in 80 percent or more of the weighted indicators. For disempowered women, the 5DE also shows the percentage of indicators in which those women meet the threshold of empowerment. The 5DE contributes 90 percent of the weight to the WEAI. The GPsI also ranges from zero to one, with higher values indicating greater gender parity, and is constructed with two factors. First, it shows the percentage of women whose empowerment scores are lower than men in the household (HwgP). Second, the GPsI shows the percentage shortfall in empowerment scores for those women who do not have gender parity. The overall formula is the product of these two numbers, following the Foster Greer Thorbecke ―poverty gap‖ measure: GPsI = {1 − (HwgP x GPsI)}.

Some of the WEAI principles and questions were taken into account when developing the methodology for interviewing both men (boys) and women (girls) in one household, adjusting the following set of questions from the WEAI toolkit to the Baseline assessment survey questionnaire:

• Decision-making in the HH on the allocation of resources, income, and expenses

• Access to materials and financial resources (access to credit)

• Personal leadership

• Association Membership and Group Influence

2. Gender Analysis10 methodology that both:

• Describes existing gender relations in a particular environment, ranging from within households or firms to a larger scale of community, ethnic group, or nation, and

10 https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaeb644.pdf (p. 15).

https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnaeb644.pdf


• Organizes and interprets, in a systematic way, information about gender relations to clarify the importance of gender differences for achieving development objectives. Gender analysis involves collecting and analyzing sex-disaggregated data and other qualitative and quantitative information on gender issues, including access to and control over assets (tangible and intangible), as well as beliefs, practices, and legal frameworks.

These cross-cutting issues were adjusted and included in the questionnaire for more thorough and concise determination of performance indicators, trying to capture data at both the household and community level, as well as raising issues on access to and control over assets, beliefs, practices, and legal framework.

3. Gender Dimensions Framework (GDF). The GDF offers a structured way to analyze gender relations within the household, firm, community, and the broader economy. It examines four intersecting dimensions of social life:

• Observed practices and patterns of participation

• Existing patterns of access to productive assets

• Social beliefs and perceptions

• Laws, policies, and institutions

Although overlapping in real life, these dimensions are conceptually distinct. These concepts were used to develop the indicators assessment approach focusing on gender context and knowledge, attitudes, and practices aspects.

2.4.3. Quality control protocols

Quality Control was conducted by specially trained professionals (controllers) who did not participate in the interviews. The following quality assurance measures were used for baseline:

Table 2.4.2. Quality control approach

QA procedure Description

1. Piloting of the toolkit

This procedure is important to ensure that the toolkit is properly organized, that all necessary skip patterns considered, that the questions are clear to respondents in all languages (Uzbek, Kyrgyz, and Russian).

2. Training of enumerators

A detailed training was conducted for enumerators. The training included an overall project review, description of selected methodology and final toolkit, and the overall rules for conducting the survey (consent, behavior, etc.). Such a training is critical to ensure the proper work of enumerators/interviewers.

3. 100% recording of Interviews via Tablets

All interviews were recorded and are available for further analysis and verification.

4. 30% audio review 30 percent of records were randomly selected and verified (double-checked) by controllers to ensure that the methodology was followed by enumerators; and all interviews will be checked for GPS accuracy in an interview location.

5. Final dataset control

The final dataset was processed by an analyst to check the main data points. Statistical analysis and cross-tabulations can be developed for additional verification purposes. SPSS syntax was used to verify the logic, completeness of answers, and the quality of data.

6. Constant administration of all fieldwork

The fieldwork was controlled by the M-Vector’s Field Department. There was a separate team of several people, who took part in different control stages: regional supervisors in all target provinces (provinces), regional field managers, a field manager in the head office (Bishkek), head of the Field Department, and the project manager.


2.5. LEVELS OF CHANGES FOR ASSESSMENT Development project goal: The project aims to make a tangible contribution to peacebuilding in the Talas, Osh, Jalalabad, and Batken provinces of Kyrgyz Republic by promoting the full recognition of the role of women and girl migrants in inclusive community development and peacebuilding.

Theory of change:

Brief of interventions/drivers: Given the fact that the feminization of migration has grown rapidly for the past five years,

the project aims to work at different levels including the following:

a. Community level by working with community members to change public perception and social norms and build a community environment favourable to women migrants’ engagement in PB process

b. Policy level to introduce gender-responsive policies and recognize the role of women migrants and their contributions and

c. Local level to empower women and girl migrants to participate in community development, decision-making, and PB initiatives

The project interventions will follow a bottom-up approach and will be built on sequencing efforts: first work at the community level (approximately during the first six months), then involve LSGs and empowerment instruments, and then inform national policy documents to ensure evidence-based policymaking. To ensure coherence between agencies’ interventions, RUNOs will conduct regular meetings to coordinate joint actions towards delivering outputs. Using the mixed-method approach requires quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context) assessment tools to be deployed on the set of performance indicators. This approach will allow revealing the current (baseline) situation in terms of numeric estimates, and will provide an in-depth explanation of this situation and the context that has evolved. The mixed-method approach will enable future (Endline) assessments to not only reveal the quantitative cause-based dynamic of progress, but also explain the roots of this dynamic and the barriers in different points of view on these changes (national, local, business level, etc.).

Women and girls in communities that are affected by migration and risk of violence

can meaningfully be included in the political, economic and social life of their

societies, take part in in inclusive community development and

peacebuilding, which will help mitigate the challenges for women and girls at

highest risk

3. IF national and local authorities are equipped to

apply socially inclusive approaches in policymaking and implement gender-responsive peacebuilding at the local level

in target communities

2. IF women and girls living in communities affected by migration are empowered and equipped with

knowledge and skills to protect their political, economic, and civic rights, and have access to

resources, decent work, and sustainable livelihood opportunities and IF women and girls returning to

their home communities are provided with opportunities for better inclusion and livelihoods

1. IF communities affected by migration and risks of violence positively perceive the role of

women and girls in participating in community development and

peacebuilding

BECAUSE community members will break down/change existing

harmful gender norms and recognize girls and women’s role in community development and

peacebuilding

BECAUSE national and local authorities will better understand challenges that

migrant women and girls face and the role and contributions that migrant women and girls can have in the peacebuilding

process and will be more inclined and able to design and implement national policies and legislation that are more inclusive and

gender-sensitive

BECAUSE women and girls will be economically and socially

empowered and have agency/be enabled to make informed decisions and participate in decision-making

at community level.


III. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. RESULTS OF INDICATORS’ ASSESSMENT

The quantitative sample structure was representative in terms of sociodemographic groups residing in the communities targeted by the assessment. The structure of households, age, gender, ethnicity, education, employment status, labour migration, household income level, sources of income, and other factors were taken into account for the sample representation of community groups and their attitudes and practices towards WAM, inclusion in CD, and PB. The qualitative composition of group discussions and in-depth communications was built around the key responsibilities of local activists in PB and CD. GENDER EQUALITY AND HARMFUL GENDER NORMS

Outcome Indicator 1a - overall 35.2 percent of assessment area population (27.9 percent of men and 42.7 percent of

women) stand in support of gender equality and against harmful gender norms towards women in migrant communities.

The highest indicator value (of supporters) was assessed in Talas province, Kara-Buura (47.5 percent) and the lowest in

Osh province, Tolos (26.1 percent). Other clusters reported a share of around 30 percent of gender equality supporters.

Initially the indicator was assessed as 79.4 percent of community members supportive of gender equality. After more determined analysis it was revealed that this group consist of two subgroups: those who completely support gender equality and claim they are against harmful gender norms (they provided “supportive” answers to all sensitive questions) and doubters, who provided “supportive” answers to more than half of sensitive questions, but not to all of them. These were the 35.2 percent and 44.2 percent, respectively.

Thus, by directly answering a set of perceptional questions, 20.6 percent (approximately 1/3 of men and 1/5 of women) in target communities expressed that they do not support gender equality and do not stand against harmful gender norms. Another 35.2 percent stated that they completely support gender equality and stand against harmful gender norms. The rest (44.2 percent of men and women) claimed they would rather support gender equality but their consistency is a matter of further analysis and discussions (see Chapter 5).

Let’s briefly reveal why one-fifth (20.6 percent) of community members strictly declare they don’t support gender equality and don’t stand against harmful gender norms. A mixed-method assessment showed a certain variance between different groups of respondents’ opinions on support of gender equality (see more narratives in Chapter 5). Speaking about the

roots of the problems, the qualitative discussions revealed that negative gender norms and stereotypes come from long-

time traditions, and because children observe and learn from adults’ behaviours in their households, these stereotypes

and negative attitudes proceed from generation to generation. The main stereotypes and harmful gender norms relate

to women’s role in the household: they should stay at home, do chores, and raise children while men should earn money. Women are perceived as having fewer rights than men, and even if women earn more income, men are considered heads of households and are in charge of the decision-making process (and resource allocation).

GENDER PERCEPTIONS IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

A. Outcome Indicator 1b baseline value is the following: 51.4 percent of target community members (46.8 percent of

men and 51.8 percent of women) believe that women affected by migration play a positive role and contribute to

peacebuilding and community development. Because respondents might believe WAM contribute to both CD and PB at once, the overall indicator is a bit higher (51.4 percent), which indicates an overlapping of respondent groups.

Thus, only half of the community members (men and women) believe that WAM play a positive role in CD and conflict mitigating measures. Another interesting fact is that this share does not significantly differ by province and by ayil

okmotus (from 43.9 percent to 52.1 percent). The indicator is based on three dimensional approaches11 – positive and

negative attitudes toward WAM and the practice of sharing positive examples of WAM involved in PB and CD among community members. All three measures report nearly 50 percent share, which means the indicator is well balanced.

11 Using three questions answer options to deliver the integral calculation. Please see Annex 3 for more details.


Furthermore, the qualitative information unpacked the roots of these shares and numbers. National-level partners claimed that WAM are more literate, financially secure, have better legal literacy and more professional experience, and ready to run their own business, and therefore are positively perceived and accepted by community members (families

and co-villagers). NGO representatives were more economically oriented, saying that the main factor for recognizing the

role of migrant-women is money remittances (help) to the family/community. Local state authorities claimed that WAM spend time in the country of destination and fall out from the community life. Local activists gave examples when WAM became social volunteers, donated for community development (infrastructure, environment, education, direct financial support), provided advice on what to do and how to act, etc. B. Output Indicator 1.1 value is the following: 36.3 percent of community members (Men: 32.6 percent, Women: 36.4 percent) report increased awareness (“aware of” for the baseline) on the role of women and girls in community development and peacebuilding. The Osh province, Tolos (AO) is an outlier in terms of the value for this indicator, showing only an 18.9 percent share of awareness. This is because only a few community members (3.1 percent) could recall a time when community women took part in the PB and CD initiatives/actions. Thus, there is little information on the positive role of women in the AO. The Batken province, Orozbekov (AO) has the highest indicator value, with 40 percent of participants assessed as “aware”. Such high values in Orozbekov might be because it is located close to the regional center and many community members work in regional/state structures. Orozbekov has been considered one of the largest and most advanced AOs since the time of Soviet Union, and its community members are perceived as more informed, digitalized, and involved in community life. IDIs with Batken NGO representatives confirmed that there is good intercommunity communication and people are well-informed on the role of women. Respondent awareness rates in other provinces is approximately 30 to 36 percent. Qualitative interviews outcomes revealed the fact that there is a difference in understanding of the current situation with awareness of women’s role in PB and CD among different groups. While national and local state authorities claimed a good level of informing on the role of women in PB and CD, NGOs, local activists and WAM were doubtful on that. More detail are presented in main part of the report.

Thus, only about one-third of the community members are aware (declaring awareness) of the role of women and girls in

CD and PB. This indicator measures Output 1.1. – that target communities have access to accurate information and knowledge on the role of women and girls in peacebuilding. Through this output, public information campaigns and outreach activities will be conducted to demonstrate the positive potential and contribution of women and girls to CD and PB. PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PEACEBUILDING INITIATIVES

The next indicators are specifically targeted at project beneficiaries, looking at the knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward CD and PB initiatives of women affected by migration (those who returned and those planning to go, or under risk of being inclined to migrate).

A. Outcome Indicator 2a – 14.8 percent of women from the target group participated in peacebuilding initiatives.

Cross-examining the indicator revealed that women returned migrant’s participation is a bit higher (16.2 percent) than women and girls potential migrants (14.2 percent), although not much. The reason for this difference is that women with migration experience are more independent and more willing to participating in community-level issues resolving conflicts, maintaining peace, and well-being in village. Thus, only 1/7 of the target group representatives declared taking part in practically oriented PB initiatives. The responses are distributed around different types of PB initiatives in which WAM took part or that they implemented themselves. The following were mentioned (from most popular to least popular):

• Teaching inter-ethnic toleration and tolerance among the population (5.2 percent)

• Teaching negotiation and communication skills among different population groups (4.4 percent)

• Activities to resolve contentious situations in the village (3.2 percent)


• Other activities aimed at maintaining peace and well-being in your village: rallies to establish discipline and law (4.4 percent)

With over 85 percent of WAM who did not participate or implement any kind of PB activity in the past year, it was important to understand the reasons of non-participation. These reasons were tracked during FGDs with WAM. Most cited the main reason for non-participation as the lack of information about time, place, and goals of such initiatives. However, a deeper analysis from FGDs with WAM showed that women did not even try to get this information. The second barrier to participation, in their opinion, is the lack of time to take part in PB meetings, discussions, and activities, because women are in charge of household chores and have to look after children, and have no free time. The third cause mentioned is that such activities are usually implemented (managed) by men and women are not welcome there – their participation may not be well-perceived, and if a woman comes along with a household (male) member, then he will be ridiculed as well. But above all this, the main cause for not being informed, as revealed during the group discussions, was the lack of motivation to deliver any help/engagement due to the stereotypes and ungratefulness of community and household members:

“I don’t go on such arrangements and meetings, I see no reasons for that. Anyway, I will leave to Russia next year or so. Thus, I have no reasons to waste my time and delve into the problems our village has – it will not be my problem soon.” – WAM, Osh province

B. Output Indicator 2.1.4: in average, 2.6 peacebuilding initiatives were implemented by women affected by migration

in their local communities in the last 12 months. The total average sum of numbers of peacebuilding initiatives in all AOs

is 15 (14.9). The regional disaggregation of the average number of PB activities showed the minimum of 1.8 initiatives in the Osh

province, Tolos (AO) and 1.9 initiatives in the Jalalabad province – Kyzyl-Tuu (AO), while the maximum of 3.3 initiatives

was registered in the Talas province, Kara-Buura (AO) and 3.0 in the Batken province, Orozbekov (AO). The Batken province Ak-Tupak (AO) and Osh province Bel (AO) declared implementing 2.8 and 2.1 initiatives respectively.

It’s also interesting to analyze the low share of women affected by migration who claimed they implemented PB initiatives

(3.3 percent of all WAM). It was assessed that only 2.9 percent of returned migrant women and 4 percent of potential

migrant women claimed they were implementing some PB initiatives in the past 12 months:

• Teaching inter-ethnic toleration and tolerance among the population (1.5 percent)

• Teaching negotiation and communication skills among different population groups (2 percent)

• Activities to resolve contentious situations in the village (1.1 percent)

• Other activities aimed at maintaining peace and well-being in your village: rallies to establish discipline and law (0.7 percent)

In summary, around one-third of WAM claimed they implemented 2.6 PB initiatives in average. The remaining two-thirds of WAM did not participate/implement in any activities. However, they mostly mix the PB initiatives with CD ones and do not have a clear understanding of differences. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND SOCIAL SERVICES

A. Outcome Indicator 2b: 49.4 percent of women from the target group turned to social services for protection of their rights (out of the total target population who needed to protect their rights) in the past 12 months. Thus, only half of WAM referred to social services for protection of their rights in the last year. Women returned from migration reached out to social services slightly more frequently than potential migrants (51.5 percent vs. 48.2 percent respectively), which seemingly indicates that they are bit more motivated.

The top five social services women claimed they applied for are as follows:

• Obtaining documents / certificates / registrations / passports, etc. (42.4 percent)

• Medical assistance for yourself or a child / assistance for people with disabilities (21.9 percent)

• Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, placing them in foster care, or planning for custody in order to be able to leave to earn money (18.4 percent)

• Counseling about alimony/benefits/pensions (15.9 percent)


The main reason for the remaining half (48.5% women returnees vs. 51.8% potential women migrants) of WAM, who claimed they didn’t seek help is that they don't know where or to whom to turn to, although they were in need, or they were forbidden by family members, their inner circle. According to the FGD data among WAM, there is prejudice in the communities and it is almost impossible to get timely rights-related help from social services without money (corruption, networking). For example, to get on the “vulnerable” list for receiving rights protection a person should provide benefits to decision-makers. Also, WAM pointed out that when they apply to the social services, a particular ayil okmotus simply redirects them to the third parties (neglecting their needs) in many cases. Such prejudice as “without money/networking, nothing can be solved” as well as the established practice to “kick off/send off” to third parties among local and state services and complex bureaucracy are probably the reasons WAM do not apply to social services, even when there is a need. National-level partners and informants are not involved in delivering social services to WAM, thus they are unfamiliar with many local situations. They suggested that women do know where to address their demands for the protection of their rights and for receiving social services (ranked 3.5 out of 5, where 1 = women poorly aware of their rights, and 5 = women are well aware of their rights). NGO representatives admitted that rates of addressing cases among migrant women remains rather low. A lot of women are afraid of discrimination if they turn to these bodies; many prefer enduring negative treatment and rights violations rather than involving a third party. At the same time, LSG representatives confirmed that WAM mostly ask for help in obtaining child allowance or alimony, economic assistance, and help with passports and documentation (to have everything in order before leaving). Returned migrants more often turn to LSGs for delivering birth certificates or other documents and job placement. LSGs often redirect the queries to other institutions or local authoritative individuals. Most WAM FGD participants declared that they have asked help from different LSGs and community activists for social benefits/services but were declined or redirected without explanations. B. Output Indicator 2.1: 58.6 percent of women and girls from target communities are equipped with knowledge and skills on how to advocate for their rights. This indicator value determines the share of women who are aware of rights, declare knowing how and who to turn to protect them, have experience in addressing rights-related issues and took part in relevant trainings/initiatives on capacity building at the local community level.12 According to data collected the most common knowledge and skills on how to advocate for their rights among the target groups are (i) Asking for assistance from law enforcement agencies (police, court) – 58.8 percent and (ii) Asking for support from local administration/local authorities – 26.7 percent. Regarding how women and girls received knowledge/skills on how to advocate for rights – the researchers addressed the topic in FGDs, where almost all the women said that they did not specifically participate in any training events or consultations, they are more self-reliable, and they are able to address their concerns with relatives and friends. Almost half the FGD participants pointed out that they never actually have had to advocate for their rights. This may indicate a lack of need among women to defend their rights, or a lack of knowledge on activities/policies of state or civil services that promote and advocate women’s rights. However, these reasons are not exhaustive and the issue should be explored in more detail in follow-up project assessments. Potential migrant-women are not significantly different from returned ones (58.6 percent vs. 60 percent). In the regional breakdown, Toolos AO (Osh) has the lowest indicator mark (44.1 percent), while Orozbekov AO (Batken) has the highest one (69.4 percent). Other AOs were calculated as follows: Bel AO (Osh) – 51.4 percent, Kyzyl-Tuu AO (Jalalabad) – 54.6 percent, Kara-Buura AO (Talas) – 64.2 percent, Ak-Turpak AO (Batken) – 67.8 percent. The qualitative findings are quite supportive of the quantitative ones. The State Agency on LSG representative mentioned quite a high level of awareness, especially among returned migrant women, who had experienced working/being in different situations. JIA Business Association and Forum of Women Parliamentarians members provided an overall score of 3.5 (out of 5) for awareness (equipped with knowledge), where 1 = women are poorly aware of their rights, and 5 = women are well aware of their rights.

12 Please find more details on Output Indicator 2.1 calculation approach in Chapter 8 and in the brief description of the indicator

assessment methodology section in Annex 3.


On the same scale for measuring women’s awareness of their rights, one local NGO representative gave a score of 4 out of 5 and the remaining two gave a scores of 2 out of 5. Thus, they ranked the level of awareness as satisfactory (3 on average). The mean score for readiness of women to advocate for their rights is even lower – only 2.5 on average. All NGO representatives claimed that knowledge of rights does not guarantee their correct protection/advocacy. Local activists and leaders13 do not agree with the NGOs and LSGs and declare that women and girls form their communities are quite well aware of their rights, providing a 4.5 score in terms of knowledge (except Jalalabad activists, who pointed out a very poor awareness level and rights protection abilities and gave a score of 2.5 on average). However, they also agreed that women are not equipped with knowledge of what to do, where to go, and how to advocate in case of rights violation. All municipalities and villages present a similar situation. Social activists and decision makers also mentioned that women should not only know their rights but also should understand the duties of authorities and responsibilities of bodies at the local and district level, who are responsible for advocating, counseling, and protecting rights of women. ACCESS TO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

Outcome Indicator 2c: 25.3 percent of women from target groups have increased (“who have access” – for the baseline) access to economic and community development opportunities. The indicator value for women-returned migrants is 27.2 percent, while it is 23.2 percent for women potential migrants.

The lowest share of WAM having access to economic and community development opportunities is in the Toolos AO (Osh) (11.5 percent), while the highest share was registered in the Jalalabad Kyzyl-Tuu AO (33.9 percent). Other shares are as follows: Batken province, Ak-Tupak (AO) – 29.3 percent; Batken province, Orozbekov (AO) – 30.6; Osh province, Bel (AO) – 23.1 percent; and Talas province, Kara-Buura (AO) – 23.6 percent. Thus, according to the baseline quantitative assessment, only around one-fourth of women from the target group (WAM) have access to economic and community development opportunities. Some of the key economic and community development opportunities named include obtaining professional skills and training (25.6 percent); obtaining microloans, loans, and financial products for business (22.8 percent); learning business (self-employment) skills for running own business or hiring people (19.9 percent); delivering professional knowledge and experience to community members (16.3 percent); obtaining grants from donor organizations to implement economical projects in the community (10.1 percent); and cooperating with local business (7.1 percent). Let us discover the reasons for this low accessibility from group discussions and in-depth interviews with key interested parties. The State Agency on LSG representatives see no barriers for women: in their opinion, they have access to loans and credit, education, and self-employment possibilities. Members of other organizations (Forum of Women Parliamentarians and JIA business-association) tend to have less assurance that women have a high level of accessibility to economic and community development opportunities. The NGO representatives think that even though everyone has access to opportunities, they still need to be able to lobby their interests and build self-respect, which is the most complicated. NGO representatives are not sure why WAM reported less access to economic opportunities in the local community, and, on the contrary, they believe WAM enjoy an even higher access to economic development. LSG officials noted the same attitudes: On one hand, WAM have more access to economic and community development opportunities than “ordinary” women, but on the other hand, they cannot fully implement this opportunity and are forced to move abroad again. Local activists believe that WAM are not any different in terms of access to economic and community development opportunities compared to other groups in the community. GENDER-RESPONSIVE PLANNING AND PEACEBUILDING

A. Outcome Indicator 3b: counts 3 target municipalities (out of 6), who support women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and peacebuilding.

13 Social workers, deputies of local kenesh and councils, Women’s Council representatives, local leaders, community activists, civic

activists, social pedagogues from schools, representatives of aksakal courts, and representatives of the youth committee.


There are only three municipalities that support WAM through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB. The qualitative survey revealed a very poor self-reliance and awareness of LSGs on providing support to WAM through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB. According to the LSG representative in Batken region – Ak-Turpak (AO), activities aimed at supporting WAM should be carried out by NGOs and various foundations, and it’s not their primary duty. The local government official from Orozbekov AO in Batken province claimed that due to lack of resources and possibilities, they provide regular assistance to WAM, but only in the form of moral and psychological support, as well as paperwork. Nevertheless, with the assistance of the Public Fund “Demilgeluu Ishkek Ayimdar” and the Roza Otunbayeva Foundation, local government officials carried out several events to inform WAM about their rights advocating and protection of migrants’ rights in other countries (of labour destination). The LSGB representative of Toolos AO (who also manages women migration problems in the district) did not know about the need to carry out activities aimed at supporting WAM on these topics. The representative from Bel ayil okmotu claimed they did not organize any events/activities on safe migration, civic activism, and PB to specifically support WAM, but occasionally conduct personal (face-to-face) consultations to deliver assistance in this area. The Kyzyl-Tuu AO representative claimed they try every possible way to help initiative WAM under supervision assistance of foreign donors by organizing seminars and trainings. He said that donors set quotas for age groups and gender, with an emphasis on young women and girls. This outcome level indicator was also supported by quantitative data by revealing the share of target group representatives (WAM) surveyed, who claimed being supported through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding. Thus, the total proportion of those who were supported is 37.8 percent (out of all WAM in all AOs, approximately one-third claimed they were supported by a municipality through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB). Share is approximately equal for both returned migrant women and those potentially vulnerable to forced migration. WAM claimed they were supported by LSGs in the following areas:

• How to make a labour trip to another country safe / safe migration (22 percent)

• How to re-enter/re-integrate into village life after returning from a labour trip (13.5 percent)

• How to be civically active / engage in public activities / participate in decision-making at the village level (13.7 percent)

• Creating opportunities and jobs / employment (18.2 percent)

• Building peace, dialogue, and prevention of conflicts / disputes in the village (11.6 percent)

• Defending and protecting the rights of migrant women (17.3 percent)

• Supporting women’s initiatives and start-ups (15.9 percent)

• Supporting the participation of women in the social life of your village (16.5 percent)

Here is the regional distribution of WAM who claimed they were supported: Batken region, Ak-Tupak (AO) – 41.0 percent; Batken province, Orozbekov (AO) – 35.0 percent; Osh province, Tolos (AO) – 38.4 percent; Osh province, Bel (AO) – 37.9 percent; Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) – 29.8 percent (min); and Talas province, Kara-Buura (AO) – 44.9 percent. B. Outcome Indicator 3c: 4 target municipalities claim to be applying gender-responsive peacebuilding principles in support of women’s participation in community development (in Local Action Plans). LAPs are developed by LSGs for annual implementation and aimed at increasing the level of participation of members of the local community in solving local issues; strengthening the security, stability, and authority of LSGBs; and mobilizing resources for the development of local self-government.14 Only qualitative information (FGDs and IDIs) was used for this indicator’s assessment accumulating rather perceptional aspects of reasoning the gender-responsive peacebuilding principles delivery in support of women’s participation in community development. Thus, the baseline assessment was able to capture perceptions and not the practical side of

14 Program for the development of local self-government of the Kyrgyz Republic for 2018-2023. http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-

ru/12699

http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/12699

http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/12699


whether gender-responsive peacebuilding principles were really applied. Thus, the indicator was measured not on “who applies” but rather on “who claim to be applying” in the way they perceive it and using the skills they have. A round of recommendations is delivered on this point in Chapter 11. According to the results of IDIs, 4 LSGs representatives claim they apply principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding with participation of women’s in community development in their annual LAPs. The annual plans target primarily single mothers, women in need, those who suffering from domestic violence and women with disabilities. Among the gender-sensitive principles, the Orozbekov LSG representative mentioned creating “messenger groups” with those women who tend to conceal/not express their opinion and attitude publicly on the community issues. Due to these communications a lot of women (as claimed) are heard and their issues resolved at the local level. In addition, the respondent claimed that the AOs adhere to the gender-balanced approach by ensuring 50 percent women’s engagement in LSG activities. Some of LSGs are not aware of the need to include gender-sensitive principles when developing plans and documents for the development of the rural communities. In addition, an LSG representative mentioned that the UN and other international resolutions (particularly Resolution 1325, adopted by the Security Council in 2000)15 and concepts are being considered for planning. At the same time, the LSG representative from Orozbekov AO claimed they are improving their plan, reflecting gender sensitivity.

“Our main documents do not reflect gender sensitivity, but in general, they (Experts from Ministry of Finance) after auditing our (LSG’s) activities and documents explained [to] us gender-sensitive principles of how to specify/target on vulnerable groups. It turns out that we gave general level information, i.e., work plan was generalized and now we have learned how to address the needs. For example, this year women were involved in the “Taza Suu” program, helping their husbands, cleaning the water canals, etc.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO Batken

None of the WAM interviewed during FGDs are informed about the inclusion of gender principles in the development of LAPs (and not informed about the presence of LAPs). When asked if they would participate in the development of LAPs, some mentioned that these kind of plans and strategies are usual matters for men, while women stay at home and do household chores. They have not been invited to participate by LSGs yet, but they expressed their keen interest and readiness to take part. C. Output Indicator 3.2.1: 4 Local Action Plans were claimed to be developed on gender-sensitive peacebuilding. All participants of the qualitative research (representatives of LSGBs) named the Social and Economic Development Plan and the work plan of the Aiyl Kenesh as the main documents used in their activities in all Ayil aimaks of the project regions. At the same time, representatives of local NGOs from three regions expressed full mistrust of effectiveness of these plans and LAPs. In their opinion, all planned activities remain on paper, and nobody controls the implementation of the plan, tracks results, or makes adjustments. One of the NGO representatives was an invited expert and said these LAPs are developed by three or four people, so no public hearings are held with the local residents, although ideally hearings should be held. Furthermore, the decade-old text is usually used for each LAP, and only the date and year is changed in practice. Finally, the budget for solving social issues is the last to be distributed.

Most LSGBs (4) declared taking into account the principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding in developing their plans, by ensuring participation of women in the development of the community. As an example, they could remember only the participation of active women and female leaders in the public hearings, delivering them gifts in honor of International Women’s Day or aiding single mothers (left alone). These scarce activities listed by the LSGs might witness that they do not know what these principles mean, whether they need them at all or know how to implement them in practice. One local NGO representative stated that the issues on women support and gender equality in the LAPs are only timed to coincide with International Women’ Day but otherwise remain to be addressed. This status quo needs to be addressed by the next project assessments, as well as the project interventions and trainings among LSG representatives who are involved in LAP development. A definition, a practice, a possible role, and an importance of gender-sensitive principles in peacebuilding activities should be explained, so LSGs will know what peacebuilding actually is and will be equipped with real examples of how gender-sensitive principles can be helpful in peacebuilding to develop their communities.

15Resolution 1325, adopted by the Security Council in 2000. https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1325(2000)

https://undocs.org/en/S/RES/1325(2000)


All LSGBs claimed inclusion of other socially vulnerable groups in their local action and development plan, such as the elderly, PWDs and single mothers.

Speaking about their role value, the respondents who work in LSGBs rank themselves as highly important in resolving community issues. Answering the question about the role of LSGBs, NGO representatives claimed false importance of LSG planning activities as they are (the way they are) delivered now.

At the same time, LSGB representatives did not give any specific recommendations on the development of LAPs taking

into account gender principles of peacebuilding. LSGs have difficulty imagining how gender-sensitivity and peacebuilding

might go together despite having it explained. However, the available definition of LAPs on gender-sensitive peacebuilding

that was proposed to read by the interviewers – “a plan of major activities at the local level to increase recognition of the

role and contribution of women and girls subject to local development and peacebuilding” – was too generalized and

missing real examples. In this regard the upcoming project assessments should strengthen the basic concept and then

provide practical cases (explained in recommendation section).


BASELINE INDICATORS ASSESSMENT RESULTS

# Indicator

type/# Indicator

Data collection method / target group

Geography and target group

Which instrument/ tool

Indicator value

1 Outcome

Indicator 1a

Proportion (%) of the population (men

and women) in support of gender equality and who

stand against harmful gender norms towards

women in migrant communities

Quantitative survey, simple random

selection, representatives on sex, age group, and

population distribution parameter

Local communities’

members – population 15+. 12 settlements, 6 municipalities, 6

districts and 4 Provinces

(provinces). Local population in the

target localities, aged 15+, men (and boys)

and women (and girls)

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 A1, А6, B3

TOTAL 35,1%

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) 37,1%

Batken Province - Orozbekov (AO) 32,0%

Osh Province - Tolos (AO) 26,1%

Osh Province - Bel (AO) 29,1%

Jalalabad Province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 39,0%

Talas Province - Kara-Buura (AO) 47,5%

Men 27,9%

Women 42,7%

15 - 24 33,7%

25 - 54 33,6%

55+ 42,6%

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) - Men 28,4%

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) -Women 46,2%

Batken Province - Orozbekov (AO) - Men 24,4%

Batken Province - Orozbekov (AO) - Women 40,0%

Osh Province - Tolos (AO) - Men 22,4%

Osh Province - Tolos (AO) - Women 29,9%

Osh Province - Bel (AO) - Men 23,2%

Osh Province - Bel (AO) - Women 35,0%

Jalalabad Province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) - Men 30,1%

Jalalabad Province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) - Women 48,2%

Talas Province - Kara-Buura (AO) - Men 38,5%

Talas Province - Kara-Buura (AO) - Women 57,0%

2 Outcome Indicator 1b

% of target community members (men and women) who believe that women affected by migration play a positive role and contribute to peacebuilding and community development

Quantitative survey, simple random selection, representatives on sex, age group, and population distribution parameter

Local communities’ members – population 15+. As in previous indicator.

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13 S1-S9, M1, M1_1, M1_2, M2_2 B1, B2, B4

TOTAL 51,4%







Men 46,8%

Women 51,8%

15 - 24 49,9%

25 - 54 48,4%


55+ 51,9%

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) - Men 45,8%

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) -Women 57,5%

Batken Province - Orozbekov (AO) - Men 49,4%

Batken Province - Orozbekov (AO) - Women 53,0%

Osh Province - Tolos (AO) - Men 42,8%

Osh Province - Tolos (AO) - Women 50,7%

Osh Province - Bel (AO) - Men 44,4%

Osh Province - Bel (AO) - Women 43,8%

Jalalabad Province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) - Men 45,8%

Jalalabad Province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) - Women 49,1%

Talas Province - Kara-Buura (AO) - Men 51,0%

Talas Province - Kara-Buura (AO) - Women 53,2%

3 Output Indicator 1.1

% of community members who report increased awareness on the role of women and girls in community development and peacebuilding



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 C1, C2, C3

TOTAL 36,3%







Men 32,6%

Women 36,4%

15 - 24 30,8%

25 - 54 33,6% 55+ 39,7%

4 Outcome Indicator 2a

% of women from the target group participating in peacebuilding initiatives

Quantitative survey, simple random selection, representatives on age group, and population distribution parameter

Women and girls affected by migration 15+.

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 D1, D2, D3, D4

TOTAL 14,8%

Women Returned-migrant 16,2%

Women Potential-migrant 14,2%







WAM – returned migrants 16,2%

WAM – potential migrants 14,2%

15 - 24 13,9%

25 - 54 15,6%

55+ 15,5%


5 Outcome Indicator 2b

% of women from the target group who refer to social services for protection of their rights



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 E1, E2, E5, Е6

TOTAL 49,4%











15 - 24 44,0%

25 - 54 53,1%

55+ 47,7%

6 Outcome Indicator 2c

% of women from target groups with increased (who have) access to economic and community development opportunities



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 F1, F2

TOTAL 25,3%











15 - 24 20,6%

25 - 54 28,1%

55+ 23,2%


% of women and girls from target communities who are equipped with knowledge and skills on how to advocate for their rights


Local communities’ members – women and girls 15+. 12 settlements, 6 municipalities, 6 districts and 4 Provinces (oblast). Local population in the target localities of the program, aged 15+, men (and boys) and women (and girls)

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 G1, G2, G3, G4, G5

TOTAL 58,6% Women Returned-migrant 60,0%








15 - 24 54,7%

25 - 54 60,5%

55+ 59,1%


8 Output Indicator 2.1.4

# of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected by migration



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 D4, D5, D6

TOTAL mean number of initiatives

2,6

Women Returned-migrant (mean) 2,8

Women Potential-migrant (mean) 2,8

15 - 24 2,5

25 - 54 2,7

55+ 2,6

9 Outcome

Indicator 3b

# of target municipalities, who

support women and girls affected

by migration through

consultations on safe migration, civic

activism, and peacebuilding

Quantitative survey, simple random

selection, representatives on

age group and population distribution parameter

Women and girls affected by

migration 15+.

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 H1, H2, H3, G5 The indicator was assessed using qualitative survey outcomes. These are supportive figures, showing the prevalence of WAM who claimed they got support/ consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB.

TOTAL 3 Municipalities









10 Outcome

Indicator 3c

# of target municipalities who

claim to be applying gender-responsive

peacebuilding principles in

support of women’s participation in

community development

(LAPs)

Qualitative in-depth interviews with local stakeholders (Guide

#2)

Local level authorities and

NGOs. As in previous indicators.

In-depth interview Guide 2. Main

questions: Q3, Q9 (9.2.)

Based on the results of interviews with the representatives of LSGs, annual plans of 4 LSGs reflect principles of gender-

sensitive peacebuilding engaging women in community development, according to participants’ claims.

11 Output

Indicator 3.2.1

# of Local Action Plans were claimed to be developed on gender-sensitive peacebuilding

Qualitative in-depth interviews with local stakeholders (Guide #2)

Local level authorities and NGOs. As in previous indicators.

In-depth interview Guide 2. Main questions: Q9

The total number of local action plans (documents) confirmed are 4 (Ak-Tupak, Orozbekov, Bel, and Kara-Buura

AOs) and 1 more Ayil Kenesh plan in Bel AO.


IV. HOUSEHOLD AND INDIVIDUAL PROFILES FOR THE BASELINE

4.1. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS

To understand the sociodemographic profile of the residents in project clusters (aiyl okmotu), participants were asked questions about the structure of their household. These included information on the household size, the age of members, the sources of income, the presence of labour migrants or people with disabilities, and access to irrigation water. This data is significant to ensure more accurate targeting of program interventions for each aiyl aymak and enable the comparison of resulting indicators and their variability within sociodemographic groups.

The main target group that was set in the assessment dimensions was the women affected by migration (WAM), considering those women who were in labour migration in other regions of Kyrgyz Republic or abroad in the past three years (344 women or 31.7 percent of all women interviewed) and those, who plan to migrate for work in 2021 to other regions of Kyrgyz Republic or abroad (262 women or 35.6 percent of all women interviewed). Please note, this data should not be treated as representative of the population because the survey used a quota sample (i.e., there was a standard set that a minimum of 30 percent should be WAM to be presented (targeted) in the assessment sample to make possible statistical layouts within this group presented).

The survey covered representatives of 1,191 randomly selected households in the Batken, Osh, Jalalabad, and Talas

provinces. According to the results, two-thirds of households were headed by a man, and only 25.4 percent by a woman. In the latter case, women who remained alone (for various reasons) became the sole heads of the household, taking on all responsibilities for bearing expenses, generating income, and running the household, therefore enjoying little time left to themselves. The smallest proportion of female-headed households was registered in the Kyzyl-Tuu AO (19.2 percent), and the largest in Ak-Turpak (33.5 percent).

Out of the total sample of households, the maximum number of family members registered was 18. The median number of family members was 5, while the median values for adults (over 15 years old) and children (under 15 years old, including newborns) were 3 and 2, respectively.

Table 4.1.1. Number of household members, N=1,191

Parameter Minimum Median Maximum

Total number of people in household 1 5 18

Number of adults (over 15 y.o.) 1 3 9

Number of children (under 15 y.o.) 0 2 9

The smallest number of adults per household was observed in the Kyzyl-Tuu AO, and the highest in Toolos AO. This district also registered the highest number of children per family.

Figure 4.1.1 Household age structure, N = 1191

60%

68%

70%

70%

74%

75%

40%

32%

30%

30%

26%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Toolos aiyl okmotu, n=162

Bel aiyl okmotu, n=177

Ak-Turpak aiyl okmotu, n=248

Kara-Buura aiyl okmotu, n=209

Orozbekov aiyl okmotu, n=244

Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl okmotu, n=151

How many of them are 15 years old or older?

3 persons and less 4 persons and more

11%

16%

21%

18%

12%

21%

69%

62%

57%

67%

70%

62%

20%

21%

22%

14%

18%

17%

0%20%40%60%80%100%

How many children under age 15 do you have in your household?

Do not have children 1-3 children More then 3 children


A third of the households earned less than 10 000 soms per month; another 22.8 percent lived with up to 15 000 soms. Keeping in mind that 46.7 percent of families declared having between 5 and 7 members, we can assume that villages targeted by the assessment had a high proportion of families whose income per family member was lower than the minimum subsistence level per capita of 4 739 soms.

Figure 4.1.2 Household income, N = 1,191

A significant proportion of respondents (43.2 percent) indicated agriculture as their main source of income. The second most common sources of income were pensions / benefits and money transfers from migrant relatives (13.9 percent and 13.4 percent respectively).

Figure 4.1.3 Main sources of household income, N = 1,191

Up to 10 000 soms; 43.1%

10 000-15 000 soms; 22.8%

15 001 - 20 000 soms, 10.7%

20 001 - 30 000 soms, 5.9%

30 001 - 35 000 soms, 3.8%

35 001 - 40 000 soms, 1.1%

more then 40 000 soms, 1.8%

Refusal to answer, 4.8%

Difficult to answer, 6.0%

Q11 Please indicate your average monthly income for your household (i.e. total income of all family members) in cash and in kind, including: salaries, pensions, scholarships, trade, farming, harvest, etc.

43.2%

62.5%

44.3%

27.2%

40.1%

30.5%

43.1%

13.9%

3.2%

18.4%

16.7%

23.7%

14.6%

10.0%

13.4%

5.6%

13.9%

33.3%

13.0%

21.2%

1.4%

11.3%

3.2%

11.5%

8.0%

12.4%

13.9%

20.1%

9.2%

6.0%

8.6%

4.9%

7.3%

10.6%

17.7%

6.4%

18.5%

0.4%

7.4%

1.7%

3.3%

4.3%

2.3%

0.8%

2.0%

2.5%

1.7%

5.3%

2.4%

Total, n=1191

Batken region, Ak-Turpak aiyl okmotu, n=248

Batken region, Orozbekov aiyl okmotu, n=244

Osh region, Toolos aiyl okmotu, n=162

Osh region, Bel aiyl okmotu, n=177

Jalal-Abad region, Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl okmotu, n=151

Talas region, Kara-Buura aiyl okmotu, n=209

Agriculture (own farm/household) Pensions/Benefits

Money transfers from migrant relatives from abro Private Entrepreneurship/Private Business

Public service (doctor, teacher, etc.) Unskilled work (temporary/seasonal employment)

Agriculture (wage employment) Assistance from relatives/children/parents

Refusal to answer


Although agriculture was stated as an important source of income, 28 percent of the surveyed households faced various difficulties accessing irrigation water: the responses ranged from “No, we do not get water when we really need it” to “Yes, we get water, but with great difficulties.” The best access to irrigation water was observed in the Ak-Turpak AO in the Batken province (92 percent), where agriculture was the main source of income for the largest proportion of households (62.5 percent) compared to the other AO. As for the second most common source of household income – money transfers from migrants – it is worth noting that 69.4 percent of the households had family members who had been in labour migration over the past three years. In most cases (90.2 percent), people migrated outside Kyrgyz Republic, while internal migration accounted for only 5.1 percent of respondents in the surveyed AO.

Figure 4.1.4 Destinations for labour migration in the last 3 years, N = 827

More than a third of households (37.7 percent) had family members who were in labour migration at the time of the survey. The majority of families with migrants (56.8 percent) were found in the Toolos AO, in the Osh province, while the lowest percentage (18.2 percent) was observed in the Kara-Buura AO, Talas province.

Figure 4.1.5 Families with current migrants, N = 1,191

The results revealed that nearly equal proportions of men and women migrants returned to their families in the year when the survey was held. The same was true for migration plans for 2021: about 20 percent of men and women each expressed their intention to migrate.

5.1%

90.2%

4.7%

Q6 Do you have people in your family who have been in labour migration in another area of Kyrgyzstan or in another country in the last three years?

Yes, they were only in another region ofKyrgyzstan

Yes, they were only in another country

Yes, they have been in another region andanother country

62.2%

37.7%

0.1%

No Yes Difficult to answer / I don't know

Q12 Is there a family member in your household who is currently in labour migration?


Figure 4.1.6 Number of the people who returned from labour migration, N = 1,191

Approximately 11 percent of households said they had family members with disabilities, with over 90 percent of them having one person with disability in the family, and 8.3 percent two or more representatives of this group.

Figure 4.1.7 Households with family members with disabilities, N = 1,191

According to the results of this analysis, the sample structure is representative of all sociodemographic groups residing in the communities targeted by the assessment. The gender of the head of household, the presence of labour migrants or PWDs, the minimum income, and the sources of income shape the vulnerability profile for each household and will further be incorporated into the analysis of indicators.

4.2. RESPONDENTS’ SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE The survey involved 1,500 randomly selected respondents (737 women and 763 men) aged 15 years old and older. The gender and age proportions were aligned to the general population of Kyrgyz Republic (according to the official data of the National Statistical Committee at the beginning of 2020) by adjusting non-representativeness (weighting). Respondents’ gender representation was almost equally distributed. Also, an approximately equal number of

45%

46%

9%

46%

44%

10%

No men

1 and more men

Difficult to answer / don't know

No women

1 and more women

Difficult to answer / don't know

Mal

eFe

mal

e

Q7 How many people who live permanently in your household have returned from labour migration from another province of Kyrgyzstan or from another country in the last year.

10.2%0.9%

88.8%

0.1%

1 2 and more No Difficult to answer / don'tknow

Q9 Does anyone in your family have a disability? If so, how many people have it?


respondents were interviewed in each AO (about 17 percent of the total). Regarding age, the largest proportion (56 percent) of the respondents was between 25 and 54 years old, while the proportion of women (55 percent) of this age was approximately the same as of men (57.6 percent). About 15 percent of men who took part in the study were 55 years old or older, which did not statistically differ from women proportion (18.4 percent).

Figure 4.2.1 Respondents’ age distribution by gender, N = 1,500

The ethnic composition of respondents was uniform: almost all of the participants were Kyrgyz. This can be explained by the fact that the Kyrgyz ethnic group prevails in all 12 settlements targeted by the survey.

Table 4.2.1. Ethnic composition of respondents, N = 1500

Ethnic distribution of respondents

Kyrgyz 98,9%

Uzbek 0,6%

Kazakh 0,1%

Multinational 0,2%

Other 0,2%

Most of the interviewed respondents were citizens of Kyrgyz Republic. Less than 1 percent of the participants were citizens of other countries (Russia, Uzbekistan, or Kazakhstan).

According to the analysis of the respondents’ marital status, the proportion of participants at the national level who were legally (officially) married prevailed (67.2 percent), with the largest part of such respondents residing in Bel AO. At the same time, only 6.5 percent of respondents declared they were in a non-registered relationship (only Nikah or cohabitation).

27.3%

26.6%

57.6%

55.0%

15.1%

18.4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Man, n=763

Woman, n=737

15 - 24 25 - 54 55+


Table 4.2.2. Respondents’ marital status, N = 1,500

Province Legally married

(+Nikah for some

respondents)

Never

been

married

Non-registered

relationship (only

nikah or

Cohabitation)

Widowed Divorced

Kyrgyz Republic 67.2% 20.0% 6.5% 3.5% 2.8%

Batken province, Ak-Turpak aiyl okmotu, n=251

69.3% 19.6% 4.9% 3.0% 3.2%

Batken province, Orozbekov aiyl okmotu, n=252

65.4% 24.6% 5.1% 1.7% 3.2%

Osh province, Toolos aiyl okmotu, n=249

65.6% 19.1% 7.3% 4.8% 3.2%

Osh province, Bel aiyl okmotu, n=249

71.8% 15.6% 7.2% 3.7% 1.7%

Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl okmotu, n=249

67.8% 17.5% 8.3% 4.1% 2.2%

Talas province, Kara-Buura aiyl okmotu, n=250

63.6% 23.3% 6.2% 3.4% 3.5%

About half of the respondents reported having only general secondary education (11 grades), while 16 percent of the survey participants had completed higher education. It’s worth noting that 72.1 percent of the respondents did not plan to continue their studies in 2020. This could be explained by the fact that the survey covered only rural areas, where higher education institutions were either not accessible due to distance or cost, or education was not considered a priority by participants.

Figure 4.2.2 Respondents’ education level, N = 1,500

For the purpose of this study, personal income was regarded as salaries, wages, and benefits received from employment or self-employment, dividends, investments, property rental, or profit sharing. About 16 percent of the respondents had a personal income below the country’s subsistence level per capita and another 35.2 percent had no personal income at all, of which 69.2 percent were women. The high unemployment rate among women may be due to high unemployment in rural areas in general, gender stereotypes stipulating that women should not work but devote their time to the family, or the lack of typical female jobs in rural areas.

0.5%

0.5%

0.1%

1.7%

7.9%

19.0%

3.8%

3.6%

55.1%

42.8%

59.1%

61.6%

5.0%

5.7%

4.2%

6.6%

12.6%

16.5%

10.6%

13.3%

2.8%

7.5%

1.1%

0.6%

16.0%

7.9%

21.0%

12.3%

0.2%

0.2%

0.4%

Total, n=1500

15 - 24, n=405

25 - 54, n=845

55+, n=251

Elementary general education (4 grades) Basic secondary education (9 grades)

General secondary education (11 grades) Initial vocational education (vocational lyceum)

Secondary vocational education (technical school, college) Incomplete higher education (three or more years)

Higher education (completed bachelor's degree, master's degree, etc.) No education


Figure 4.2.2 Respondents’ monthly Personal Income, N = 1,500

Over a third of the male and female cohorts reported having from 1 to 3 children, and another third of the respondents said they had more than 3 children. Interestingly, the proportion of parents with many children increased with respondents’ age, with the older age group (55 years old and older) logically being more likely to indicate having 3 or more children.

Figure 4.2.3 Number of children, N = 1,500

In more than half of the cases, respondents’ parents were alive but lived separately from their children. Only 13.7 percent claimed living with their parents at the time of the survey. By age, the proportion of respondents living with their parents was higher among young people (from 15 to 24 years old), which also reflects the traditions inherent to the society.

35.2%

3.3%

16.5%

19.4%

8.8%

3.7%

1.1%

1.0%

0.8%

4.7%

5.5%

No income

Up to 2 000 soms

2 001 - 5 000 soms

5 001 - 10 000 som

10 001 - 15 000 som

15 001 - 20 000 soms

20 001 - 30 000 soms

30 001 - 35 000 soms

More than 35 000 soms

Refusal to answer

Difficult to answer

S12 Please indicate your average monthly personal income?

24.5%

39.7%

35.8%

S8. How many children do you have?

Do not have children

1-3 children

More then 3 children


Figure 4.2.4 Presence and place of residence of respondents’ parents, N = 1,500

The assessment also included a qualitative research component that involved conducting 12 in-depth interviews and 8

focus group discussions.

In-depth interviews (IDIs) were held with 6 leaders or representatives of the local AO and 3 local NGOs. Interviews were also conducted with representatives of the State Agency for Local Self-Government and Interethnic Relations, JIA Business Association and the Forum of Women Members of the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic.

In total 9 women and 3 men took part in the interviews. The distribution by age was similar, with 9 respondents aged between 25 and 54 years old and 3 respondents aged 55 or older. The detailed geographical distribution is shown in the table below.

Table 4.2.2. Geographical distribution for IDIs, N = 12

Geography Number of IDIs

Batken 3

Bishkek 3

Jalalabad 2

Osh 2

Talas 2

Focus group discussion (FGDs) were attended by women from each selected village, either returning from labour migration or planning to migrate (in equal proportions). Another 4 focus groups covered people who were aware of the situation with labour migrants in their respective village: social workers, members of the local assemblies / local kenesh / councils, representatives of women’s councils, local leaders / community activists / civil activists, social school educators, representatives of aksakal courts.

In total, 65 people took part in FGDs, of which 83 percent were women and 17 percent were men. In terms of the geographical distribution, an approximately equal number of participants (16-17 respondents) from each province (Batken, Jalalabad, Osh, Talas) were involved in the study. Finally, the target group was selected randomly both at the individual and the household level to ensure the representation of various categories of people in regard to income, marital status, children, education level, ethnic group, etc. Experts were selected based on their professional knowledge on gender-sensitive peacebuilding and the inclusion of women in decision-making processes in rural areas.

56.3%29.9%

13.7%

S9 Tell me, do your parents live with you?

Yes, my parents are alive, but they do not livewith me

No, my parents are not alive/I do not have them

Yes, my parents are alive and they live with me


4.3. MIGRATION EXPERIENCE Labour migration in Central Asia as a whole and in Kyrgyz Republic specifically has been playing a great social and economic role. The significant contribution of the financial inflow from migrants, both in terms of supporting families left back in their homeland and replenishing the country’s GDP, cannot be denied. Most migrants occupy niches in the labour market that are not filled by local workers. Even if they have strong qualifications in a subject-matter area, migrants often hold positions that do not match either their specialization or skills.

The sample included representatives of various occupations including workers in the public and private sectors, housewives/househusbands, farmers, entrepreneurs, unemployed, self-employed, and students.

By gender, more men than women reported working in the agricultural sector (41.7 percent). The female respondents who considered themselves housewives made up almost half of all surveyed women, while the proportion of househusbands among men was only 0.7 percent, or 5 people. Presumably, this is explained by the prevailing stereotype prescribing men to be breadwinners and women to take care of the house and children. This assumption also indirectly supports the fact that the proportion of housewives / househusbands is higher among the respondents who have parents

but live separately from them (65.2 percent). Students, unemployed, self-employed, etc. can presumably become labour

migrants.

Figure 4.3.1 Respondents’ occupation, N=1500

In the three years preceding the survey, 39 percent of the participants had been in labour migration. At the same time, the proportion of labour migrants was found to be highest in the Osh province (44.6 percent in Toolos AO and 45 percent in Bel AO), and the lowest in Talas (31.1 percent in Kara-Buura AO).

By gender, a significant observation was that the proportion of women who had been in labour migration in the three years preceding the survey was higher than that of men. A possible reason could be the lack of income for women (69.2 percent according to the previous chapter).

24.5%

0.7%

49.2%

23.2%

41.8%

4.0%

9.8%

13.1%

6.3%

9.8%

8.7%

10.9%

9.3%

6.9%

11.8%

8.0%

10.7%

5.3%

6.9%

6.6%

7.2%

5.6%

7.2%

3.9%

2.5%

3.8%

1.2%

0.1%

0.2%

Total, n=1500

Man, n=763

Woman, n=737

Housewife(husband) or on maternity leave Engaged in agriculture (farmer or working for a farmer)

Student I work in a state institution

Retired, handicapped Have my own business/work for myself

Unemployed and not looking for work Unemployed and actively looking for work

I work at a private company Refusal to answer

I work for a non-governmental organization Other


Figure 4.3.2 Respondents’ migration experience in the last 3 years, by gender, N = 1,500

Concerning reasons for labour migration, the main reason indicated by the respondents was the need to feed / support the family (76.3 percent). The second most popular reason (12.1 percent) was the lack of possibilities to earn money in respondents’ respective villages. Thus, financial needs were found to be the main driver of migration. When making a decision on labour migration, 6.5 percent of the respondents felt pressure from their relatives with the proportion of men among such respondents (4.2 percent) roughly half that of women (8.1 percent).

Figure 4.3.3 Planned migration reasons by gender, N = 446

About 30 percent of the respondents reported planning to migrate in 2021, with the proportion of women among such respondents being higher than that of men. Interestingly, the proportion of respondents who answered in the affirmative

68.1%

53.0%

31.7%

46.6%

0.2% 0.4%

Man, n=763 Woman, n=737

M2 Please tell me, have you been in labour migration in other regions of Kyrgyzstan or abroad in the last 3 years?

No Yes Difficult to answer

79.1%

14.4%

4.2%

6.8%

5.0%

3.1%

2.1%

4.6%

74.3%

10.4%

8.1%

5.7%

5.4%

5.3%

3.8%

2.1%

2.1%

The need to feed/support the family

Lack of possibilities to earn money in my village

Decision were made by relatives / friends

То get education/training and combine it with work

Poor quality of life in my village

Dream to see another country

Assistance in work/to find job for relatives-migrants in thehost country

То get education/training

Other

M4 For what reason do you plan (what or who forces you) to migrate/go to seek the employment?



(“Yes”) (40.8 percent) was higher among returned migrants than among respondents who planned to migrate for the first time (22.5 percent).

Figure 4.3.4 Intention to migrate in 2021 by gender, N = 1500

In addition, the most popular destination for labour migrants was Russia, as mentioned by 86.5 percent of those who intended to migrate. At the same time, only 4.9 percent of respondents thought about internal migration from a rural area to Bishkek or other large cities of Kyrgyz Republic. Noteworthy, we found a significant difference between the regions. Specifically, the proportion of respondents who intended to go to Russia was 57.5 percent, while the proportion of participants who planned to become internal migrants accounted for 26 percent.

Figure 4.3.5 Intention to migrate in 2021 by destination country, N = 446

More than half of the respondents (51.5 percent) planned to leave for one to three years. At the same time, only 0.4 percent did not plan to come back. Significant differences in the planned duration for the trip were found across different age groups. The older generation (55 years and older) did not consider the possibility of long-term migration (more than 3 years). This age group was more interested in leaving for a period of up to 6 months. A majority of respondents aged between 25 and 54 years old planned to work abroad for up to 3 years.

74.6%

63.7%

24.1%

35.6%

1.3% 0.7%


M3 Do you plan to migrate for work in 2021 to other regionsof Kyrgyzstan or abroad?

No Yes Difficult to answer

86.5%

4.9%2.6%

2.5% 0.8% 0.6% 2.9%

M5 Where do you plan to migrate/go?

Russia

Bishkek/Osh, major center of Kyrgyzstan

Turkey

Kazakhstan

Difficult to answer

United Arab Emirates (Dubai)

Other


Figure 4.3.5 Respondents’ Planned duration of migration, N = 446

In the three years preceding the survey, 39 percent of the participants had been in labour migration, and approximately 30 percent planned to migrate in 2021. The preferred destination country was the largest country in the region, the Russian Federation, where 86.5 percent of respondents planned to go. The main purpose of migration among those who planned to migrate was to improve the well-being of their families (76.3 percent) or their personal well-being (12.1 percent).

9.1%11.5%

51.6%

24.2% 23.0% 23.8%

46.0%

56.7%

24.6%

11.6%

2.6%0.0%0.0% 0.6% 0.0%

9.1%5.6%

0.0%

15 - 24, n=151 25 - 54, n=274 55+, n=21

M6 For how long do you plan your next trip (how long will you be away)?

Up to 6 months 6 to 11 months 1 to 3 years More than 3 years Don't plan to come back Difficult to answer


V. GENDER EQUALITY AND HARMFUL GENDER NORMS Outcome Indicator 1a - Proportion (%) of the population (men and women) who support gender equality and stand against harmful gender norms concerning women in migrant communities.

Indicator summary (indicator values/outcomes – quantitative and qualitative)

The following total value of the indicator was assessed in the baseline assessment:

Table 5.1. Indicator 1a values

Number Description Component Assessment outcome

Outcome Indicator 1a

Proportion (%) of the

population (men and

women) who support gender equality and who stand against harmful gender norms concerning women in migrant communities

Quantitative

TOTAL: 35,1%

Batken province - Ak-Turpak (AO) 37.1% (28.4% men. 46.2% women)

Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 32.0% (24.4% men. 40% women) Osh province - Tolos (AO) 26.1% (22.4% men. 29.9% women) Osh province - Bel (AO) 29.1% (23.2% men. 35% women) Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 39.0% (30.1% men. 48.2% women) Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 47.5% (38.5% men. 57% women)

Male 27.9% Female 42.7%

15-24 years 33.7% 25-54 years 33.6% 55+ years 42.6%

Qualitative

The majority of the population in target communities supports gender equality. However, some negative gender norms and stereotypes still exist. One of the main stereotypes is that women should stay at home, manage household affairs, and raise children. Mostly, this is due to the traditions and mentality passed from generation to generation. The majority of the respondents noted that there are no harmful gender norms/behaviors/stereotypes concerning women who have returned from labour migration. Nonetheless, two negative stereotypes on WAM were mentioned: they lead a dissolute lifestyle and earn money in dishonest ways, and they negatively change their behavior and appearance. These negative stereotypes could prevent women from self-developing, self-accomplishing, and participating in the development of the community.

Results of the data analysis

During the FGDs with WAM and local activists, the majority noted that there is no explicit gender inequality in their localities. In fact, it is widely believed that the situation with gender inequality has significantly changed in recent years; and nowadays, fewer people support negative gender stereotypes and more people are favourable to women’s participation in various events and decision-making processes.

“Out of 100 families, 10-20 percent exercise pressure on women. But now mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law show more understanding. They usually agree that their daughters-in-law shouldn’t stay home but should work. There are also some who have opposite views, of course, but only a few.” – WAM, Batken province

“Nowadays there is more equality and the father-in-law, the mother-in-law, and the husband are all ready to listen to the woman’s opinion. Now people start thinking: ‘Hold on, if a woman speaks up, it means she wants to talk about something useful, let’s listen to her. If my opinion coincides with her words, then I will make a decision.’ This is one of the achievements of democracy.” – Local activists and decision-makers, Jalalabad province

For example, FGD participants noted that if before there was an established norm that men should earn money and women should stay home and do household chores, nowadays women have the same right to work as men.

The relatively low value for indicator 1a in the Tolos AO (Osh province) can be explained by the fact that, according to participants of the FGD with WAM in Osh oblast, despite the significant role of women in generating income in many


families, women still do not have equal rights with men. Women are expected to earn money, do household chores and raise children, but all the while be considered as less worthy than men.

“Basically, everything is on women’s shoulders: housework and work outside the home, some even support their husbands. They do all of this, but still stand below men.” – WAM, Osh province

The respondents were asked to assess the number of expressions16 regarding gender norms in terms of their attitudes and perceptions. From Figure 5.1, it can be observed that the majority of the population in each province gave from 7 to 9 “correct”17 answers supporting gender equality and standing against harmful gender norms. The results for this question (depending on the respondents’ province) explain the value for Indicator 1a. In the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province), where the highest value for indicator 1a was observed, 77.3 percent of the population gave more than 7 correct answers, while in the Tolos AO (Osh oblast), which accounted for the lowest value for Indicator 1a, only 45.0 percent of the participants gave more than 7 answers supporting gender equality on this question. As Indicator 1a revealed, women are more supportive of gender equality than men. This can be confirmed by the results from Figure 5.1: 75.6 percent of women gave more than 7 “correct” answers, while only 48.7 percent of men did.

Figure 5.1 Quantity of answers supporting gender equality, N=1500, N “correct” answers =14

According to the quantitative data (from the community members survey), more than 90 percent of the target audience acknowledged the need for women to receive a good education; this was the most supported positive gender norm. Some of the negative gender norms which were supported by a majority of the population are linked to the unequal opportunities for women in employment and their submissive behavior in family relationships.

16 Please, see Question A1 on the page 119 in the Annex 17 The respondent was provided 15 expressions toward gender norms and asked: “A1. To what extent do you agree with the following

statements?” If the respondent gave the “incorrect” answer, for instance: “5. A woman has the right to run her own business or

work” and he replied “Completely disagree”, then he would not count for this option as having provided a “correct” answer. And

vice versa.

16.8%

20.5%

21.2%19.9%

15.1%

17.2%

.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Man Woman Batken region, Ak-Turpak aiyl okmotu

Batken region, Orozbekov aiyl okmotu Osh region, Toolos aiyl okmotu Osh region, Bel aiyl okmotu

Jalal-Abad region, Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl okmotu Talas region, Kara-Buura aiyl okmotu

A1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?


Figure 5.2 Support for negative stereotypes and gender norms concerning women, N = 1500

A majority of the population (61.4 percent) in the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province) disagree with the fact that salaries can differ for men and women. At the same time, 65.4 percent of the respondents from the Orozbekov AO (Batken province) and 60.8 percent from Kara-Buura AO (Talas province) disagree with the fact that a man in Kyrgyz Republic can have several wives if he can support them: these results are higher than in other target locations. Support for this statement also depends on the respondents’ gender: women are more likely to disagree with this statement than men. Besides that, based on the results of the qualitative research study, it can be noted that a majority of the respondents indicated that some gender norms still exist. One of the main stereotypes mentioned is the idea that a woman should stay home, manage household affairs and raise children, and has no or limited rights in decision-making processes. These stereotypes find their source in the traditions and mentality developed a long time ago. And these stereotypes are inevitably passed down from one generation to another, since children observe the household members’ behaviour and grow up thinking that this negative behaviour and gender roles are acceptable.

“Women do not think about the fact that they are setting the same example for their daughters, that their daughters will endure in the same way, for example, their husbands’ beating, betrayal, or bullying.” – Representative of GAMSUMO, Bishkek “In the long term, this affects family relationships, the family in general, children. Certain stereotypes are repeated from generation to generation. The son continues to do the same thing that his father did, and the daughter continues to do what her mother did.” – Representative of the JIA business association, Bishkek

Speaking about provinces in which the population was more inclined to support negative gender norms, it can be noted that in the Kyzyl-Tuu AO (Jalalabad province), 57.6 percent of the population agreed with the fact that a man has the right to kidnap a girl if he likes her (bride-kidnapping). Similarly, in the Tolos AO (Osh province), 60 percent of the respondents believed that women are not suitable for technical professions.

It is interesting to note that men who have been in labour migration, to a greater extent, did not agree that women should have equal rights with men in family / household property disputes (29.4 percent).

97.0%

92.4%

91.3%

88.6%

88.5%

82.9%

75%

74.1%

57.9%

53.1%

52.8%

52.0%

41.9%

39.5%

34.1%

2.7%

6.8%

8.1%

11.1%

11.0%

15.0%

22%

24.6%

40.8%

46.1%

44.2%

46.7%

55.6%

58.6%

64.3%

In today's world, a woman has to study and get a good education

Woman is the weaker gender; she should behave appropriately

A woman should behave submissively and obey her husband and relative

A woman has the right to run her own business or work

A woman has the right to take an active part in the development of the village and

can be a member of the local government

A woman should have equal rights with a man in family disputes, division of

property

The employer has the right to indicate in the job advertisement who is bettersuited for the job - a man or a woman

During feasts and meetings women have the right to sit with men, at the sametable

If the husband has physically harmed his wife, she should not go to anyone forhelp, since it is their family business

Women are not suitable for technical professions

A woman should not date a man before marriage

An employer has the right to assign different salaries to a man and a woman in thesame position based on his perception of man and woman employees

A man in Kyrgyzstan can have several wives if he can support them

It is better not to take a woman to work - she may go on maternity leave, getsick, or be frequently absent.

If a guy really likes a girl, he can steal her (ala kachuu - bride kidnapping)

Agree DisagreeA1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?


A significant part of the respondents (over 70 percent) agreed that a number of their community members/leaders fight

against negative stereotypes/prejudices and mistreatment of women (bans and restrictions on women’s participation in

meetings and village development, decision-making, etc.).

Figure 5.3 People who stand against/fight with negative stereotypes/prejudices

and mistreatment of women, N = 1,500

Participants in the FGDs and IDIs pointed out that the Ministry of Labour and Social Development fights against negative gender norms and stereotypes at the national level. From nongovernmental structures, they noted the role of various international organizations, and, at the local level, the significant role of women’s councils in the fight against gender inequality.

“At the national level, there is a Ministry of Social Development, but at the regional level they have a lot of work, they are so busy and often there is no one to do this work. There is also a Council on Gender Issues at the government level and a Forum of Women Deputies in the Jogorku Kenesh. Basically, international organizations such as UN Women deal with these issues, and their projects interact with the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic.” – Representative of the Forum of Women Parliamentarians, Bishkek

Despite the high value for Indicator 1a in the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province) compared to other AOs, where 47.5 percent of community member support (themselves) gender equality and stand against harmful gender norms. It can be noted that in most cases, residents of the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province) were relatively less likely to believe that other community members stand against negative stereotypes/prejudices and mistreatment of women. Local activists and leaders tried to explain the reasons for this phenomenon during FGDs. They reported that the level of people’s trust of “outside” organizations’ activities and community members in Kara-Buura AO with regard to preventing the spread of harmful gender stereotypes and norms is rather low. There is no information about what “gender equality” is, in the correct (positive) sense, and people often confuse this term with feminization, i.e., when women must do the men’s work (go abroad for migration) and surpass men in everything. According to activists and decision makers, there is a very low level of trust to local organizations dealing with the problems of gender inequality and negative norms, which in turn affects the perception of the actions of other community members.

“They discuss this (about the fight against negative gender norms) within families, with each other, with relatives and other people in the population. But there is no one to take an initiative and there are no official organizations to put the issue on the table.” – Community activists and decision-makers, Talas province

Hence, there are such commensurate proportions of responses by categories of influence in Kara-Buura AO who solve problems with negative gender norms. Notably, 59.4 percent18 of survey respondents (community members) mentioned

18 Please don’t confuse the Outcome 1a indicator value – which means if survey respondent himself/herself supports gender equality/

stands against harmful gender norms and A2 question, which asks about who in the community faces these negative aspects.

82.5%

81.5%

78.9%

73.6%

72.6%

72.2%

71.7%

71.6%

14.5%

15.8%

17.0%

19.6%

21.5%

22.0%

21.6%

26%

Bodies of internal affairs / local policeman

Elders / village elders

Local self-government bodies, heads of villages

Social workers/psychologists

Various NGOs, associations, women's councils, etc.

Residents of the village/village community

Lawyers / consultants - private and public

Respondent/family members

Yes No

A2. Who in your community faces/combats negative stereotypes/prejudices and mistreatment of women, such as bans and

restrictions on women’s participation in meetings and village development, decision-making, etc.?


their village / community members standing in favour of gender equality, LSGBs, heads of the village by 65.7 percent, village elders by 66.8 percent, and various NGOs, associations, and women’s councils by 61.2 percent of the respondents.

Concerning community members/leaders who, in the opinion of the respondents, do not support women’s rights, a

follow-up question was given. Speaking generally, it is clear that not standing for women’s rights (supporting negative gender norms) in most cases meant having a neutral position on this matter. Nonetheless, in 10 to 25 percent of cases, individuals not fighting for women’s rights support negative stereotypes and prejudices concerning women.

Almost half of the participants (43.8 percent) noted that they have never experienced any of the negative situations listed below (Fig. 5.4). In the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province), the proportion of people who have not experienced any negative situations linked with gender inequality is higher than in other provinces (59.4 percent). The most commonly mentioned negative experience is associated with the lack of employment opportunities in the village (19.1 percent); this situation is not exclusively related to gender inequality, but can also affect situation due to many other economic, political, and social factors. According to data collected, there is no significant differences in answer frequencies of mentioned inequality situations by gender distribution, except “Lack of job opportunities in your village,” which was experienced by 16.7 percent men and 21.6 percent of women.

Figure 5.4 Gender inequality situations experienced by respondents, N = 1,500

A number of questions was also addressed to participants regarding their knowledge and practices of stigmatization and gender equality among women, affected by migration. Table 5.2 shows the frequencies of the population answers in support of gender equality in regards to WAM: more than 60 percent of the respondents agreed with the statements that women returning from or planning to go on labour migration should have equal rights with men in various fields/activities.

When analyzing individual perception of ideal situation (how it should be) and current local situation (how it is in respondent’s community) toward women’s rights perception in the listed activities, we can say that respondents perceive that in real life, women have fewer rights than respondents would actually like them to have compared to men. For instance, 77.6 percent of the respondents indicated that WAM always or in most cases should have equal rights with men in participating in the political life of the village and district, while only 90 percent indicated that they agreed that WAM do have equal rights on this occasion at this moment.

43.8%

19.1%

5.8%

3.6%

3.5%

2.0%1.7%

1.7%1.6% 1.6% 1.1%

There were no such situations

Lack of job opportunities in your village

Ignoring your opinion in making important decisions

Violence by family members or inner circle

Underestimation of knowledge, refusal to accept to

work/study

You was not hired because only men/women were

hired

Hazing/extortion/racketeering

Refusal to accept an application, register a business, etc.

Being discriminated against on the basis of nationality

Condemnation by society

*Other

A4. Have you ever experienced the following situations in relation to yourself?

*Other: violation of the right to freedom of expression, participation in rallies, forced to get married, etc.


Table 5.2 Rights of women affected by migration in the community, N = 1,500

Women [returning or planning to go on

labour migration] should be…

A6. Do you agree with the following

expressions?

A7. And how is it now in your

community/village? (Only among those, who said “Yes, equal, or

better” in A6) Yes, women

should be

equal or in a

better

position

No, women

should be

less

favourable

Difficult to

answer

No, it is not so or

most of the time

not so

Yes, always,

or most of

the time this

is true

Don’t

know/difficult

to answer

Equal with men in accessing health care 97,8% 1,7% 0,5% 4% 95% 1!

Equal with men in planning personal leisure

time 92,4% 6,9% 0,7% 7% 92% 1%

Equal with men in accessing education and

regarding the quality of the education 90,8% 7,7% 1,5% 6% 93% 1%

Have with men in making financial decisions

(about family expenses and income, prices

and markets for agricultural products)

76,8% 22% 1% 11% 88% 1%

Equal with men in participating in the political

life of the village and district 77,6% 20,2% 2,2% 8% 90% 2%

Equal with men in accessing economic

resources (credit, loans) 75,3% 22,2% 2,5% 8% 91% 1%

Equal with men when choosing a profession

and where to go to earn money 74,8% 23,1% 2,2% 10% 89% 1%

Equal with men in the allocation of

housework 74,1% 24,4% 1,5% 7% 91% 2%

Equal with men in accessing land resources

(land) and machinery 63,8% 34,0% 2,2% 11% 88% 1%

Regarding the gender disaggregation of answers, the greatest difference concerned equal rights in making financial decisions: 28 percent of men noted that women should have fewer rights in making financial decisions, while this share among women was lower by 11.9 percent. Figure 5.5 shows that, in general, the population has a positive attitude towards the participation of women affected by migration in community development activities and decision-making processes. More than half of the respondents disagreed with the statements that women should not take part in rural development (69.6 percent), should not join associations/groups/unions (54.6 percent) and should not be present at village meetings for decision-making processes (56.3 percent). Looking at the regional disaggregation, we can observe that in Orozbekov (Batken province), Tolos (Osh province) and Bel (Osh province), the participants had a more negative attitude towards the involvement of women who have returned from migration or are planning to migrate in rural development activities: 43 percent-54 percent agreed that women affected by migration should not participate in village meetings when important issues in terms of rural development are

on the table, and should not join associations/groups/unions in their village. In the Tolos aiyl okmotu (Osh province), 42.6

percent of the respondents believed that women affected by migration should only take care of their houses and children and opposed their participation in rural development.


Figure 5.5 Role of women affected by migration in rural development, N = 1,500

Although many respondents mentioned positive trends toward WAM role perception, negative stereotypes and harmful gender norms are still present. Summarized below are the outcomes of qualitative interviews that support this indicator: National level partners and informants:

National level representatives are aware of negative gender norms that women face in their rural communities. They saw this as being a problem at the community level and claimed that it is up to LSGs to mitigate and eliminate these stereotypes and harmful norms. IDI participants observed a growth of women who defend and protect their rights and interests, even in rural areas, in recent years. They explained this is due to the increase in the number of women migrants who gained life experience and became more (economically) independent and self-reliant. National experts’ interviews also brought up the psychological and cultural implications of the emergence of negative stereotypes (religion, behaviour in the family, perception of a woman as physically weaker). They declared, that these negative stereotypes are “put into the child’s head” since the early childhood. And when women go abroad and earn a living themselves, having no time to build a family, they get stereotyped by community members and are pushed with their merits and successes into the backend.

NGOs representatives:

NGO representatives are familiar with various negative perceptions and norms of behaviour and attitude toward women who were in labour migration or who can be forced to migrate in local communities and perceive it as very common problem. Among all, the following norms toward women were mentioned: women are pictured in mass media doing household chores and building comfort for men; women should stay away from politics because it is men’s business; girls should not have computer literacy or a social network page because this is not in the family’s interests; women should

not spend the household money because it’s earned by only men. Harmful gender norms and stereotypes toward women

affected by migration are built around the fact that these girls and women are from vulnerable families, poor, with low education level or without any education, with many children, or from families with domestic violence. Thus, according to these stereotypes the local community forms the perception that if a woman is a migrant, then, for sure, her destiny can only be negative and she will get involved in cheating, unbridled lifestyle, becoming addicted to alcohol, etc. And after she comes back from migration, people question what good she could bring to the community. As soon as men learn about some negative facts related to women in migration, they conclude that all women are like that. NGO representatives declare that the state and local authorities do not have the time to solve these problems because they are overwhelmed with “paperwork.” The women’s councils were mentioned by NGO representatives as the main responsible group standing against harmful gender norms, although participants noted that they became less influential in recent years because of lack of financing (no private or donor funding) and obsolete councils’ brand perception (there are only older people left who use outdated conservative approaches).

56.3%

54.6%

69.6%

Women [who have returned or are planning to migrate] should

not be present at village meetings where important issues in

terms of rural development are decided


not join associations/groups/unions of your village


take care of their homes and children, not participate in rural

development

DisagreeB3. To what extent do you agree:

39.7

%

39.1

%

27.0

%

Agree


Local level authorities:

They didn’t notice much harmful gender norms and negative stereotypes toward WAM. LSG representatives from Bel

(Osh) even mentioned that several women passed GALS training in 2019 on this occasion to support the idea that there

are no harmful gender norms. LSG representative from Talas mentioned that approximately 30 percent of families in the local community do face such negative gender norms and behaviours toward women, and that this is rooted in elder

people’s opinions and upbringing. LSGs representatives from Osh (Toolos) declared that in general, these norms do not

harm the ability to participate in public affairs and activities and take part in decision-making process. Local activists and leaders and target women:

Opinions of local activists were also considered on this matter: social workers, deputies of the local assembly / local kenesh / councils, women’s council representatives, local leaders / activists of communities / civic activists, social pedagogues from schools, representatives of aksakal courts, representatives of the youth committee, and Migration Fund representatives were involved in discussions. Their opinions didn’t differ much from NGOs representatives: they believed

that these harmful gender norms come from family relations and elder people’s behaviour. No one local activist claimed

local population stands against harmful gender norms, and their reflections on who supports gender equality and facing harmful gender norms were around women’s councils, aksakal courts, imams through holding meetings, outreach, reconciliation, persuasion, and other. They also pointed out that negative cases of returned migrant women negatively affect potential migrant girls whose relatives tried to suppress any attempts to follow the path of independence and self-reliability.

Women, affected by migration have their own point of view on negative gender norms and perceptions in local

community toward women. They think approximately 50 percent of women in their communities are affected by gender inequality in household chores distribution, having no right to speak or advise, nor go anywhere (including to work abroad).

“We have the negative perceptions: A woman must raise children, keep engaged in domestic affairs, must respect her husband, must not stand against him, must agree with everything silently, must please everyone in the family.” – WAM, Osh province “When a woman starts earning money, the man usually says that she is becoming insolent and immediately forbids her to work.” – WAM, Osh province

WAM believe that women affected by migration perceive stereotypes and negative attitudes differently depending on the certain situation. For example, if a woman went on labour migration with her husband, then there are very few negative perceptions towards her whereas if she went alone, the community members would think differently. In some cases, these negative discussions in the community can even separate families. Women’s councils and women self-help groups are the only organizations among community -based organizations and other subjects (including LSGs) standing against harmful gender norms, in WAM’s opinions.


VI. GENDER PERCEPTIONS IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A. Outcome Indicator 1b – the % of target community members (men and women) who believe that women affected by migration play a positive role AND contribute to peacebuilding and community development Indicator summary (indicator values/outcomes – quantitative and qualitative) The following total value of the indicator was assessed in the baseline assessment:

Table 6.1 Indicator 1b value


Outcome Indicator 1b


Quantitative

TOTAL 51.4% Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) 51.7% (45.8% men, 57.5% women) Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 50.9% (49.4% men, 53% women) Osh province - Tolos (AO) 46.6% (42.8% men, 50.7% women) Osh province - Bel (AO) 43.9% (44.4% men, 43.8% women) Jalalabad province-Kyzyl-Tuu(AO) 47.5% (45.8% men, 49.1% women) Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 52.1% (51% men, 53.2% women) Male 46.8% Female 51.8% 15-24 years 49.9% 25-54 years 48.4% 55+ years 51.9%

Qualitative

According to the participants, women who were in labour

migration return more educated and financially secure, which

gives them the opportunity to open their own business, create

jobs, and do charity work. Most participants agree that

women affected by migration do not have any negative impact on their community.


The results of the study show that, according to the respondents, the main positive role of women affected by migration is the financial support to their family members (85 percent). This indicator does not have significant fluctuations in answers depending on the respondents’ gender or age, except Batken AOs showed more segregation between men and women opinions. The significant financial input from WAM was also highlighted in the quantitative component of the baseline assessment. Participants of the IDIs and FGDs repeatedly indicated the financial support to families as a positive role of WAM.

“Yes, women migrate to support their family, children, they do not have their own home. …. And if they stay in the village, they will not have a job nor be able to live in their parents’ house, because usually the parents live together with the women’s brothers, and their children and wives. So, women have to migrate and send money to their parents, provide money to their family and children. We have a lot of women, girls and brides who live like this.” – Local activists and decisions makers, Osh province

Speaking about the regional context, it can be noted that in the Orozbekov AO (Batken), a relatively smaller proportion of people noted that WAM strengthen family relations / give more love and attention to their children (45.2 percent) and contribute to resolving conflicts/disputes and promoting peace in the family (19 percent); in the Ak-Turpak AO (Batken province), 26 percent indicated that women affected by migration help the village by starting their own business, creating jobs, investing in local initiatives, while, in comparison, in the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province), 50.1 percent of respondents supported this statement.


Figure 6.1 Positive perception of role of WAM in community development and peacebuilding, N = 1,500

As the participants of the qualitative research study indicated, there are many examples of the positive impact of women returning from labour migration. In fact, in their opinion, women migrants return more literate, financially secure and with some personal authority among the villagers. Participants also noted WAM’s economic influence on the village, as they open their own business (sewing workshop, pastry or grocery shop, etc.), create more job opportunities and do charity work. At the same time, it can be noted that women migrants are often a source of reliable and valuable information for those who are planning to leave for labour migration. Finally, the majority of respondents noted that women who returned from labour migration have no negative impact.

“There are also girls who came back and started creating new jobs. For example, one girl opened a culinary workshop and now she makes baked goods. Women are also opening hair salons and sewing workshops.” – NGO representative, local activists and social workers, Osh Province

Most of the respondents indicated that women affected by migration do not have any negative impact on the villagers (41.2 percent). Participants of the quantitative research study were sure that the local communities tend to see fewer negative effects than they used to a few years ago. Possible reasons to why people became more favourable to WAM are the financial benefits from migrants, including WAM, and the fact that a lot of families have at least one migrant.

“I think it was before, about 5-10 years ago, when people used to have such negative views. ... Now, many families have migrants; usually at least one person is abroad or sometimes even all the family members can be in migration. Nowadays some men reason like this: “This family’s daughter worked in Moscow; I will marry her, because it won’t be too difficult for us if we go work abroad together.” – Local activists and social workers, Jalalabad province

Concerning regional disaggregation, the following differences can be highlighted: in Osh oblast, in the Bel AO, fewer people noted the absence of negative impact of WAM (24.7 percent); the Toolos AO has the smallest share of respondents who believed that WAM can induce other women to migrate (19 percent); in the Talas oblast, in the Kara-Buura AO, a relatively large percentage of respondents noted negative impacts such as the promotion of nontraditional values (39.7 percent) and not being involved in the development of the village/not searching for prospects in their village (30 percent).

85.0%

56.4%

44.5%

38.7%

35.1%

28.2%

5.3%

2.9%

Support their family financially

Strengthen family relations/ give more love and attention to

their children

Support other women and share their

experiences/experiences of migration

Start their own businesses, create jobs, invest in local

initiatives

Contribute to resolving conflicts/disputes and promoting

peace in the family

Share skills to resolve conflicts and disputes in their village

No positive impact

Difficult to answer/non-answer

B1. What is a positive role for women in your village who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration?


Figure 6.2 Negative impact of women affected by migration on community, N = 1,500 (multiple responses possible)

According to the quantitative data from the baseline assessment, more than half of the respondents noted the absence of cases of positive participation of women affected by migration in community development activities (52.9 percent -74.3 percent). The most often mentioned positive actions of women affected by migration were associated with proposing ideas for rural development at village meetings (37 percent). Some cases on community development were provided during in-depth interviews with NGOs representatives:

“Women-returned from migration were grouping in our community and proposed to solve the problem with lack of electricity – buy new electrical transformer instead of old one. They offered our LSG to share expenses 50/50, providing over 200 thousand soms to buy this and all community members would have the electricity.” – NGO representatives, Osh province

It can be noted that the Toolos AO (Osh oblast) has the largest share of respondents who indicated the non-participation of women affected by migration in the following events: decision-making / provision of support (86.4 percent), expression of proposals on rural development (72.9 percent), self-implementation of decisions expressed (85 percent). It is worth noting the difference by gender, as women (41.4 percent) more often confirmed and supported the cases when WAM from their communities would came up with their proposals/ideas on CD and PB occasions than did men (32.7 percent). There were no significant differences in the respondents’ opinions on gender in other questions.

41.2%

42.3%

42.9%

47.3%

24.7%

43.2%

46.6%

37.1%

41.0%

30.9%

28.0%

44.4%

36.1%

42.5%

33.3%

33.0%

28.0%

27.9%

39.5%

34.4%

37.0%

28.0%

28.8%

27.7%

19.0%

36.7%

24.0%

31.8%

27.7%

30.2%

22.1%

27.1%

35.4%

28.6%

23.1%

25.6%

19.4%

22.7%

19.1%

24.6%

28.1%

39.7%

17.8%

4.9%

12.1%

17.6%

22.4%

19.7%

30.3%

4.7%

5.4%

6.8%

4.8%

5.8%

3.6%

1.5%

Total, n=1500







No negative influence

Their behavioral culture changes, they become more liberated and do not listen to their elders/men

Shame the family with their immoral behavior (divorce, dating guys before marriage, etc.)

Induce other women to migrate/to leave their home/family

Do not read the Koran / do not follow the basic canons of religion / do not wear a headscarf

Begin to promote non-traditional values/freedom and rights of women

Not engaged in the development / in search for prospects for decent earnings in their village

Difficult to answer/non-answer

B2. What negative impact can women have on your villagers when they return or plan to go to labour migration?


Table 6.2 Cases of participation of women affected by migration in village development activities

Cases: Yes, and I support it

Yes, but I don’t

support it No

I don’t remember/ difficult to

answer

There were cases when a woman [who had returned from or was

planning to go on labour migration] made a decision / provided

support and everyone in the village talked about it, N = 1,500

16,4% 3,1% 74,3% 6,2%

There were situations when men asked women of your village

[who had returned from or were planning to go on labour

migration] for advice on important issues (economic, political,

medical, or domestic), N = 1,500

18,5% 2,1% 73,5% 5,9%

Women [who had returned from or were planning to go on

labour migration] freely expressed proposals on rural

development issues at village meetings, N = 1,500

37,0% 2,7% 52,9% 7,4%

Decisions expressed by women [who had returned from or were

planning to go on labour migration] at meetings were eventually

implemented by the women themselves, N = 595

27,5% 3,0% 57,9% 11,6%

Women [who had returned from or were planning to go on

labour migration] were involved in conflict resolution and

relationship building within your village, N = 1,500

18,3% 1,6% 71,7% 8,3%

National-level partners and informants:

They provided more “official-type” thoughts on WAM roles in the community life. They claimed that WAM are more literate, financially secure, have better legal literacy, more professional experience, and are ready to run their own business and therefore are positively perceived and accepted by community members (families and co-villagers).

“From my experience, when a woman returned from labour migration, saved up capital, opened a sewing shop or her own restaurant, or built a polyclinic in the village, donated an ambulance car or bought computers for her school, she makes a great contribution to the development of her village.” – Forum of Women Parliamentarians representative, Bishkek

NGO representatives:

NGOs representatives were more economically oriented, saying that the main factor for recognizing the role of migrant-

women is money remittances (help) to the family/community. However, they did not name any cases of recognizing this role of women. Local state authorities:

LSGs representatives confirmed the positive perception of WAM’s role in the local community due to economic support to their families; however, they also indicated the negative aspects (barriers) to perceiving women’s role in a broader way: women spend their time being exploited in the country of destination rather than on self-development or education. Another big problem brought up by LSG is that women fall out from the community life – they don’t take care of their children who are left in Kyrgyz Republic; instead of economic stability, women gain moral disappointment, borrowing more money for the trip than they earn.

“Women help local schools where they have studied, give money to directors for students’ scholarships, send clothes and sports uniforms. There is also a special fund for women who contributed to the construction of a Family Health

Center, a park, a mosque. Nowadays, more contributions are being made than in 2015. Migrants began

contributing and helping more, because they are becoming more educated and informed, they know what changes are taking place in our world.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO Batken


Local activists and leaders and target women, affected by labour migration:

Local activists tend to show more respect towards returned migrant women role, giving as examples women who joined their ranks and became social volunteers, donated for community development (infrastructure, environment, education, direct financial support), provided advice on what to do and how to act, etc. Respondents were less informed about girls vulnerable to forced migration, although they said they have the potential of playing a positive role in the future, once they stand tall and will be able to contribute in PB and CD (economically and socially).

In addition to the previously stated examples, in FGDs women (returned migrants and their relatives) also discussed about WAM helping their relatives (close and distant ones) and fellow villagers. They noted that this help was especially important during the COVID-19 crisis. They declared that their role and assistance was vital for community members and thus find their role very important, although unfortunately their efforts often are not reciprocated. Some FGD participants emphasized that the ability of women to take an active part in meetings and community development is directly dependent on women themselves. They noted the improvement in the situation for the recent years and that those women who are interested themselves do take an active part and their opinions are heard. At the same time, there are a number of factors that create obstacles for women to participate in any PB and CD activities, among them low awareness, lack of desire/motivation of WAM themselves, and social stereotypes. In the case of community gatherings/meetings, according to qualitative research participants, information about these is spread in closed groups in Telegram or WhatsApp, where for the most part only men are included.

“I can’t remember any of peacebuilding or community development situations, even rather with women participation/implementation.” – WAM, Batken province

“I haven’t heard or even tried to know. But if someone would tell me, I would take part.” – WAM, Batken province

“We are not informed, because only men are usually engaged. People who get community members involved only targeting men. I personally have never received any invitation for such activities for the last 20 years.” – WAM, Talas province

Social norms and stereotypes, as shown in the previous indicator’s assessment, exert much pressure on women. These social factors include religion, and that a woman cannot appear among a large crowd of men; prohibitions by family members, in particular the husband; social hierarchy, where priority is given to the opinion of the older family member. The stereotype about the need to preserve the hierarchy in society and the family remains actual, especially among the respondents of the older generation (about 50 years old). Young women are much more progressive and opposed to such discrimination. Regarding young girls affected by migration (potential migrants), it was only noted that they have a very low level of interaction – they worry only about themselves rather than about community members. The FGD participants who had women (family members) abroad at the time of the survey showed their respect and love for them, expressed missing them although they understood they were doing the right thing, and pointed out negative attitudes from community members towards them. FGD participants confirmed that over 50 percent of migrants are forced migrants, forced by unemployment, instability in the village, or by their relatives.


B. Output Indicator 1.1 - % of community members who report increased awareness on the role of women and girls

in community development and peacebuilding


Number Description Compo-

nent Assessment outcome

Output Indicator 1.1


Quanti-tative

TOTAL - 36.3% Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) 36.6% Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 40.0% Osh province - Toolos (AO) 18.9% Osh province - Bel (AO) 30.1%

Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 36.7%

Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 36.3% Male 32.6% Female 36.4% 15-24 years 30.8% 25-54 years 33.6% 55+ years 39.7%

Quali-tative

In the target regions, there is little awareness of the role of women in rural

development and peacebuilding; the main source for such information is word

of mouth. Activities to inform about the role of women are carried out at the

initiative of the villagers themselves, heads of AOs, or local NGOs.


Based on the results of the quantitative research study, 8.5 percent of respondents heard of situations where women were involved in resolving or preventing disputes and conflicts in their village; 68.9 percent (n=88) among these respondents have shared these stories and examples with others in their family or village.

Figure 6.3 Awareness of cases of women involved in resolving or preventing conflicts, N = 1,500

The qualitative research results showed a division in opinions on whether or not residents of the target regions are informed about the contribution of women to rural development and peacebuilding. But most of the participants agreed that the only source of information on the contribution of women is word of mouth, through which achievements (opening a business, engaging in charity work, etc.) of women in the village are usually transmitted. To increase

8.5%

89.5%

2.0%

Yes No Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

C1. Do you know any situations where women have been involved in resolving or preventing disputes and conflicts in

your village?

68.9%

31.1%

C2. Have you shared these stories/examples with others in your family or your village?


awareness about the role of women, it is necessary to use both online and offline channels: media, social networks, television, village meetings, schools, etc.

“There’s little information on their contributions. The media is very important here. They shouldn’t just publish an article. They should put it on the front page and say, ‘Look, women are a great resource and they can have tremendous power, they can solve many issues.’ And from there, step by step, show how they take decisions.” – NGO, Talas province

As described in the table below, more than half of the respondents indicated that women more actively express their

opinions, join initiative groups, support each other (59.1 percent), and are respected by residents of the village, who listen to their opinions and discuss solutions with them (57 percent). In this question, the results obtained in the Tolos AO (Osh province) should be highlighted since this is where the smallest proportion of respondents said they had encountered the cases mentioned, in comparison with other regions.

Table 6.3 Awareness of situations of WAM involved in peacebuilding activities

С3. Do you know of any similar situations that have happened in your

village in the last 12 months? Yes No

Difficult to

answer

Women are engaged in entrepreneurship, negotiating with suppliers of raw

materials and resources. 22,8% 75% 2%

Women participate in supporting peace, solving and preventing disputes

and conflicts, and in maintaining stability in your village. 24,9% 71,3% 3,8%

Women establish support groups for the population, self-help groups,

support centers for dysfunctional families, support for migrants, etc. 25,4% 70,4% 4,2%

Heads of local government and district administration support women in

their initiatives and proposals, help them in obtaining social, public

services/assistance.

30,1% 63,4% 6,5%

Women implement or participate in social projects aimed at helping

residents of the locality establish peace and stability, economic well-being. 21,4% 72,8% 5,8%

Women more actively express their opinions in your village, join initiative

groups, support each other in everyday life and family matters. 59,1% 37,4% 3,5%

Residents of the village respect women, listen to their opinions, discuss

with them solutions within the village. 57,0% 39,2% 3,8%

Regarding activities aimed at promoting gender equality and informing the population on the role of women in rural development, focus group and in-depth interviews participants noted the importance of village residents meetings and women’s councils, organized by the heads of the AOs and villages. It can also be noted that local nongovernmental organizations carry out various activities aimed at supporting women, women entrepreneurs, and activists, including meetings, information campaigns, and seminars, and by providing material, financial, informational, or psychological support. Below presented the key findings on that. National level partners and informants:

National level partners’ representatives believe that local communities are well-informed on the role of woman in community peacebuilding and development. They declared that knowing is a must, because this concerns their relatives,

villagers, and neighbors. However, they indicated that national TV and social networks (FB and odnoklassniki) should (be

engaged) spread more information about women and girls’ role, instead of the usual “word of mouth” (talks and gossip about women’s participation in community development and peacebuilding).



NGOs have split opinions on the level of awareness about women and girl’s role in community peacebuilding and

development. A Talas NGO member declared that community members tend not to know anything about women’s role

in peacebuilding and community life, while Batken NGO members stated that community members are very well informed about challenges women face because of good interconnections within community members. The third NGO member (from Jalalabad) stated that the more positive the woman’s efforts to the community are, the more there is awareness:

“Once a woman builds a beautiful house, then it is mirrored to the village and the streets. The money sent by migrants is used to build water pipes and repair roads.” – NGO representative, Jalalabad province

The following examples were provided by NGO representatives regarding women’s role in PB and CD:

• Once a woman has mastered a skill, she is being discussed over in the village and even in the local media: she opened a sewing workshop, or a market/café/shop.

• The media should inform community that there is such a great resource (women’s initiative) and there is a vast force in solving many issues, including conflicts and tensions within community.

• It is necessary to provide a right to speech to women in rural gatherings, where villagers meet to discuss issues of water, heat, etc.

Thus, respondents were mostly speaking about CD awareness aspects rather than PB. Local state authorities:

LSGs representatives from Osh (both Bel and Toolos AO) declared there is an excellent awareness of women’s role in

community development and conflict solving. LSGs from Talas and Batken doubted this, saying that information is quite scarce and only those who are close with the woman (family members and friends) know about their role. Among the ways of increasing informing, LSGs proposed the online tools and recognition events:

“In our ayil okmotu we use telegram. There are young people there.” – LSG representative, Bel AO, Osh province

“Every year the village hosts the Nooruz holiday, and a business-woman sponsors it. Last time she was awarded and honored in front of community members.” – LSG representative, Ak-Turpak AO, Batken province

“Our community members read newspapers very well, in addition, many are members of groups on WhatsApp, on Facebook - in these groups they discuss who did what in the village. They began to talk about this (women participation in PB and CD) more often in mosques, at meetings.” – LSG representative, Bel AO, Osh province “Parents of a girl who is in migration were invited to the village meeting to talk about their daughter’s work, their daughter’s contribution to the development of society, entrepreneurship, and peacebuilding.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO Batken province

“There are no difficulties organizing these meetings, many people meet, since at each meeting one exciting issue is considered.” – LSG representative, Jalalabad province

Local activists and leaders and target women, affected by labour migration:

Local activists tend have split decisions on community awareness of women and girls’ role in peacebuilding and community development. Only half of focus groups (FD in Osh and Batken) said there is a certain level of awareness and the other two focus groups participants (Talas FGD and Jalalabad FGD) said they don’t think there is awareness of such topics/cases in their AOs.

“There’s a very low awareness in our area. Community members find out (about women’s role) at meetings, or through gossip. Only villagers who participated themselves (in peacebuilding and community development activities) know about women’s role.” – Local activists, Talas province

“We have a good informing processes in our village. A social media and messengers are widely presented on this occasion (women roles’ discussions). Women contribute to the improvement of their lives and households’ chores, providing a role model for young girls and youth: they manage hot and cold water in the houses, showers, i.e. yearn for a better life conditions (compared to men). Women show a positive example of their hard work, diligence, dedication, etc.” – Local activists, Batken province


“The AO holds meetings every week. At these meetings, we discuss a lot with the heads of the villages. There are people who have faced difficulties, and there are those who have earned good money. The heads of the villages visit the families of those who faced difficulties and check how their children and parents live.” – Local activists, Jalalabad province

The Talas FGD with WAM showed that (as WAM think) local community members’ awareness of the role of women is poor overall and depends on certain circumstances. For instance, the level of awareness is correlated to the amount of the economic assistance the woman donated to the local community. Thus, sending money to her family for living is one level, sponsoring a holiday is another, and building a bridge is a third level of awareness. To increase the awareness of the role of women and girls, all FGD members proposed organizing discussions/meetings (however this is quite hard in COVID-19 times).

The Osh FGD with WAM revealed a low level of local awareness of the participation of women in community development

and peacebuilding. This was because of a lack of community-level organizations activities in certain AOs surveyed:

“We (our community) know nothing, and later I thought that we needed a women’s council to receive information there at least. We had Zhamilya Ezhe from the women’s council of the village of Bel but she is not capable to inform everyone on women participation and success.” – WAM, Tolos (AO), Osh province

Young girls have a less significant role than women. FGD participants in Jalalabad and Batken declared that, even though meetings and discussions are held quite often, it’s not enough to get the community informed about decisions women take in community life. Batken WAM FGDs mentioned women participation in hospital wall decoration/repair and heating

system development. Most respondents throughout all regions declared that women’s deeds and decisions made are

discussed at the household level and often not at the community level; women’s successes are not recognized widely and often subside within women’s councils, self-help groups, street cases (being discussed within one street households’ members), etc.


VII. PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PEACEBUILDING INITIATIVES A. Outcome Indicator 2a - % of women from the target group participating in peacebuilding initiatives Indicator summary (indicator values/outcomes – quantitative and qualitative)

Table 7.1 Indicator 2a value


Outcome Indicator 2a


Quantitative

TOTAL 14.8% Female Returned-migrant 16.2% Female Potential-migrant 14.2% Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) 9.8% Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 28.5% Osh province - Tolos (AO) 2.7% Osh province - Bel (AO) 9.5% Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 10.6% Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 20% 15-24 years 13.9% 25-54 years 15.6% 55+ years 15.5%

Qualitative

Participants of the qualitative study showed different opinions on the participation of WAM in peacebuilding initiatives: some of them indicated that there are plenty of peacebuilding initiatives with the involvement of WAM. Specifically, opinions about the lack of participation of WAM in peacebuilding initiatives were most widely spread in the Jalalabad province. The most common reason why women do not participate in peacebuilding initiatives is the lack of awareness.


From Figure 7.1 we can see that the absolute majority of the surveyed women affected by migration do not participate in any PB groups/associations/assemblies (81.5 percent). Moreover, this indicator does not fall below the mark of 75 percent in any of the regions, with the exception of the Kyzyl-Tuu AO (Jalalabad province), where the share of women who do not participate in any PB initiatives is 63.1 percent. In addition, in the Kyzyl-Tuu AO, 21.1 percent of women claimed to be members of the Water Users Association, which is 14.4 percent more than the average for all target regions. Among the number of women who indicated they are regular members of a PB group, only 34.8 percent declared implementing assistance or initiative in their village within the framework of their participation in this group.


Figure 7.1 Participation of women affected by migration in peacebuilding groups/associations/assemblies

Based on the quantitative survey, 11.6 percent of women affected by migration participated in infrastructure initiatives for the development of their village; at the same time, participation in other peacebuilding activities was mentioned by less than 10 percent of the surveyed respondents affected by migration.

Table 7.2 Participation of women affected by migration in peacebuilding activities

D4. Have you participated in the following activities/projects in your village in the last year? (YES)

Teaching inter-ethnic tolerance among the population 4%

Activities on resolving controversial situations in families 3,4%

Teaching negotiation and communication skills among different population groups 3,3%

Other activities aimed at maintaining peace and well-being in your village: rallies to establish discipline and law

2,4%

The following outcomes were revealed analyzing qualitative results through each participant group: National level partners and informants:

They were careful in their answers and could not affirmatively say who participated in PB activities, where and how. However, the State Agency on LSG representatives mentioned two levels of possible participation: a local level where decisions are made on how to resolve village matters and water/rehabilitation infrastructure problems, community-level tensions and disputes, local interfamily tensions etc. They think WAM can and must be involved at this level. The second level is the regional one, which lays under regional or national authorities’ supervision and international donor organizations’ objectives (UN Women, IOM) and includes activities such as regulating border conflicts, interethnic conflicts, and criminal proceedings. Respondents said this is where women are less involved (as expected).

“This requires close interaction between international donor organizations and the Kyrgyz Government/LSGs. Let them jointly implement a project to support vulnerable families 50/50. The state / LSGs will provide the

81.5%

6.7%

5.4%

4.7%

2.6%

2.4%

2.1%

1.6%

1.3%

0.8%

Not a member of any groups/unions/associations

Water Users Association (WUA)

Self-help or charity group (to help people in need)

Credit and microfinance groups (e.g. Finca and Bai-Tushum,

etc.)

Public organizations (to improve the situation/quality of life in

your village)

Group of agricultural producers, cattle breeders, fishery

Member of local government / deputy of local kenesh /

women's committee

Active believer, adherent of religious community (Islamic,

Christian, Tengriism, new religions)

Trade and business associations/unions/chambers

Refusal to answer

D1 Are you a regular/active member/participant of the following groups/associations/assemblies:

N = 484


infrastructure, and donor organizations will conduct trainings and deliver the necessary resources. Instead of these assessments, it is better to open centers and tell about them in all media sources, so that people come, improve their competence and abilities, and then get employed or become useful in terms of peacebuilding. For example, we organize both closed (members-only) and public events where we invite women entrepreneurs who share their success stories, tell what they went through, [and] share their experience. Due to the pandemic, we have a lot of women-entrepreneurs who have donated funds to support doctors and vulnerable families. I think this can also be considered as positive peacebuilding initiatives.” – JIA business association representative, Bishkek

In addition, the Forum of Women Parliamentarians declared holding its own initiatives of WAM participating in peacebuilding: the Forum “Mekendeshter” and the Women’s League in Central Asia. NGO representatives: NGO representatives explained women’s participation by opportunities brought up by NGOs – for instance, the “You are not alone” program is implemented in the Talas AO to solve problems created by the pandemic (providing food and necessities to vulnerable families); there are educational programs, where 25-30 women are trained annually on behavioural change, as well as migrant leadership programs. Nevertheless, NGO representatives still perceive WAM’s participation in PB as fragmented and not targeted. An NGO representative from Batken stated that the migration experience itself does not transform a woman from being inactive to active (in terms of PB); women should be motivated and informed on how to help effectively and how to consolidate efforts. Social work is important for the inclusion of WAM in PB; currently migrant women are invited to local meetings simply because they have (earned) more money and can help in community needs. An NGO representative from Jalalabad could not speak to WAM’s participation in PB activities because, in his opinion, a lot of other people (men) help and assist more than women. Representatives also experienced the unwillingness of WAM to take part in these measures, because they have their “own business” (or

interests) abroad and are not interested in local initiatives. Regarding women and girls vulnerable to forced migration,

NGO representatives don’t believe they are involved and interested in any initiatives at all. The reasons for that are the same – they are preparing to migrate and have no interest in village conditions. They don’t need any additional information on local conflicts or community life matters, and they fall out from the information field. Even if NGOs conduct trainings for young people, only girls who want career growth and development attend; those who are inclined to labour migration are not interested. Local state authorities:

The LSG representatives from the Talas province are supportive of those opinions: WAM are less interested in PB because they are busy and have their own problems to deal with. LSG members from the Toolos AO (Osh) and Bel AO (Osh) expressed a more dynamic involvement of WAM:

“This year, 100 returning women migrants from our village participated (in community development and peacebuilding initiatives).” – LSG representative, Toolos AO, Osh province

“Women are actively involved in trainings, seminars on economic development, family strengthening, conflict mitigation, and agriculture. These activities are supported by NGOs, and the UN World Food Programme.” – LSG representative, Bel AO, Osh province

A Jalalabad LSG representative reported that women returned from migration are very supportive of CD. They offer sponsorship for providing electricity, for instance. Although PB activities are planned by the AO, it cannot always implement its plan, but there are a large number of women-migrants who are ready to assist in lighting streets or constructing social buildings to make community life easier and safer.

“A woman who had been in labour migration for a couple of years bought chandeliers for the mosque, which men could not buy. Large chandeliers, costing each 35,000-40,000 soms, were installed by this woman. This initiative has since become an example for others.” – LSG representative, Jalalabad province

The participation of girls at risk of forced migration is different throughout municipalities. Some LSGs declared that girls are marginalized and not involved at all, while others had the following comments:

“Girls do not participate much, most likely they are forbidden to by the family. They do not know about projects and do not understand the meaning of these projects.” – LSG representative, Bel AO, Osh province


“At the recent meeting at the school, where community matters were discussed, 175 girls between the ages of 16 and 25 attended and 38 girls joined online. They were all migrants, many of them returned to their homes due to the coronavirus pandemic, among them there are young girls who recently got married.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO, Batken province

Nevertheless, women returned-migrants are perceived as being much more involved than women potential-migrants by

LSG representatives in all AOs.

Local activists, leaders and target women affected by labour migration:

Most of local activists and leaders declared there were no participation of WAM in any peacebuilding activities in their communities that foster peace and dialogue, resolve conflicts, significantly improve life in their villages, or help residents in their communities.

“The question here is not about means or money. As you said, it’s about women’s participation in peacebuilding. For example, (giving the name of woman from community) - she is really a literate woman, initiative, but she and many women do not know where to turn. They could turn to (giving other woman name) in Ayil Kenesh and express their ideas, involve other women, including affected by migration, they could discuss, what they would like to propose/do. But I have not yet seen anyone who would do that.” – Local activists, Jalalabad province

The reasons for this non-participation were different – having no ideas where and how to assist in PB, or simply there was no need for it because many local activists claimed there were no such (conflict) situations where women could be useful to resolve. Jalalabad and Osh activists claimed that women fear reprimand and judgment from their family members and community members. For example, married women cannot propose a community-oriented solution without permission and approval of their husbands; it is “not right” for a woman to lead any initiative in the village, to be independent and self-reliable. Single women are not perceived seriously by community members because “she did not even manage her own family, how can she resolve our quarrels and disputes?”

Those few local activists who claimed that there was WAM engagement in PB mostly reflected on the following social and CD activities (where there are economic/social context) rather on PB ones:

• Donated blood under the “Red crescent” initiative.

• Took part in the “Ata Jolu” meeting.

• Participated in projects on environment development and entrepreneurship funded by USAID, UNDP, and JIA

• Women returned from migration in the Osh AOs built a professional youth center where they trained other

girls to cook, weave, communicate, and sew. They opened a barbershop and atelier, and formed groups where women can study on a scholarship or on a paying basis.

• Opened a youth center and now grow flowers and medicinal herbs.

• Held English language classes were by WAM. Interviewees claimed, that participation of women in such initiatives and projects contributes to the strengthening of peace, promoting dialogue - there will be no quarrels in the family, as a woman engaged in such activities will get busy with something/getting a job, find honor and recognition. Young girls, affected to forced migration find these “projects” important because they can get some knowledge and postpone their work trip in other country and succeed in their community:

“They (girls, affected by migration) come with the thought that if they find something useful in the project, then they will not need to go to migration, because they have to go there. Many people participate in such projects, hoping that it will be useful and they will be able to stay at home.” – Local activists, Osh province

Local activists presented examples when women council’s members took part in interfamily conflicts resolving attempts:

“One family (husband and wife) from our community went to Moscow, but the wife returned alone. Apparently, a scandal erupted between them that they began to get divorced and went to our aksakal court. When they approached us, we tried to reconcile them, but they had different opinions/attitude, so their marriage failed. If family has a child - we always try to keep the family.” – Local activists, Ak-Turpak AO, Batken province


Most19 WAM confirmed they did NOT participate in any peacebuilding activities, although, in the GDs in Osh and Batken,

WAM provided several examples of participating in PB initiatives (the way they perceive PB). Women claimed they took

active part (helped invite people, made arrangements, provided money) in culture feast (“Toi”) in Orozbekov AO (Batken) with youth competitions and prizes to raise the solidarity among community members. They also arranged concerts and victorines inviting communities’ members from AOs, engaged in ceremonial games and entertainment for people to get to know each other, and discussed issues and solutions on a community level. FGD participant from Orozbekov AO (Batken) discussed creating a budget (financing) that helped community members rally together around the process:

“We have a small fund at the school, and now, under initiative of Aga Khan, we have fulfilled it collectively [and have] decided on what school/people matters these resources should be allocated. We elected the care council and gave them authority. This made us (participants of the council) more united and cohesive.” – WAM Orozbekov AO, Batken province

WAM from Osh spoke of “Shyktan Zhashtar” training center, where women pass trainings on communication with people, how to broaden one’s horizons, and gain knowledge. Women were learning how to make salads there, learned to preserve corn, and distributed knowledge throughout community (share their knowledge) engaging other women in fruitful collaboration. WAM from Jalalabad’s FGD mentioned “Yr kese” and “Sarmerden” – singing, playing music, and dancing competitions between talents from different communities. In these, youth learn how to listen to each other and how to collaborate. This is usually held during Nooruz holiday, supported by LSGs, after it is over, one village passes the baton over to another so that they organize it (Yr kese) next year. Communities did not hold Nooruz in 2020 because they were quarantined. Women claimed these activities strengthen positive emotions, raise the spirit of the population, develops the outlook of the participants, perceiving this as a very useful event for the development of dialogue and cultural identity. Talas FGDs were not able to provide examples of WAM participation in PB activities, they only revealed the work of “Ata jolu” community (fund), which is primarily deals with helping people with disabilities, elder population and vulnerable community members (Buying foods, protection measures during quarantine, consultations on papers etc.).

However, women’s participation is often associated with some kind of funds / projects / programs, and not at their own initiative. In this regard, we can conclude that the involvement of women in peacebuilding is at a fairly low level in all municipalities. Among the main reasons for WAM non-participation are as follows: lack of awareness about possibilities, don’t see the usefulness of such participation (since they are planning to re/migrate), lack of understanding how to deliver peacebuilding assistance, lack of possibility to take part, lack of time (considering household chores), stereotypes and harmful gender norms blocking any motivation to try. For more statistical disaggregation of reasoning, please refer to quantitative survey findings.

“When we want to join these community meetings we hear from our husbands: “You should stay home like other women do. It’s none of your business.” – WAM, Talas province

“A man should be respected by other men at such meetings. But if he will bring along his wife, he will be ridiculed and censured by other male-participants.” – WAM, Talas province

“Only one person usually comes from one household. And if your mother-in-law speaks up and you disagree, you cannot say so, especially not in front of other men.” – WAM, Talas province

Summarizing this indicator chapter, we can conclude that respondents understood PB not as separate activity/initiatives but as part of CD initiatives (social and economic ones). Thus there are no specific examples on PB initiatives delivered; however, the practice of PB initiatives that engage WAM is obviously poor in assessment communities.

19 Any numbers of shares are not relevant because this is qualitative survey, not representative in terms of statistics.


B. Output Indicator 2.1.4 - # of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected by migration.


Table 7.3 Indicator 2.1.4 value


Outcome Indicator 2.1.4

# of peacebuilding

initiatives implemented

by women affected by migration

Quantitative

AVERAGE 2.6 The total average sum of numbers of peacebuilding initiatives in all AOs is – 15 across all target areas.

Female Returned-migrant (mean) 2.8 Female Potential-migrant (mean) 2.8

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) 2.8 Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 3.0 Osh province - Tolos (AO) 1.8 Osh province - Bel (AO) 2.1 Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 1.9 Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 3.3

15-24 years 2.5 25-54 years 2.7 55+ years 2.6

Qualitative

As mentioned before, WAM in Talas, Jalalabad, and Batken participated in FGDs confirmed non-implementation of peacebuilding activities. Taking this into consideration, we can again (as the previous indicators revealed) conclude that the involvement of women in peacebuilding is very low. The main reasons for non-participation in peacebuilding initiatives are the same as in Outcome Indicator 2a.


Overall, 92.8 percent of women affected by migration indicated that they did not implement or participate in any projects or peacebuilding initiativs in the last year.

Table 7.4 Implementation of peacebuilding initiatives by women affected by migration

D4. Have you implemented the following activities/projects in your village in the last year? (YES)

Other activities aimed at maintaining peace and well-being in your village: rallies to establish discipline and law

2,0%

Teaching inter-ethnic tolerance among the population 1,5%

Teaching negotiation and communication skills among different population groups 1,1%

Activities to resolve contentious situations in the village 0,7%

It’s worth noting that half of the respondents pointed out the absence or insignificant benefit of participating in such activities and 16.3 percent of women said that the participants received some kind of benefit, but not from all projects they participated in. By province, we can note that the Orozbekov AO (Batken province) has the lowest percentage of respondents who said there is a benefit from PB projects in their area (30.9 percent), while the highest percentage is among respondents from the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province) at 60.9 percent.


Figure 7.2 Usefulness of events implemented by surveyed women affected by migration

Speaking about the achievements of WAM, the most frequently mentioned was setting a behavioural model for village

residents (41.9 percent). It is worth noting that the Toolos AO (Osh province) has the lowest average proportion of

participants who indicated positive achievements of WAM (17.4 percent), while the Kara-Buura AO (Talas province) has

the highest (30.7 percent).

Let’s see what these numbers describe, what the “peacebuilding initiative” term means (according to respondents understanding and practices). The qualitative assessment outcomes are the following: National level partners and informants:

Respondents from this group are not aware of any PB initiatives implemented by WAM at the local community or municipality level. It might be because there are no PB initiatives implemented or respondents were not involvement in the process. NGO representatives:

NGO representatives declared that WAM rarely implement any PB initiatives and do only those directly connected with their (families’) interests. Perhaps no PB initiatives implemented, and because those who are preparing for labour migration are not interested in participating in local development initiatives, it’s hard to get them involved, even though these initiatives might support their social, leadership, and professional growth and help them find a job abroad. Local state authorities:

LSGs specified the number of initiatives WAM implemented. Representatives from the Kara-Buura AO (Talas) confirmed

at least three initiatives (seminars, discussions), the Toolos AO and Bel AO (Osh) representatives confirmed at least three

initiatives (DIA, Roza Otunbaeva foundation, World Food Program), the Orozbekov and Ak-Turpak AO (Batken province)

members confirmed at least three capacity-building initiatives (The Role of Women Migrants in Realizing Peace project,

self-help women’s groups, and women’s meetings) where women and girls actively participated or that they managed. LSGs from Jalalabad could not specify any initiatives except general help and support to community members etc.

The main idea with these initiatives (in terms of indicator assessment) is that almost all of them are delivered through

different NGOs and LSG projects and programs, with a scarcity of WAM implementing something as the leader or

manager (or on their own). Thus, the average number of 2.6 initiatives must be perceived through this assumption (that

this number of initiatives on average per WAM is hardly possible without assistance from NGOs, local activists, or LSGs).

11.5%

38.4%

29.6%

16.3%

4.2%

There was no benefit

The benefit was insignificant

The benefit was significant/tangible

Benefit was there, but not from all

Difficult to answer

D6. How useful were these events for their participants?

N=158


Local activists, leaders, and target women affected by labour migration:

Local activists support the findings of the previous representatives (LSGs and NGOs). In their opinion, there were very

few initiatives implemented by WAM (either solely or in support with someone). And all the set of practices and PB

initiatives delivered were due to the active work of youth centers, women’s councils, social workers, etc. However, there are several different examples:

“They (WAM) donated blood to those in need through the Red Crescent [and] visited orphanages and nursing homes. ‘Ata jolu’ community members also donate money to those in need. Many women donated money on behalf of their children. I believe former labour migrant women participate in peacebuilding initiatives more because they have been in difficult situations themselves.” – Local activists and social workers, Kara-Bura AO, Talas province

Local activists and local leaders shared their thoughts on why WAM are not implementing any PB initiatives: (i) Women and girls have no access to information on dates, places, and subjects of such initiatives, if they are implemented by third parties. (ii) Women are not welcomed or even are prohibited by community members to take part in the events on conflict mitigation. (iii) Men don’t want women to take their place in decision-making or change the structure/order of community life. (iv) Young girls are not taken seriously because community members believe that if they were to follow the youth’s suggestions, then there would be no discipline in society; it is in “their blood” to keep young girls outside of solutions. Nevertheless, local activists are sure that youth have the potential and intelligence not to make many of the mistakes that people of the “old school” make and suggest that if there were more groups where only (or a majority of) women were present, it would help balance the situation at the community level in PB. Only a few PB initiatives were mentioned by WAM during the FGDs (as they perceive it). However, all those mentioned relate mostly to the CD context rather than to PB:

“On the initiative of external migrants, a training center called Shyktan Zhashtar was opened in our village. Women who were migrants in Russia work there. They have a training center, offer various courses, and are gradually expanding. They were able to get women interested and distributed scholarships and certificates to those who study well or do good deeds. The center organized sewing and weaving courses. Recently, this has become very relevant, and last year they brought volunteers to teach us.”– WAM, Osh province

“For example, now many people have created groups. I called my group Bagbanchy Ene. If the aiyl okmotu supports us and allocates land near the mountains for us, then I would like to grow nuts, almonds, and pistachios. We hope that the aiyl okmotu will help us.” – WAM, Jalalabad province

“We have trained 20 women and we have the idea of collecting 2,000 soms from each. In total we would get 20 thousand soms, and with this money open a small enterprise. But we still need more information; in one month, we did not receive the information we needed. We plan to start as soon as we know more.” – WAM, Osh province

“There are cases of women affected by migration creating youth centers where they teach cooking, weaving, conservation, and sewing. They have opened groups where women can study on a scholarship or paying basis. In addition, 2-3 shops were opened. English courses are opening. These women make a significant contribution to the development of the village.” – Decision-makers and social workers, Osh province

As mentioned before, the vast majority of WAM participating in the FGDs in Talas, Jalalabad, and Batken have confirmed non-participation/non-implementation of any PB activities. Taking this into consideration, we can conclude that the involvement of women in PB is very low. The main reasons for non-participation in PB initiatives are the same as in Outcome Indicator 2a.


VIII. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND SOCIAL SERVICES

A. Outcome Indicator 2b - % of women from the target group who refer to social services for protection

of their rights

Indicator summary (indicator values/outcomes– quantitative and qualitative) The following total value of the indicator was assessed in the baseline assessment:

Table 8.1. Outcome Indicator 2b values



% of women from the target group who refer to social services for protection of their rights

Quantitative

TOTAL 49,4%

Batken province - Ak-Turpak (AO) 54,6% Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 48,3% Osh province - Toolos (AO) 44,9% Osh province - Bel (AO) 47,4% Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 43,2% Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 59,6%

Female Returned-migrants: 51,5% Female Potential-migrants: 48,2%

15 – 24 44,0% 25 – 54 53,1% 55 + 47,7%

Qualitative

It was also confirmed during the FGDs that WAM frequently reach out for different queries: placement of children in schools and kindergartens when planning to leave for migration, issues accessing water, protection against domestic violence, medical help – all of these cases were addressed to different local decision makers and LSGs. Women received the support they applied for in about half of the cases as they claim.

Nowadays, women enjoy numerous opportunities to obtain information for decision-making on a wide range of topics. This assessment examined whether respondents were able to independently (without asking permissions) apply for help

to protect their rights. Most of the respondents (63.7 percent) claimed they mostly could or always could obtain

information about where to turn to for the protection of their rights; the remaining 36.3 percent answered that they couldn’t or mostly couldn’t, or said it was difficult to answer.

The largest percentage of respondents (47 percent) who said they could never obtain such information were from the Bel AO, Osh province: this is the largest share in comparison with other AOs. At the same time, more than 76 percent of the respondents from the Ak-Turpak AO, Batken province, claimed that they mostly could/always could obtain such information (on protection of rights) on their own. According to the Bel AO WAM FGD responses, various activities are being carried out with the assistance of the AO, which should help to increase the knowledge of local residents in the field of rights and other important social issues. However, some residents do not understand the full value and practical use of such events. Unfortunately, community members are more interested in the immediate resolution of financial difficulties. Hypothetically, low motivation and awareness among the villagers may be the reason for the lower indicator in the Bel AO, Osh province in terms of knowledge to protect their rights.

“Last year two people from our AO were engaged in GALS activities and another 105 women were engaged. Achieving personal goals and maintaining professional sustainability, knowledge and access to their rights, the desire for gender equality in life, reveal gender balance. Once we call someone for rights-related training, they ask, ‘How much money will I get for that? What will be my benefit?’ And I would say, ‘You will be more aware how to protect your rights, how to receive social services.’” – WAM, Bel AO, Osh province


Figure 8.1. Women’s ability to obtain information on the protection of their rights, N = 484

Most often, respondents applied for documents (certificates, registration, passports, etc.), as noted by 93 percent of the respondents, while only 2 respondents (9 percent) requested protection from crime or domestic violence. This data proves that the respondents’ ability and motivation to seek help depends on the severity of the problem. They are ready to ask for help related to documentation, medical, and financial issues, but very few are ready to discuss serious issues.

Figure 8.2. Women contacting various services in the last 12 months, N = 325

People with a low level of income (36 percent) or those who had no income at all (13 percent) most often sought help in obtaining alimony, benefits, or pensions. A possible explanation is that this category of respondents could only receive this support from the government.

17.4%22.7%

44.8%47.0%

38.9%

28.5%

76.7%74.4%

52.2%51.2…56.0%

70.6%

5.9%2.9%2.9%1.8%5.1%

0.9%

Batken region, Ak-Turpak aiyl okmotu,

n=80

Batken region,Orozbekov aiylokmotu, n=86

Osh region, Toolosaiyl okmotu, n=81

Osh region, Bel aiylokmotu, n=80

Jalal-Abad region,Kyzyl-Tuu aiylokmotu, n=75

Talas region, Kara-Buura aiyl okmotu,

n=81

I never can/Rather, I can't Rather can/I always can Don't know / Refusal to answer

E1 In case of need, can you yourself get information about where to apply for any help to protect your rights?

93%

78%

75%

75%

75%

65%

64%

61%

61%

61%

44%

33%

15%

9%

7%

22%

25%

25%

25%

35%

36%

39%

39%

39%

56%

67%

85%

91%

Obtaining documents / certificates / registration / passport, etc.

Medical assistance for yourself or a child/assistance for people with…

Getting a microcredit/loan

Getting education / taking courses / competitive examination

Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, placing them in foster…

Counseling about alimony/benefits/pensions

Migration assistance (what to do before you go to migration, check…

Provision of housing / land / equipment

Employment (looking for a job, preparing a resume, etc)

Obtaining benefits / pensions / discounts or rebates

Assistance in getting irrigation or drinking water, electricity, fuel

Legal assistance (advice on rights, property, alimony, etc.)

Assistance in solving land/property disputes

Protection from crimes, domestic violence

E2. In the last 12 months, have you contacted social services, nongovernmental or government agencies for the following help/support:

Yes No, but help was needed


According to participants of the qualitative research component, community members claimed they regularly seek assistance. Social workers and representatives of AOs declared they mostly provide counseling services or refer applicants to qualified specialists.

“They helped me find an attorney to assist me in obtaining alimony for my daughter. He turned to the local court and managed to secure the alimony.” – WAM, Jalalabad province

It’s worth noting that the smallest proportion of respondents seeking help in in migration assistance was observed in the Bel AO, Osh province. About 21 percent of women who returned from migration or planned to migrate for labour purposes from Orozbekov AO (Batken province) contacted local institutions for migration assistance.

Figure 8.3. Women seeking help in migration assistance in the last 12 months, N = 484

The residents of the Bel AO, Osh province (63 percent) and Kara-Buura AO, Talas province, more often than others applied for help in obtaining documents. Only a third of the residents of other province sought help/support on this issue, while the other respondents reported that they did not need help/support. There is no significant different between province regarding “domestic violence”.

Figure 8.4. Women contacting organizations for help in obtaining documents in the last 12 months, N = 484

Migration assistance (arrangements to be done prior to migration, checking no-fly lists, etc.) was more often required by residents of the Orozbekov AO, Batken province (21 percent). About 10 percent of the residents of the Bel AO, Osh province, noted that they hadn’t contacted any organizations, although they needed help.

Surveyed participants sought the least assistance for protection from crime and domestic violence. Most of them claimed this kind of help was unnecessary. According to participants of the qualitative research component, these kinds of cases were rare. Some respondents also noted that women simply did not want to make such cases public and kept silent about them.

9%

21%

9%

4%

9%

15%

3%

6%

7%

10%

7%

5%

87%

74%

84%

86%

84%

80%







E2. In the last 12 months, have you contacted social services, nongovernmental or government agencies for help/support in enrolling children in kindergarten or school ?

Yes No, but help was needed No, there was no need

30.9%

36.1%

32.7%

62.6%

35.2%

56.9%

6%

5%

1%

4%

2%

62.7%

58.9%

66.2%

33.3%

62.8%

43.1%







E2. In the last 12 months, have you contacted social services, nongovernmental or government agencies for help/support in obtaining documents?

Yes No, but help was needed No, there was no need


“No, they don’t reach out for help. They may be having a hard time but do things the Kyrgyz way, even if he beats her. She forgives him and says, ‘I will stay with him anyways, he is the father of our children.’” – Social worker/ teacher, member of women’s council, member of kenesh, Batken province

“Yes, they feel ashamed of other’s opinion and do not seek help (regarding domestic violence).” – WAM, Batken province

Respondents who had contacted various organizations for assistance were asked to rate the quality of the help/ information received. About half of the respondents who reached out for help received it fully. The highest proportion of people who said they “received (help) fully” was among those who sought assistance with documents (76 percent) or obtaining microcredit / loan (87 percent). The lowest rate was among respondents who applied for alimony (51 percent) and benefits /pensions (52 percent). We can assume that this is due to the fact that assistance in obtaining benefits requires involving more than one state agency; therefore, respondents do not always receive full assistance.

Figure 8.5. Assessment of the help received from social services, NGOs or government agencies

The respondents who admitted not seeking help although it was needed were asked to explain the reasons for such behaviour. According to the figure below, about half of the respondents who needed help in obtaining benefits / pensions (50 percent), provision of housing / land (48 percent), and migration issues (46 percent) did not know where or to whom they could turn to for information. This may indicate that women were not sufficiently informed on that issue. A possible solution could be the creation of a single platform to provide information on what organization they could contact for a particular problem. When asked about the reasons for not contacting any services, women who needed help in obtaining microcredits and loans (45 percent) or protection from violence (31 percent) said they were forbidden to do so by their family or community. From this we can conclude that the environment currently exerts much pressure on women.

41%

59%

44%

15%

67%

47%

76%

47%

87%

62%

54%

66%

84%

29%

51%

31%

45%

68%

24%

52%

22%

37%

10%

30%

34%

34%

16%

65%

8%

9%

10%

17%

10%

1%

2%

15%

3%

8%

12%

6%

Counseling about alimony/benefits/pensions, n=77

Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, n=89

Employment, n=60

Legal assistance, n=17

Medical assistance, n=106

Obtaining benefits/pensions, n=65

Obtaining documents, n=205

Provision of housing/land/equipment, n=48

Getting a microcredit/loan, n=70

Getting education/taking courses, n=56

Migration assistance, n=55

Protection from crimes, domestic violence, n=82

Assistance in solving land/property disputes, n=5

Assistance in getting irrigation or drinking water, n=21

E3. How would you rate the help you received from social services, NGOs, or government agencies?

Received fully Did not receive fully Don't remember / Difficult to answer


Figure 8.6. Reasons for NOT contacting social services, NGOs, or government agencies.

Concerning WAM, participating in the qualitative research, it can be observed that overall no assistance was provided by government or nongovernmental bodies. In most cases, WAM received support from their relatives and friends, but, reportedly, many tended to believe that women who returned from migration had earned money and did not need any help.

“Where do I go? You cannot just ask for support, as no one will provide it. And whenever you come to the aiyl okmotu, they say that they have other issues to solve.” – WAM, Jalalabad province

“No one supports us except for our families.” – WAM, Batken province

WAM most often contacted local self-government bodies (aiyl okmotus) for help. About 26 percent of women from the Orozbekov AO, Batken province also turned to law enforcement agencies, in addition to the AO, for information. Residents of the Orozbekov AO, Batken province (13 percent), and Bel AO, Osh province, contacted health facilities for information more often than respondents in the other regions. Residents of the Toolos AO, Osh province, more often than other WAM visited centers for social adaptation (21 percent), which may indicate that women in this settlement were more often subjected to pressure.

50%

48%

46%

42%

38%

38%

36%

31%

27%

27%

20%

18%

16%

9%

20%

20%

29%

24%

24%

28%

19%

21%

25%

19%

32%

28%

45%

31%

30%

32%

25%

34%

37%

34%

45%

48%

47%

54%

48%

55%

39%

61%

Obtaining benefits/pensions, n=43

Provision of housing/land/equipment, n=31

Migration assistance, n=31

Counseling about alimony/benefits/pensions, n=40

Employment, n=39

Medical assistance, n=30

Legal assistance, n=134

Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, n=30

Assistance in getting irrigation or drinking water, n=27

Obtaining documents, n=15

Getting education/taking courses, n=19

Assistance in solving land/property disputes, n=25

Getting a microcredit/loan, n=23

Protection from crimes, domestic violence, n=23

E4. Why did you not contact social services, nongovernmental, or government agencies?

I don't know where or to whom, but there was a need

I am forbidden by family members/environment, but there was a need

Don't remember / Difficult to answer


Table 8.1. Organizations contacted for help in protecting rights and for social assistance / support, N = 302

Regions Aiyl

Okmotu

Law enforce-

ment agencies

Hospital Centers for

social adaptation

Bank / credit

company/ Finca

Educational Institution

District/ regional courts

Women’s Councils

Other No

answer

Batken province, Ak-Turpak AO, n=47

40.9% 13.0% 5.1% 3.5% 12.7% 5.9% 7.0% 0.0% 1.7% 12.1%

Batken province, Orozbekov AO, n=53

29.9% 26.4% 12.6% 0.0% 0.0% 1.6% 0.0% 1.5% 0.0% 31.1%

Osh province, Toolos AO, n=35

58.9% 10.1% 5.3% 21.1% 2.6% 7.6% 7.9% 8.5% 0.0% 5.0%

Osh province, Bel AO, n=63

39.2% 6.0% 12.9% 4.1% 2.4% 6.0% 1.2% 2.2% 1.1% 34.3%

Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu AO, n=48

30.0% 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% 3.1% 1.4% 2.9% 3.1% 0.0% 51.2%

Talas province, Kara-Buura AO, n=57

34.9% 16.1% 10.7% 5.1% 6.5% 2.6% 5.1% 0.0% 5.9% 20.9%

As part of this assessment, respondents were asked whether they personally or their acquaintances had heard about women successfully asserting their rights within proceedings at the local or judicial level. Looking at the regional disaggregation, we can note that around half of the respondents in each village had never heard about such cases.

Approximately 53 percent of residents of the Kara-Buura AO claimed that they, or their acquaintances, had heard of women able to assert their rights within proceedings at the local or judicial level. However, negative responses prevailed.

Figure 8.7. Awareness of WAM having successfully asserted their rights at the local or judicial level, N = 1,500

Opinions of different groups and decision makers was revealed during qualitative interviews. Some most important reasoning and examples supporting indicator are as follows:

10%

16%

7%

12%

16%

24%

22%

19%

13%

19%

24%

29%

54%

59%

52%

41%

43%

29%

13%

5%

29%

26%

17%

16%

2%

2%







E6. Have you or your acquaintances heard of women having successfully asserted their rightswithin proceedings at the local or judicial level?

Yes, I have seen it personally Yes, I have heard from others No, I have not heard

No, there were no successful cases Don't remember/refusal to answer


National level partners and informants:

These are not involved in delivering social services to WAM, thus they don’t know many local situations. They suggested that women do know where to address their demands for the protection of their rights and for receiving social services (ranked 3.5 out of 5, where 1 = women poorly aware of their rights, and 5 = women are well aware of their rights). They declared only personal women’s initiatives can result in obtaining social benefits and rights protection. NGO representatives:

NGOs mentioned the following20 organizations and institutions where WAM seek help for social services or the protection of their rights:

● Local social protection office (LSG), district social protection authorities ● Donor organizations – UNDP, Red Cross, UN Women, IOM, USAID and others ● Migrant children protection council at local and district administration ● Lawyers ● Human rights NGOs ● Crisis centers ● Mayor’s office ● Internal affairs (“militia”)

NGO representatives admitted that addressing case rates among migrant women remains rather low. A lot of women are afraid of discrimination if they turn to these bodies; many prefer enduring negative treatment and rights violations rather than involving a third party. NGOs also pointed out the lack of projects and assistance from international donor organizations that are aimed specifically at helping women who are affected by labour migration, whose voices and rights are often left in the shadow, and give more attention to other potential vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, PWD, and others. NGOs involved in the qualitative assessment didn’t specifically target their activities at advocating for WAM’s rights and providing them with social support, which (not targeting) is wrong as they perceive it. Local state authorities:

LSGs representatives confirmed WAM mostly ask for help in obtaining child allowance or alimony, economic assistance, and help with passports and documentation (to have everything in order before leaving). Returned migrants more often turn to LSGs for delivering birth certificates or other documents and job placement. LSGs often redirect the queries to other institutions or local authorities. For instance, AO members noted that there are many complaints about domestic violence in Jalalabad, but if women’s councils or village elders can no longer resolve these problems, then LSGs refer the case to the court of elders. LSG interviews showed that they do not particularly see WAM as a separate target group and deliver social services on a first come, first served basis, together with all other community members. Very few girls or women potential migrants have been seeking help for social services delivery and rights protection, as LSGs claimed. Community activists, decision-makers and target women affected by labour migration:

Local activists and decision-makers are well aware of women turning to different groups for obtaining different social services. However, they find the quality of the assistance provided is not enough to cover the problems of WAM. Local decision-makers declared working daily with at least 10 women affected by migration (sometimes less, sometimes more). The main reasons they are contacted are receiving alimony, unemployment benefits and benefits for the absence of a breadwinner, receiving resources (coal, gas) and others. Women and girls who are potential migrants very rarely reach out to local activists, social workers and other decision-makers for social services and protection of their rights. Most of WAM FGD participants declared that they have asked help from different LSGs and community activists for social benefits/services but were declined (refused):

“When you want to receive child benefits, they require a document asserting your salary. And when you bring that paper, I do not know how, but they will calculate everything and say that you are doing well, you are not entitled to the child support.” – WAM, Talas province

20 These conclusions obtained from 3 representatives of NGOs during in-depth interviews. So any number or % are not applicable /not

representative to use.


It was also confirmed during the FGDs that WAM frequently seek help for different queries: placement of children in schools and kindergartens when planning to leave for migration, access to water issues, protection against domestic violence, medical help… All these cases were addressed to different local decision-makers and LSGS. At the same time, in about half of the cases, women claimed they received the support they applied for. According to the FGD participants’ opinions, the main problem is that they (WAM) do not know thoroughly the work of social services, LSGs and NGOs, and they do not understand the nuances of providing assistance. For example, when applying for a social service to the aiyl okmotu and being rejected, they do not know the legal basis for this refusal, and having no accurate information on service delivery procedure they are not able to justify their demand. On the other hand, they said that the parties they turned to cannot clearly explain how the presence of a car in the household can become a reason for refusing child support services, or why some families are included in the lists for social/humanitarian assistance and others are not.

“We apply to them (LSG) for allocating land for a child.” – WAM, Batken province “We asked our aiyl okmotu for social benefits. They refused, saying we have a car and my father has a job.” – WAM, Batken province “It happens. People collect all the documents, come, but they find some reason and refuse to give benefits.” – WAM, Batken province


B. Output Indicator 2.1 – the % of women and girls from target communities who are equipped with knowledge and skills on how to advocate for their rights

The following total value of the indicator was assessed in the baseline:

Table 8.2. Output Indicator 2.1 values


Output Indicator 2.1

Share (%) of women and girls from target communities who are equipped with knowledge and skills on how to advocate for their rights

Quantitative

TOTAL 58.6%

Female Returned-migrants 60% Female Potential-migrants 58.6%

15-24 54.7% 25-54 60.5% 55+ 59.1%

Batken region - Ak-Tupak (AO) 67.8% Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 69.4% Osh province - Tolos (AO) 44.1% Osh province - Bel (AO) 51.4% Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 54.6% Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 64.2%

Qualitative

Most of WAM FGD participants say they have quite average (approximate) understanding of rights and the possibilities to advocate them – their awareness score is of 2.5 out of 5 maximum and 3.5 points for abilities (skills) to advocate for their rights in case of violation (mostly returned migrant women). Reasoning for that score and opinions are analyzed below in the qualitative assessment outcome section.

Every woman enjoys rights guaranteed to her by the State and civic society. However, not everyone is well aware of their rights or can assert them. There are cases of women who suffered from rights violation and did not know whom to contact for help, and had no one nearby who could give advice. In this paragraph, we will evaluate whether women affected by migration know their rights well and whether, from their own perspective, they can uphold them if necessary. Aa relatively large part of the survey respondents were aware of the possibilities of initiating a dialogue between local authorities, women councils, and local population (46 percent), of the right to set up their own business and participate in the marketplace (42 percent), and of the right to speak as representatives of the local community and participate in self-help groups (41 percent). Most respondents knew about their right to participate in elections, campaigning, and informing (55 percent). This right is relatively important for residents of Kyrgyz Republic given its political changes, hence respondents know about it. In addition, women affected by migration are aware of their rights for protection against violence and cruelty against women and girls (46 percent), and against gender discrimination (46 percent). However, these are the rights that are most frequently violated. Some respondents called it the “Muslim syndrome,” which is based on a common belief that it is customary among Muslims for women to be considered lower than men who have the last word.


Figure 8.8. Women awareness of their rights, N = 737

Looking at the regional disaggregation, residents of the Ak-Turpak and Orozbekov AOs from Batken province claimed to be more aware of their rights in each category, according to the data obtained. For example, the proportion of respondents aware of their right to protection against violence and cruelty against women and girls were 71 percent and 65 percent, respectively, whereas no more than 50 percent of women from other regions were aware of these. Moreover, respondents from the Toolos AO, Osh province appeared to be the least aware of their rights. Women from this province more often than other answered they did not know anything about their rights. Local activists believed that women from these AO very poorly aware of their rights because of lack of informational campaigns and systematic work/support from LSGs.

Many women affected by migration are not able to defend their rights despite claiming they know them. If their rights are violated, they will have to devote effort and resources to settle the dispute and also to understand where and to which authorities to turn to. A large percentage of women (57 percent) was confident that they know how to resolve disagreements in raising and educating children. Almost the same number (55 percent) said that they could defend their rights, if necessary, to prevent early or forced marriage. Nearly 48 percent of women were uncertain where to turn to if they wanted to open a business in their settlement. This situation showed that the LSGBs carry out insufficient work: any woman can request consultations from the LSGB, but, as the survey showed, they are not aware of this. About 43 percent of women do not know how to resolve discords regarding property and land rights, or issues on the prevention of indignity and discrimination at work, including gender-based refusal of employment.

Figure 8.9. Knowledge on asserting rights in following disputes, N = 737

19%

38%

34%

46%

42%

28%

33%

41%

28%

38%

26%

24%

24%

24%

24%

20%

21%

16%

42%

35%

41%

29%

31%

46%

46%

37%

55%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

1%

1%

1%

2%

Basic human rights

Right to safe migration and official employment

labour rights - vacation, working hours, etc.

Right to build dialogue between local government

Right to create own business

Right to protection against violence and cruelty to women and girls

Right to protection against discrimination on the basis of gender

Right to speak as representatives from the community, to participate in…

Right to participate in elections, campaigning, informing

G1. How well you know about the following rights, rate from 1 to 5, where 1 is nothing, 3 is excellent:

I don't know anything I know very little / superficially I know very well Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

43%

48%

39%

41%

41%

38%

43%

20%

25%

33%

33%

33%

31%

26%

24%

17%

19%

24%

24%

21%

19%

25%

24%

27%

26%

25%

36%

38%

38%

37%

32%

57%

55%

41%

42%

39%

1%

1%

1%

4%

3%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

1%

Disputes over real estate and land rights

How to open a business in your locality

How to prepare and safely go to work in another country

Disagreement with a loan from a husband and family members

Disagreement on the choice of profession and occupation on the part of…

Prevent physical violence and discrimination in the family

Prevent humiliation and discrimination at work

Disagreements about children's upbringing and education

Prevention of early marriage, forced marriage

Protect your rights in the state bodies, to get action from the authorities

How to protect yourself and not to be a victim of fraudsters,…

How to establish peace and settle relations between people of different…

G2. Do you know how to assert your rights, resolve the following disagreements:

I don't know what to do I know very little/superficially I know very well what to do Difficult to answer


WAM participants in the qualitative survey were also asked to assess how WAM may protect their rights. When discussing the level of their awareness, participants gave themselves positive scores. It is worth noting the differences in the opinions of the respondents depending on the province. In Batken, 7 of 8 WAM rated their knowledge of rights at 5 (on a scale of 1 to 5), and the majority also believe that they can defend their rights if necessary. The least confident in their knowledge were WAM from Talas, none of whom assessed their knowledge of rights higher than 3. At the same time, they were confident in their ability to defend their rights, arguing that despite the lack of some skills, they can always turn to a specialist or a special body.

“For instance, once we get law dispute or rights violation, we forward to the lawyer or counselor, this is because we are not professionals in rights-related questions.” – WAM, Talas province

It is interesting that women who previously faced the need to advocate for their rights have no support from the third parties and often assess their ability to protect rights as 5. At the same time, women who are under the care of elder relatives do not have the opportunity or do not want to protect or get knowledge on rights on their own and, thus, provided low scores.

“She (a woman from the village) is now under her husband’s care, and she does not want to know anything. Her husband deals with everything, she feels fine sitting home and sorting household chores”

“I’m very dependent on my brothers, sisters, parents, so I can’t actually say that I will be able to decide or do something (rights protecting) on my own.” – WAM, Jalalabad province

Activists taking part in FGDs in the Batken and Jalalabad regions pointed out the lack of information and experience among women as the primary reason that women cannot protect their rights. They believed that girls should receive information on how they can assert their rights from an early age. In this regard, it would be necessary to conduct trainings and seminars, which, at the moment, is not being done.

The question of how to protect their rights was asked only to those women who had previously confirmed their knowledge in this area. As seen in the table below, residents from the Orozbekov AO, Batken province (71 percent), and residents from the Kara-Buura AO, Talas province (86 percent) demonstrated the largest proportion of women who made such appeals. Respondents also believed they could apply to the village’s local administration if necessary, on rights-related issues. We observed the largest proportion of such women in the Toolos AO, Osh province (23 percent), Bel AO, Osh province (17 percent), and the Kyzyl-Tuu AO, Jalalabad province (16 percent).

Table 8.2. Awareness of women on how to assert rights, n = 661

Regions

Law enforce-

ment agencies

Local admini-

stration/ local

authori-ties

I don’t know

how to protect rights

Maintain a dialogue

with religious leaders,

village heads

Participation in events

supported by local

authorities

Informing the local

community about the problem

Participation in local

community meetings

Self-help groups and community

associations

Participation in rallies O

the

r

No

an

swe

r

Batken province, Ak-Turpak AO, n=117

44,0% 35,4% 9,8% 13,6% 12,5% 6,2% 3,7% 3,4% 4,2% 0,0% 11,2%

Batken province, Orozbekov AO, n=113

71,1% 27,6% 4,7% 4,9% 6,4% 6,5% 2,8% 0,0% 0,0% 1,4% 7,2%

Osh province, Toolos AO, n=95

43,5% 24,8% 23,3% 16,5% 8,4% 8,8% 5,7% 3,8% 6,2% 3,7% 3,5%

Osh province, Bel AO, n=99

54,7% 29,8% 16,6% 11,2% 9,7% 7,2% 12,5% 10,9% 1,6% 3,0% 2,1%

Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu AO, n=121

50,3% 23,6% 15,8% 4,4% 4,4% 6,6% 6,9% 1,9% 2,2% 5,5% 14,0%

Talas province, Kara-Buura AO, n=116

86,4% 19,3% 5,4% 3,2% 7,1% 0,8% 1,9% 2,5% 0,0% 1,9% 2,2%

In case of rights violation, many respondents would contact the AO/district administration (42.2 percent) or the police (34.0 percent). These indicators may either characterize a high reliance on official authorities or a lack of knowledge among respondents on other institutes / people to contact for help. Notably, we can note disparities depending on the


regions. Thus, most respondents in the Ak-Turpak and Bel AOs would prefer to go to the district administration, while in the Kara-Buura and Orozbekov AOs, nearly half of the respondents would go to the police. In Kyzyl-Tuu AO, 26.3 percent of the respondents would resolve difficulties encountered through courts.

Figure 8.10. Top 5 organizations where respondents would go to for help, by region, N = 737

It’s important to note that the absolute majority of respondents (80.5 percent) have not participated in any activities held in their village. Some respondents showed interest in participating in activities or had access to various trainings. Thus, in Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu AO, respondents inclined to participate in creating self-help groups accounted for

15.7 percent) and in job creation for women in the village/province for 13.1 percent.

Also, respondents who belong to vulnerable population groups significantly diverged in their involvement in activities. Divorced women/widows (27.6 percent), women not involved in marriages (24.9 percent), and women with no source of irrigation water (25.0 percent) were more involved than those in other vulnerable groups. Divorced women/widows took part in establishing women’s self-help groups (13.0 percent), creating jobs for women in the village/province (13.2

percent) and preventing early and forced marriages (10.5 percent). Such an involvement among divorced women/widows

may be due to their spare time or the absence of control/restrictions from the husband or to greater socioeconomic responsibilities.

51.8%

31.6%

46.6%

56.0%

45.7%

21.6%

31.1%

47.0%

29.8%

17.1%

30.1%

49.2%

14.0% 16.8%

4.5%7.7%

28.5%

23.2%

9.3%

4.4%

14.8% 14.6%

22.0%

26.3%

7.4%

0.7%

8.0%4.5%

8.9%

2.3%


n=122




Jalal-Abad region,Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl

okmotu, n=123


n=122

$G4 Where would you go if your rights were violated?

Aiyl okmotu / rayon administration / village leader / LSGA Police office / Ministry of Internal Affairs / district police officer

Ombudsman / human rights bodies / human rights defenders Court / rayon court / oblast court

Aksakal court / village court


Table 8.3. Participating in activities/events for the last year (Column %)

Activities/events

Batken province, Ak-Turpak

aiyl okmotu,

n=122

Batken province,

Orozbekov aiyl

okmotu, n=123

Osh province,

Toolos aiyl

okmotu, n=124

Osh province, Bel aiyl

okmotu, n=124

Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu

aiyl okmotu, n=123

Talas province,

Kara-Buura aiyl

okmotu, n=122

Did not participate in any of the activities/ events (when selecting this, no other answers can be selected)

86,90% 78,30% 86,40% 83,80% 70,10% 77,30%

Training and knowledge sharing to protect and stand up for women’s rights

10,80% 10,80% 6,50% 4,80% 7,70% 9,90%

Creation of women’s self-help groups 4,80% 3,90% 3,60% 6,50% 15,70% 6,60%

Creating opportunities for women entrepreneurs, creating jobs for women in the village/district

6,30% 6,00% 3,50% 3,40% 13,10% 6,00%

Prevention of early marriage, forced marriage

9,50% 3,20% 4,10% 1,80% 5,50% 8,60%

Building a dialogue between local authorities, women’s council, local population, etc.

4,70% 5,00% 5,20% 2,40% 7,60% 4,80%

Establishment of peace/resolution of discords between people of different nationalities

5,00% 0,60% 4,70% 1,90% 8,60% 1,70%

Informing about safe migration and protection of labour rights

4,70% 2,80% 2,10% 1,10% 5,90% 4,90%

Prevention/resolution of border conflicts 6,60% 0,60% 3,40% 0,00% 0,00% 0,60%

Protecting and restoring the rights of women migrant workers who have been subjected to violence and violations of their rights

1,30% 2,10% 4,40% 0,00% 1,80% 1,20%

Difficult to answer 0,00% 0,60% 2,10% 0,60% 1,30% 6,10%

Preventing the violation of rights and discrimination based on gender

3,40% 1,40% 1,40% 0,00% 0,00% 1,80%

Preventing radicalization / participation in illegal groups / actions of violent nature

0,00% 0,00% 1,40% 0,00% 1,80% 3,70%

It is essential to carry out awareness activities for women and girls on their rights. It is also necessary to provide comprehensive support to WAM who experience rights violations.

The following key findings were revealed during qualitative interviews and group discussions supporting the quantitative indicator outcomes: National-level partners and informants:

The State Agency on LSG representative mentioned a quite high level of awareness, especially among returned migrant women, who had experienced working/being in different situations. JIA Business Association and Forum of Women Parliamentarians members provided an overall score of 3.5 out of 5 for awareness (equipped with knowledge), where 1 = women poorly aware of their rights, and 5 = women are well aware of their rights.



Measuring women’s level of awareness of their rights, one local NGO representatives gave a score of 4 out of 5 and the remaining two gave a score of 2 out of 5, where 1 = women poorly aware of their rights, and 5 = women are well aware of their rights. Thus, they ranked the level of awareness as satisfactory (3 on average). The mean score for readiness of women to advocate for their rights is even lower – only 2.5 on average. It was claimed by all NGO representatives that knowledge of rights does not yet guarantee their correct protection/advocacy.

“Even if they know their rights, they will not be able to protect them. They hide to discuss the issue. Probably, this is due to our wrong upbringing, because of which it is impossible to speak up, and there is some kind of humiliation and shame. Therefore, even knowing their rights, they will not be able to defend them. They cannot come forward and talk about ta violation.” – NGO representative, Jalalabad province

Local state authorities:

LSGs provided a 2.5 score (out of maximum 5) for both women’s knowing their rights and being able to uphold their rights through appropriate bodies and decision makers.

“They don’t fully know their rights. If you look at the level of awareness, there are few people who know their rights. Some, even when they apply for social benefits, do not know what documents are needed, where they need to be obtained, what needs to be done. They need to be given explanations and advice – where to go, what to take, how to get it.” – LSG representative, Bel AO, Osh province

“They need to be trained, they need to be given knowledge. If out of 10 migrants, 3 leave because of low salaries, 3-4 have received an education, the rest leave having just completed 11th grade. They don’t know their rights, so I put a score of 3.” – LSG representative, Ak-Turpak AO, Batken province

Community activists, decision-makers, and target women affected by labour migration:

Local activists and decision makers21 do not agree with NGOs and LSGs and declare that women are very well aware of their rights – providing a 4.5 score in terms of knowledge (except Jalalabad activists who pointed out a very poor awareness level and rights protection abilities and gave a score of 2.5 on average). However, they also agreed that women are not equipped with knowledges of what to do, where to go and how to advocate in case of rights violation. A similar situation occurs in all AOs and villages. Social activists and decision makers also mentioned that women should not only know their rights but also should understand the duties of authorities and responsibilities of bodies at the local and district level who are responsible for advocating/counseling/protecting rights of women. On the migration aspect, they all agreed that girls and women who have no migration experience or are vulnerable to forced migration have the highest risk of rights violations. All agreed that the pandemic and crisis have significantly affected those WAM who could seek help for protection and receive consultations but were not able to because working hours of officials were shifted, procedures changed, and the possibility to go abroad is decreased.

WAM FGD participants also confirmed they have a quite poor understanding of rights (especially those who are first-time migrants) and the possibilities to protect them – their awareness score is of 2.5 out of 5 and 3.5 points for abilities (skills) to advocate for their rights in case of violation (mostly returned migrant women).

21 Social workers, deputies of local kenesh and councils; women’s council representatives, local leaders, activists of communities,

civic activists; social pedagogues from schools; representatives of aksakal courts; representatives of the youth committee;


IX. ACCESS TO ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES Outcome Indicator 2c: % of women from target groups with (“who have” for the baseline) increased access to economic and community development opportunities. Indicator summary (indicator values/outcomes – quantitative and qualitative) The following total value of the indicator was assessed in the baseline assessment:

Table 5.1. Indicator 2c values


Outcome Indicator 2c

Proportion (%) of the population of women from target groups who have increased access to economic and community development opportunities

Quantitative

TOTAL 25.3% Female Returned-migrants: 27.2% Female Potential-migrants: 23.2% Batken province - Ak-Tupak (AO) 29.3% Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 30.6% Osh province - Toolos (AO) 11.5% Osh province - Bel (AO) 23.1% Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 33.9% Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 23.6% 15-24 y.o 20.6% 25-54 y.o 28.1% 55+ y.o 23.2%

Qualitative

Focus groups with women affected by migration helped explain two aspects of access to economic and community development opportunities. At the first aspect, which is perceptional, women who were in migration find themselves relatively well informed about different types of community development opportunities; they are more digitalized, more ambitious, and emotionally stable. For the second aspect, which is constraint-oriented, we can note that even though WAM have more capabilities, they still cannot apply them in the local community environment because of negative stereotypes and gender norms: they don’t have any support, not even from their family members or from other community members whose attitude towards migrant-women is negative and sometimes envious.

The indicator assessment was based on two main question blocks: awareness of economic opportunities in the community (F1) and access to development opportunities in the community/place of residence (F2). Jointly analyzing these two question blocks allows to integrally assess the indicator (obtain an indicator summary). At the same time, questions F1 and F2 are examined separately below. Within the analysis of these two questions, factors impacting economic development opportunities are listed, in particular access to resources (economic, technical, material, and agricultural) and access to services (technical, for business development, etc.). In addition to the two questions directly involved in the indicator assessment (F1 and F2), this chapter also provides analyses and conclusions based on similar questions: obstacles to access economic opportunities (F3) and women’s readiness / interest in participating in the development of their community / place of residence (F4).

For the detailed indicator assessment methodology refer to Annex 2.


Results of the data analysis.

Looking into the awareness of women who returned from working abroad and potential migrant workers, we can say that most respondents have little information or are totally unaware of the economic opportunities in their village (i.e. Figure 9.1). At the same time, approximately one fourth of WAM surveyed claim that they know everything required to obtain professional skills and education as well as microcredits and loans for doing business. Majority of women lack awareness on cooperation with local businesses and participation in entrepreneurial and financial literacy trainings. They also showed insufficient knowledge on further obtaining business development services and accessing deposits and savings accounts to accumulate and/or invest funds. It is also worth noting that the largest share of better-informed respondents regarding joint work and partnership with local businesses is in Kyzyl-Tuu AO, Jalalabad province (18.5 percent). About 20 percent of the current or potential migrant workers from the Orozbekov AO (Batken oblast), are fully aware on how to open deposits to save or invest their money. A possible explanation to this is that the Orozbekov AO is located very close to the regional center. The AO union is considered to be particularly advanced and large for the province. Many residents work in the regional center and have access to more information, including financial information (banking system). It’s also worth noting that these indicators (18.5 percent and 20 percent) are not as significant when considering the maximum possible score for the indicator.

Figure 9.1. Awareness of economic opportunities, n = 484

Among the respondents who have some knowledge on the above economic opportunities, we assessed the accessibility of resources and services in their AO. Most respondents identified the following resources and services as the most difficult to access:

● IT for business (23.0 percent) ● Grants from international donors (22.3 percent) ● Tenancy for professional needs (20.6 percent)

Better-informed WAM respondents identified the following most accessible resources and services in their AOs: ● Registration of their personal businesses (17.4 percent) ● Acquisition of professional competences and knowledge (14,5 percent) ● Learning entrepreneurial skills to do business (11.4 percent)

7.1%

7.2%

9.5%

8.6%

10.1%

16.3%

19.9%

22.8%

25.6%

I know everything

92.9%

92.8%

90.5%

91.4%

89.9%

83.7%

80.1%

77.2%

74.4%

Cooperation with local businesses

Trainings on entrepreneurship andfinancial literacy

Access to deposits and savings accounts forsaving and/or investing

Obtaining business development services

Obtaining grants from donor organizationsand investors

Transfer of knowledge and experiencebetween residents of the locality

Learning business skills for running yourown business

Obtaining microloans, loans, and financialproducts for businesses

Obtaining professional skills and education

Don't know or know very little

F1. Please assess how well you are informed (know) about the following economic opportunities in your village


Figure 9.2. Accessibility to economic and development opportunities (%, N = 484)

At the same time, most representatives of LSGBs, the State Agency for Local Self-Government and Interethnic Relations under the Government of Kyrgyz Republic (SALGA) and local NGOs assure that there are no barriers for WAM to access economic resources. The NGO representative in the Batken province notes that opportunities for obtaining loans for female migrant workers are higher than for women not affected by migration.

“Banks are interested in giving loans to migrants, as they are constantly transferring money to their parents. In general, for banks, migrants are preferable to non-migrants.” – Local NGO representative, Batken province

“There are no barriers; women are often given loans because they are conscientious and will pay these loans on time.” – SALGA representative, Bishkek

Most women (64.2 percent) specified financial constraints as the main source of difficulties to access economic resources or opportunities. About one-third of the respondents affected by migration also expressed the lack of such opportunities in their villages. The same is true for participants from the province of Osh concerning inaccessible resources and opportunities (over 40 percent of respondents). In the province of Talas, the vast majority (89.3 percent) of surveyed participants noted financial constraints as the principal obstacle in accessing such resources.

23.0%

22.3%

20.6%

19.6%

14.7%

12.9%

12.8%

11.1%

10.3%

7.0%

6.5%

5.7%

5.5%

5.3%

5.2%

4.6%

4.5%

3.6%

35.1%

30.6%

30.5%

28.8%

26.7%

30.6%

22.8%

25.2%

12.4%

13.8%

22.5%

12.3%

12.5%

9.8%

10.7%

10.1%

13.2%

13.5%

13.0%

28.9%

18.5%

23.1%

30.2%

34.6%

16.6%

32.5%

16.8%

24.8%

24.9%

26.4%

27.1%

28.7%

16.8%

21.4%

36.9%

19.1%

10.0%

9.4%

13.7%

9.3%

22.5%

14.5%

24.6%

19.3%

30.9%

31.0%

26.0%

32.7%

38.1%

35.6%

37.9%

38.1%

31.1%

36.6%

4.6%

2.7%

6.2%

3.5%

4.8%

3.5%

14.0%

5.5%

24.7%

16.6%

12.1%

19.9%

14.5%

17.4%

22.3%

18.9%

11.4%

21.1%

14.4%

6.1%

10.6%

15.8%

1.1%

3.9%

9.3%

6.4%

4.9%

6.9%

8.1%

3.1%

2.2%

3.3%

7.1%

6.9%

3.0%

6.2%

IT, software solutions for business, n=484

Obtaining grants from donor organizations and investors, n=119

Rent of space/area for professional needs, n=484

Transfer of knowledge between residents of the locality, n=484

Cooperation with local businesses, n=83

Obtaining business development services, n=110

Technical service, n=484

Trainings on entrepreneurship and financial literacy, n=83

Irrigation water for land irrigation, n=484

Agriculture, n=484

Deposits and savings accounts for saving and/or investing, n=108

Obtaining microcredits for businesses, n=178

Obtaining professional skills and education, n=209

Business registration services, n=144

Getting electricity and fuel, n=484

Engage in animal husbandry, n=484

Learning business skills for running your own business, n=180

Purchase of fertilizers and seeds, n=484

F2. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very difficult to obtain and 5 is very easy to obtain, rate how accessible the followingresources/services/solutions are for you to use in your village/Ayil okmotu:

Very difficult Difficult to obtain Not easy, but possible to obtain

Easy to obtain Absolutely available Difficult to answer


Figure 9.3. Difficulties in accessing economic resources, n = 443

Most of the respondents are favourable to participating in a project aimed at helping women and girls affected by migration in the next six months that would include training on increasing women’s participation in decision-making and improving access to economic opportunities for developing their village, resolving gender conflicts, prevention of social pressure. The largest share of those unwilling to participate in such projects live in the Toolos AO, Osh province, whereas over 70 percent of the respondents from the Kyzyl-Tuu village, Jalalabad province would like to participate in such a project.

Figure 9.4. Participation in a project supporting women affected by migration, N = 1,500

64.2%

35.4%

14.7%

7.7%

2.9%

2.0%

1.0%

3.0%

7.7%

Financial difficulties

Not available in our village

Not enough knowledge to get them

No time

Lack of support from relatives, environment

Negative attitude from villagers

Other

No problems/obstacles

Difficult to answer

F3 Why do you think there might be difficulties in obtaining these economic resources/opportunities?

62.7% 60.8%

50.1%53.7%

71.7%

52.4%

3.7% 5.9% 7.5%13.6%

8.0% 9.9%

33.6% 33.4%

42.4%

32.7%

20.3%

37.7%


n=251




Jalal-Abad region,Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl

okmotu, n=249


n=250

F4 Would you like to participate in a project in the next 6 months to help women and girls for the development of your village, etc.?

I definitely would like to participate Hard to say, maybe yes/maybe no I definitely would not want to participate


The following results supporting the indicator were revealed after qualitative survey data analysis:

National-level partners and informants:

The State Agency on LSG representatives see no barriers for women: in their opinion, they have access to loans and credits, education, and self-employment possibilities. National and local authorities do not see essential correlation in access to various services between migrants and non-migrants at all, arguing more from the standpoint of legislation, which does not forbid them to participate in elections as well as to receive the bank services. Moreover, they justify it by the fact that women are more conscientious and take loans more often comparing the men because they pay them on time.

“It doesn’t matter whether migrants or non-migrants. They all have right to receive services.” – LSG, Talas province

Members of other organizations (Forum of Women Parliamentarians and JIA business-association) tend to have less assurance that women have a high level of accessibility to economic and community development opportunities. NGO representatives:

NGO representatives are quite sure that WAM have access to the economic and community development opportunities in the locality. They believe WAM enjoy and have even higher access to economic development than other community members for the following reasons:

● WAM have more experience in job creation and hiring than those women who have never been outside their community.

● Women who have work experience are more financially literate than those who do not (housewives). ● Returned migrant women are more welcome in the banks because they have more financial skills to cover credits ● Professional centers and lyceums are more likely to attract experienced women who could share their experience

in groups, who will not disappear in the middle of the course, and who will not have problems paying for courses. ● Also, women migrants have access to diasporas in the host countries, in particular, in Russia, as well as other civil

funds that provide assistance specifically to migrants. As a rule, migrants working abroad build strong networks within their community and become more united and help members and fellow countrymen/countrywomen. For instance: if a relative of one of the community members dies, they send money to support family.

However not all NGO representatives agreed with that point of view and think that the problem is deeper:

“But today, if those who returned from labour migration were given some kind of preferential loans for starting a small business, perhaps they would not have left their children in the first place and would not leave again.” – NGO representative, Jalalabad province

The NGO representatives also think that even though everyone has an access to different opportunities, they still need to be able to lobby their interests and build self-respect, which is the most complicated.

“Returning migrants arrive here with lack of spirit and self-respect, because they were exploited there. Upon returning home, they face problems here as well. A lot of them do not have a desire to satisfy their needs, they fear that they will be trampled or be found out that they have been in sexual slavery.” – NGO representative, Talas province

Local state authorities:

Local state government (LSG) officials noted the same attitudes – WAM, on the one hand, have more access to economic and community development opportunities than “ordinary” women, but, on the other hand, they cannot fully implement this opportunity and are forced to go abroad again. Local activists, leaders and target women affected by labour migration:

Local activists believe that WAM are not any different in terms of access to economic and community development opportunities compared to other groups in the community. Focus groups with women affected by migration showed two aspects of access to economic and community development possibilities. The first level consists in the fact that women


who were in migration are well informed about different types of community development opportunities (at least more than those who were not in migration), they are more digitalized, more ambitious and emotionally stable. The second level states that even though they have more abilities, they still cannot apply them in the local community environment because of negative stereotypes and gender norms; they don’t have support, not even from their family members nor from other community members, whose attitude towards migrant-women is overall negative, and sometimes envious. Among community development opportunities, WAM mentioned the following: participation in a talent competition on the local level, a group training called “Ishker ayim” and online conference trainings as well as fundraising activities:

“We have a fund for the school, and the money collected is quickly invested in the school’s development. And now we are working at the initiative of Aga-Khan, and with the allocated money we bought things our school needed and put in place a council.” – WAM, Osh province


X. GENDER-RESPONSIVE PLANNING AND PEACEBUILDING

A. Outcome Indicator 3b - # of target municipalities, which support women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding

Indicator summary (indicator values/outcomes– quantitative and qualitative)

The following total value of the indicator was revealed in the baseline assessment:

Table 10.1. Outcome Indicator 3b values and outcomes

Number Description Compo-

nent Assessment outcome


Number of target municipalities that support women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and peacebuilding

Quali-tative

According to qualitative results of the IDIs and FGDs, the overall number of municipalities where representatives claimed they support women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and peacebuilding was 3 out of 6.

Quanti-tative

TOTAL 37,8% Female Returned-migrants 37,7% Female Potential-migrants 37,6%

Batken province - Ak-Tupak (AO) 41,0% Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) 35,0% Osh province - Toolos (AO) 38,4% Osh province - Bel (AO) 37,9% Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) 29,8% Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) 44,9%

15-24 y.o 28.7% 25-54 y.o 29.3% 55+ y.o 30.2%

Qualitative survey outcomes were used for this indicator reasoning. In-depth interviews observed that some

municipalities claimed they do support WAM through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and/or PB; however,

they could not always provide facts or examples of such support. To count for this indicator municipality (LSG) representatives should both claim and provide proof (cases, stories, impact) of such support recently delivered. Overall, the answers to this indicator are quite poor, which evidences both a lack of practice from LSG staff in this support and also requires adjustments to interviewing approach for the endline (see Recommendations section).

Batken province - Ak-Tupak (AO) (+1 so, it is counted)

The Ak-Tupak AO LSG representative shared his experience of conducting conflict prevention activities together with UNICEF. The target audience was girls who returned from migration. Employees of LSGBs, together with trainers from UNICEF, held several exhibitions and one “performance” on the topic of migration.

“We did implement activities on safe migration with UNICEF organization (it provided trainers). It was more focused on young girls, affected by migration. We helped to engage targeted participants, inform and bring them to this training, arranged premises. During these activities there were exhibitions of safe migration handbooks, a kind of a theatre play on safe migration, how to behave in destination country, personal question-answers, etc.” – LSG representative, Ak-Tupak AO, Batken province

Nevertheless, in to LSG representative’s opinion, consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB aimed at supporting WAM should be carried out by NGOs and various foundations and is not their primary duty. LSG representative was not providing any information on civic activism and PB support. The main reason for not widely support delivery is “lack of funds and infrastructure.” Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) (+1)

The LSG representative claimed that some safe migration related trainings and capacity-building activities were performed in 2018–2019. With the help of “Demilgeluu Ishkek Ayimdar” Public Fund and Roza Otunbayeva’s foundation,


they carried out several activities to inform WAM about their rights and the rights of migrants in foreign countries to deliver safe migration knowledge and skills. The LSG representative was asked to explain the civic activism and PB consultations provided by their municipality to WAM as well. They mentioned that before COVID-19 they gathered the local women, including active ones and leaders, and those who wanted to be heard and organized informational campaigns on women participation in the politics and community life.

“It was on regular face-to face basis before the pandemic. We organized [a] meeting and gathered women, including active women leaders, women who want to participate in politics [or] provide help for their communities, who wanted to make a career in this area. At that time there were also women who wanted to get a respectful job. At the same time, there were also women who were subjected to human trafficking, that is, to help them overcoming rights-violated and moral obstacles. Psychologists from Osh even came to this event and conducted training and consultations among women. That’s when we held a good impact in our community. Some of our citizens could not leave for America, at these seminars they gave good information that later they opened a visa to America. In these training seminars, they basically got more information about their rights.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO, Batken province

Meanwhile, interviewed activists also confirmed they participated in projects initiated by Roza Otunbayeva and UN Women. The main purpose of these projects was to provide moral support and rights protection for young women, affected by migration. Activists also gave the example of assistance engaging WAM as a teacher in a school. Nevertheless, due to financial constraints, LSG official claimed they only provide regular assistance to women affected by migration in the form of moral and psychological support, as well as with paperwork, including such kind of safe migration issues as getting visas, migration related documents, migration procedures, as well as on how to procedure employment in the host country.

“For example, such questions as, ‘ If I do not get a job there, will I be able to come back or not?’, we explain, calm women down. We give them information that there are our embassies, consulates and that they can apply there if necessary. We also give phone numbers of ours and the embassies to call on any issue.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO, Batken province

At the same time, none of the local activists and WAM who participated in the FGD claimed they took part in any events on safe migration, civic activism, and PB arranged by the local municipality. During the FGD with WAM the respondents mentioned only a symbolic display of attention towards women subject to migration in the form of certificates. Osh province - Toolos (AO) (-1 so, it is NOT counted)

The representative of the LSG in Toolos AO, who also deals with the issue of migration in the province, was not aware of the need to carry out activities to assist WAM on safe migration, civic activism, and PB and thus could not provide any cases or evidence to reveal that. Basically, he claimed their LSG officials only help women who have returned from work abroad exclusively with paperwork (replacement of passports). Osh province - Bel (AO) (-1)

Officials responsible for social issues in the Bel AO reported they have not organized events to support women affected by migration on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding, but claim they regularly have personal discussions to share experience and consult in this area. Furthermore, LSG officials have organized a meeting with social workers on issues of migrants and early marriages were discussed. As a result, a methodology to inform vulnerable groups on these topics was developed, but there were no systematic consultations held there.

The returning labour migrants generally address to LSG for help in finding employment. During the group discussion, activists pointed out the AOs’ work in creating jobs in the province. However, activists themselves do not conduct consultations on safe migration or civic engagement because residents do not show interest in these. The answers of women who participated in the FGDs confirm activists’ opinions on fellow villagers’ lack of interest in the migration topic.

“Women who are planning to migrate are not interested in education. They say, ‘I will leave anyway.’ We answer, ‘Participate anyway, come and learn.’ They participate, but they still leave the groups and don’t stay to the end.” – WAM, Bel AO, Osh province


In our opinion, the reason is not that there is no demand on this given topic within the target audience. They just don’t understand or don’t know how such events can be useful, and that they have the opportunity to attend them. Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) (+1) The Kyzyl-Tuu LSG representative claimed they try to encourage initiatives for WAM in every possible way to help obtain supervision/assistance of foreign donors, organizing seminars and trainings on these topics, specifically on how to behave and what to do in other countries during employment. Funds from foreign donors are allocated to organizing seminars

and trainings. Donors set age and gender quotas, with an emphasis on young girls. Instances of migrant families appealing

for help with humanitarian aid or difficult youth were also noted, but LSG staff’s did not describe their efforts to resolve these issues. The survey team suggests including this question in the final project assessment to clarify the nature of the assistance provided. Local village leaders monitor families of migrants who are abroad on a weekly basis. If families are in difficult conditions, LSG officials contact migrants and ask them to return to their homeland. Local activists also confirmed annual seminar delivery on safe migration. Respondents did not mention the topic of the event. The training course was organized by the migration service and the International Labour Organization (ILO) and held for the third year in a row at the district level. Although LSGs are not performing any of that, the LSG heads still visited the families in their communities that face difficulties, checked the children and parents left by their migrants, and helped with consultations on how to safely return from the host country. The 2020 workshop was cancelled due to restrictive measures taken to limit the pandemic. Activists noted that if women with commercial plans ask the LSG for advice or consultation on civic activism, they will definitely be provided with necessary moral and material support. Overall, activists showed an interest in involving a consultant, and readiness to cooperate in organizing trainings on safe migration, civil participation, conflict management, and protecting the rights of women and girls who have returned form migration or are planning to migrate. In the meantime, the women who participated in the FGD said they hadn’t heard about any safe migration, community activism, or PB projects arranged by LSGs. However, some respondents are confident that the AO is widely assisting in the implementation of such initiatives for WAM. Based on the low quantitative support numbers of the indicator for this AO, we may assume that the existing support measures are broad and not systematic. Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) (-1) Unlike most of the examined LSG, Kara-Buura administration representatives claimed they were able to provide only material help to WAM who wanted to start a business in the village: the local municipal service provided premises for a sewing workshop. Overall, the level of material support to WAM from the Talas LSG is probably higher than in other regions. However, it’s important to note that LSG employees seldom implement any information campaigns on safe migration, civic activism, and PB. Absolutely none of the WAM who participated in the FGD heard about activities aimed at supporting them on safe migration, civic activism, and PB. In addition, WAM claimed that they weren’t interested in events organized by the local administration, including on protecting migrants’ rights. This situation was also confirmed by activists in the Talas province, who highlighted the work of particular employees of the AO. Thus, the overall number of municipalities who support women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB is 3. Results of quantitative data analysis (numerical facts and conclusions)

Outcome Indicator 3b assessment was based on the qualitative LSGs in-depth interviews findings, but the assessment also included a number of survey questions to WAM to see how they perceive and practice receiving consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB throughout all municipalities. Thus, the quantitative survey showed the other side – beneficiaries’ (WAM) receiving such support and their opinions on that support.


Only a third to half of the target municipalities’ target women (WAM) confirmed supporting WAM through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB. The total communities’ value (share) is 37.8 percent, which means only one-third of the target women confirmed that their municipalities and representatives (local authorities, heads of villages, and other decision-makers) provide activities and consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB. The highest share is in the Talas province, Kara-Buura (AO), while the lowest is in the Jalalabad province, Kyzyl-Tuu (AO). Examining various organizations’ support to women affected by migration on a number of cases, it becomes clear that respondents give more importance to family and people in their village. Thus, the prevailing share of survey participants (77.9 percent) noted that young women who plan to work abroad receive help from their family and neighbours once they need it. Perhaps it is easier for them to get support from loved ones with similar experiences than to contact specialized organizations. We can observe a similar situation is with women who returned from work abroad. One-third of the surveyed participants also pointed out the work of social workers and fellow villagers in this support area. Over 30 percent of the respondents also mentioned work of law enforcement bodies in helping girls and young women involved in radical groups and affected by extremist movements. The smallest share of surveyed participants (3 percent) noted NGOs’ contribution in this field. Table 10.2 below presents opinions of WAM on who provides support to different groups/situations of WAM in their community. In general, note that there is little demand for support from NGOs, lawyers, media, MSC employees, and village elders.

Table 10.2. Organizations engaged in supporting women affected by migration, n = 484

Cases Villagers/ families

LSGs Social

workers

Internal affairs authorities/dist

rict police

Village elders

Various NGOs/

associa-tions

No one to help

They manage on their own

Difficult to

answer Total

Leaving for labour migration for the first time under the influence of relatives

77,9% 7,0% 4,5% 2,6% 2,7% 0,7% 6,6% 7,1% 5,2% 100%

n= 377 34 22 13 13 4 32 35 25 484

Returned from labour migration from another country

63,5% 5,5% 3,5% 2,6% 1,3% 1,5% 14,4% 11,5% 5,2% 100%

n= 308 27 17 12 6 7 70 55 25 484

Coming from economically vulnerable families

33,2% 51,8% 34,6% 3,1% 9,3% 6,6% 6,0% 3,1% 5,1% 100%

n= 161 251 168 15 45 32 29 15 25 484

Involved in radical groups, exposed to extremist trends and influences

15,2% 16,4% 12,6% 30,8% 7,8% 3,1% 15,6% 8,0% 20,4% 100%

n= 74 79 61 149 38 15 75 39 99 484

Exposed to family violence/ discrimination and oppression

29,5% 22,4% 22,7% 35,0% 10,1% 4,8% 9,0% 3,9% 10,9% 100%

n= 143 109 110 169 49 23 43 19 53 484

Have three or more children

21,6% 41,1% 32,5% 1,5% 5,0% 4,7% 15,7% 8,4% 6,6% 100%

n= 104 199 157 7 24 23 76 41 32 484

Engaged in heavy manual labour

15,3% 11,2% 4,7% 1,0% 1,0% 1,1% 35,5% 19,1% 16,8% 100%

n= 74 54 23 5 5 5 172 92 81 484

Unemployed 12,2% 16,9% 5,0% 0,0% 1,7% 1,4% 38,2% 20,9% 11,4% 100%

n= 59 82 24 0 8 7 185 101 55 484

With disabilities 23,2% 47,6% 42,7% 0,8% 5,4% 10,3% 9,9% 2,4% 6,3% 100%

n= 112 231 207 4 26 50 48 12 30 484

When looking at the geographical disaggregation of these results, we can observe the following:


● About 20 percent of the respondents from the Ak-Turpak AO, Batken province believe that women planning to work abroad do not need help because they are capable of dealing with this issue on their own.

● In the Kara-Buura AO, Talas province, survey participants almost evenly (25 percent) commended the assistance of law enforcement, LSGs, and fellow villagers to women involved in radical groups. Over one-third of the respondents noted the support of psychologists and social workers, while 21 percent of the respondents pointed out that there is no one to help girls inclined to radicalization in their villages.

● In the Orozbekov AO, Batken and Talas regions, respondents to a greater extent noted the activity of social workers in assisting large families.

● In the province of Talas, assistance for low-income families from social workers prevails, whereas in a majority of the examined regions, the main support comes from LGS employees. In Orozbekov AO, Batken province, central services engaged in assisting low-income families are presented in roughly equal numbers.

Another question was addressed to WAM on the types of support they received from LSGs officials.

Figure 10.1. Assistance from LSG employees, n = 484

Based on the sum of all cases of where LSG support was said to be needed by WAM, we calculated the percentage of inaction of the AO employees in each area. Figure 10.2 reflects a situation in which, in the overwhelming majority, local governments do not take action to help WAM on a number of needs they declared. For example, on safe migration, out of those who needed help and who turned to the LSG, 88.2 percent of the respondents (women affected by migration) did not receive support.

19.4%

15.0%

12.0%

11.5%

11.3%

10.5%

10.2%

9.8%

2.6%

3.2%

5.3%

4.4%

2.5%

3.0%

6.3%

1.8%

77.0%

80.2%

81.1%

82.3%

83.7%

84.0%

81.4%

85.8%

Safe migration

Employment

Defending and protecting the rights of migrant…

Supporting women's initiatives

Engage in public activities

Re-join into village life

Supporting the participation of women in the social…

Prevention of conflictsin the village

Have you received support on the following issues from Ayil okmotu/Local Government

We haven’t received it, but we needed the support Yes, we have received

It wasn't needed Difficult to answer


Figure 10.2. Inaction of LSG officials, n = 484

The majority (~ 45 percent) of the respondents considered their problems too insignificant to contact specialized services, while about a quarter of the respondents did not know where to seek help. On average, 22.1 percent of WAM have requested support from various services. About 20 percent of the surveyed participants appealed to local government officials to support women’s participation in the village’s public life. To get support for women’s initiatives and start-ups, 7 percent of those surveyed turned to NGOs. Respondents most often approached their acquaintances on issues of safe migration (14.6 percent), employment (11.7 percent), and protection of women migrants’ rights (11.4 percent). Medical workers were the least in demand; 3 percent of the respondents asked legal consultants for help defending the rights of women migrants.

Table 10.3. Recourse of women affected by migration to various organizations

Cases LSG NGO Individuals Health care providers

It wasn’t necessary

I didn´t know where to go

Other

Safe migration, n=107 9,5% 2,9% 14,6% 1,4% 37,2% 26,8% 5,5%

Engaging in village life, n=65 8,5% 2,4% 9,8% 0,0% 46,5% 22,4% 5,2%

Engaging in public activities, n=66 5,9% 2,2% 6,9% 0,0% 48,7% 19,5% 11,1%

Employment, n=88 11,5% 1,7% 11,7% 0,0% 39,3% 24,6% 7,4%

Prevention of conflicts in the village, n=57

6,7% 0,0% 1,5% 1,4% 59,9% 16,4% 5,9%

Defending and protecting the rights of migrant women, n=84

7,9% 4,7% 11,1% 3,0% 40,3% 23,3% 5,8%

Supporting women’s initiatives, n=78

11,6% 6,8% 4,0% 0,0% 45,8% 17,0% 5,3%

Supporting the participation of women in the social life, n=81

19,9% 4,9% 3,1% 0,9% 42,4% 16,4% 5,1%

Thus, the involvement of LSGs in supporting safe migration, civic engagement, and PB is considered very uncertain and not typical of municipalities in terms of assessment. B. Outcome Indicator 3c - # of target municipalities who claim to be applying gender-responsive peacebuilding principles in support of women’s participation in community development (LAPs)

The indicator assessment was based only on the qualitative survey, i.e., IDIs and FGDs, excluding questions from the survey carried out among WAM. To assess Indicator 3c, we decided to prioritize answers from LSG representatives because they are the ones responsible and who have to adopt gender-responsive PB principles in support of women’s participation in community development. The remaining groups’ answers (forum of women deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh, JIA, SALGA, community activists and decision-makers, and WAM) were used to explain and support (or refute)

88.2%

84.5%

82.5%

82.0%

77.9%

72.2%

69.4%

61.8%

Safe migration

Prevention of conflictsin the village

Employment

Engage in public activities

Re-join into village life

Supporting women's initiatives

Defending and protecting the rights of migrant women

Supporting the participation of women in the social life


the main group’s opinions. Initially, we decided to include municipalities, and the attribution to a certain municipality (adopting gender-responsive PB principles or not) was based on two main factors:

• LSG representatives confirmed (claimed) that the work on the Socio-Economic Development Plan for the AO included gender-responsive PB principles (answered the question with the affirmative).

• LSG representatives were able to give concrete examples on how they are implementing gender-responsive PB principles.

However, when analyzing the answers given by the main group of respondents, it became clear that only one LSG representative (Kara-Buura AO) was able to give (more or less) concrete examples and facts of the implementation of gender-responsive PB principles. In this way, according to this approach, only 1 in 6 municipalities implement gender-responsive PB principles to support women’s participation in the local community’s development. The research team then decided to consider a less demanding approach for the assessment of this indicator, where an affirmative answer to the question “Are gender-responsive peacebuilding (conflict management) principles and women’s participating in the local community’s development taken into account in documents / strategies / plans?” was enough to be included. With this analysis, the number of municipality representatives who gave an affirmative answer to this question was 4 out of the 6 examined in this research project. The second approach (i.e., less demanding regarding evidence and argumentation) will be examined further on. Indicator summary (values/outcomes of indicator – and qualitative)

Based on the results of interviews with the representatives of LSGs, annual plans of 4 LSGs claim to reflect principles of gender-sensitive PB engaging women in CD, according to participant claims. Some of the LSGs are not even aware of the need to incorporate gender-sensitive principles into the plan and documentation design on rural CD. They claim that plans do not include interests and support of women specifically because their problems are not in an “acute” form, therefore, they do not require immediate action. Yet, absolutely none of the WAM who participated in FGDs were informed about incorporation of gender principles in developing plans for their communities. Their overall attitude toward local plans development and implementation is incomprehensible because they don’t see any usefulness of it. The representative of the forum of women deputies responded that their coalition has not organized activities to support women affected by migration. The JIA business association, jointly with the ILO, conducted the study among entrepreneurs, where they discussed questions by WAM and establishment of support measures. The SALGA employee noted that she participated in UN Women and the ILO project on expansion of rights and opportunities for WAM for inclusive and peaceful development. Results of qualitative data analysis Batken province - Ak-Tupak (AO) (+1 means it is counted)

The Ak-Tupak LSG representative claimed they have local document that authorizes community development measures called the Legal Social Development (LSD plan). This is the main plan that corresponds to gender-sensitive aspects of CD. The respondent claimed that this plan corresponded to and was oriented to women’s role in CD and PB. The LSG representative cited another approach used for applying gender-responsive PB principles in support of women’s participation in CD that uses a work group consisting of 13 community members representing women’s council, youth activist members, respected women, self-employed and elder/aksakal leaders. Over 60 percent of work team members are always women.

“We try to deliver gender-sensitive aspects in spite of our roles and traditions. This also applies to AO gender policy. There are many women in our group of decision makers and plan developers who played a role. They raise many questions that bother [the] women population of our community. Our AO has an initiative that proposed cutting additional spending on traditions and ceremonies. Our AO is the first in Kyrgyz Republic who proposed this. There is a big role for women in this initiative. These are local women leaders and even women who returned from migration. There were times when women worked abroad, being in migration, then they used to return and spend everything they earn on Toi (celebration). Then, after that they were forced to leave again. It is everywhere in our area. We have developed many activities to reduce unnecessary expenditures and women played a big role in this.


We created groups for this initiative supporters and took participants from each village of our AO. Regardless of whether it is WAM or not, there is a gender policy that covers all women from our community. There is a big role for women in this. Also, young people help us more recent years.” – LSG representative, Ak-Tupak AO, Batken province

The LSG representative also mentioned that the women’s council is composed of activists who design and finalize another document (Community Development Strategic Plan) containing a series of benchmarks and supportive measures of economic, social, and cultural approaches with respect to vulnerable community residents (including the elderly, vulnerable families, and WAM). This plan is further presented to LSGs for including designed solutions into LSD planning. The women’s council also demands the implementation of approved plans from LSG officials. NGO representatives from Batken also mentioned a strategic plan for gender:

“There is a national action plan, there is a strategic plan for gender, the whole of Kyrgyz Republic uses it, all regions and districts must know about it. When Omurbekova was Vice-Premier, at the beginning of the year there was a lot of violence against women, and then urgent measures were taken and a plan was drawn up. Based on it, measures against violence against women were included everywhere. Domestic violence prevention committees were also established.” – NGO representative, Batken city

Batken province - Orozbekov (AO) (+1 means it is counted)

In the previous indicator assessment (Outcome Indicator 3b) this AO was considered as supporting women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding. Examples of this support were presented. The Orozbekov AO LSG head also explained the principle of their work on implementing development plans. Plans are generally focused on national-level programs, with a focus on government directives (i.e., based on the government plans, the AO draws up its own). In addition to national government directives, the AO also monitors the situation in their community and offers adjustments as appropriate:

“But before incorporating national directives we also look at the peculiarities of our local population, and compose our own LDP for 1-year and 3-year periods in accordance with local context. In addition, together with the Akimiat, we draw up a Local Action Plan, and when additional work/activities are revealed we add them to it on a regular basis. In addition, resolutions and concepts come to us, for example, the UN Women’s on the women violence, probably 1325 resolution, on the protection of children’s rights, there is also, there are a lot of social issues aspects do deliver, thus for each work plan we draw up our own LAP. For example, access to justice, tensions and conflicts mitigation, social justice, AIDS Day, etc.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO, Batken province

LSG plan implementation was controlled in 2020 by the Ministry of Finance on fair resources allocation to different topics and concluded that planning does not reflects gender sensitivity, required more targeted monitoring of needs and possibilities of different groups in the community (women and girls) for incorporating in plan development and implementation.

“For example, after consultations women were involved in Taza Suu interventions, helping their husbands on cleaning the canals engaging in social infrastructure rehabilitation.” – LSG representative, Orozbekov AO, Batken province

Thus, general planning focuses on the government’s work plan being adjusted according to peculiarities of the local community members – their sociodemographic, economic, and health needs. Based on this data, the council draws up its Social Development Plan for 1 or 3 years, with consideration of resolutions and concepts from international bodies (UN Women was mentioned). At the moment, according to the respondents, the LSGs of Orozbekov AO are improving their plan to reflect gender sensitivity and vulnerability criteria. Osh province - Toolos (AO) (-1 means it is NOT counted)

An LSG representative, participating in the IDIs, was asked a set of questions on applying gender-responsive PB principles in support of women’s participation in CD. Declaring “Yes” in terms of applying these principles, he started by explaining the principle of plan development. It starts when the head of LSG (municipality) forms a list of primary activities (requirements) that need to be delivered in the upcoming year. The list is communicated with local kenesh deputies – they hold a meeting where women activists and leaders are always invited and participated in discussions:


“After the draft version of the plan is drawn up, we usually hold a meeting; women activists [and] women leaders are invited. They vote for the importance and priority of the activities, offer additional important queries [that] need to be addressed. [The] work group decides what to do first. For example, if there are 10 problems/issues, all 10 cannot be solved at once, the budget and resources won’t be enough. Therefore, it requires prioritizing the most acute problems from the list. After wrapping up the results, the deputies of the local kenesh and the staff of the ayil okmotu gather. Deputies of the local kenesh make final proposals – something needs to be adjusted further on. And the executives – the employees of the aiyl okmotu – write it and add into the plan. Once the plan is approved, local taxes are collected and implementation starts.”– LSG representative, Toolos AO, Osh province

Regarding WAM participation in CD through gender-sensitive PB initiatives reflected in the LAPs, the respondent mentioned that the plan only considers social and economic problems of vulnerable groups: PWD, the elderly, and divorced women with 2 or more children (women from low-income families). The plan does not include interests and does not support women affected by migration because their problems are not in an “acute” form – they do not require immediate action, according to the LSG representative.

“Moderator: Do you consider the interests and suggestions of women in the strategic development plan, specifically women, who returned from labour migration or are prone to labour migration somehow? For example, for women who have returned from Russia, would you meet them, receive their needs and problems, consider their interests, and solve some of their problems?

LSG representative: I don’t get it. Why should we do that?

Moderator: Or do you consider them separately or just in general – “women”?

LSG representative: We consider generally – Women and their needs… “ – LSG representative discussion, Toolos AO, Osh province

Osh province - Bel (AO) (+1 means it is counted)

The LSG representative from Bel AO (responsible for social development) declared he and his colleagues always introduce the gender-sensitive PB principles into the development of the AO working plan after receiving the documents from the deputies of the local and Aiyl Kenesh.

“First, we have a Social and Economic Development Plan for ayil okmotu. Then there is the working plan of Ayil Kenesh. We are trying to bring gender sensitivity and conflict resolution issues to it. Also, each specialist has his own individual (thematic) plan. I have my own social work plan. We are introducing acute life problems and issues into these plans and are working on these directions. In general, the AO has a commission on social issues, which includes AO employees and representatives of the local community (including women). After the plan is formed, we consider it (the work plan of the commission). There is also a plan for the implementation of the State (social) program. When we draw up a social development plan, focus groups are held. Groups such as a group of women leaders, a group of youth, a group of young girls. They talk about their problems, make their suggestions to the program.” – LSG representative, Toolos AO, Osh province

In addition to general documents, each LSG employee has his work plan on various issues. Unfortunately, respondent did not provide precise examples of applying gender-responsive PB principles in support of women’s participation in CD (LAPs).

Jalalabad province - Kyzyl-Tuu (AO) (-1 means it is NOT counted)

According to the LSG representative from Kyzyl-Tuu AO, there is no need to pay special attention to problems and

requests of women when designing the Annual Development Plan.

“If we talk about gender equality, then the rights of women and men are equal in community. And when we hold meetings or events to address these needs, we never prohibit women [from] speaking. On the contrary, women are often heard and are on the forefront of discussion because many women are raising children, and therefore they often participate in our events to deliver ideas and requests [concerning issues] that bother their youth. Thus, plans are not drawn up in the office in aiyl okmotu. The needs of community groups are put at the forefront, the minutes of the meeting of residents are drawn up, and then it is sent to us to incorporate in the local development plan.” – LSG representative, Kyzyl-Tuu AO, Jalalabad province

Three social workers who are members of women’s councils in Kyzyl-Tuu AO noted that this year they have started to use gender principles when designing plans for the development of settlements in their province.

“Development plans necessarily include measures reflecting [the needs] of youth, women, and young mothers. For example, we are building kindergartens, feldsher-obstetric stations . To make it possible for women to travel a short


distance to receive medical services, we have feldsher-obstetric stations. And so that women are not too busy with caring and looking after children, we are opening kindergartens so that women have time for themselves. This is also included in the measures to protect young mothers. If the child is sent to kindergarten for several hours, young mothers have some time to rest. These interests are considered, reflected, and we try to support them in CD.” – LSG representative, Kyzyl-Tuu AO, Jalalabad province

Respondents claimed there are many gender-sensitive approaches to PB. Once LSG tries to isolate specific questions (a request or a need) – they usually divide the solution into four parts, ask the opinion of young people, and elder (aksakals) and middle-aged generation and women, as separate groups. And when addressing a certain issue, they ask each group if they agree with a certain solution, what would be the best solution for them, etc. That is usually implemented at community gathering and by counting votes, a decision is made. Both women and young girls can express their opinions there. They don’t have any specific WAM group as separate clause/measure.

Nevertheless, the respondent did not provide a positive (affirmative) answer (was confused) to the question of “Do these documents/strategies/plans take into account the principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding (conflict resolution) involving women in community development?”

Talas province - Kara-Buura (AO) (+1 means it is counted)

The representative of the LSG of Kara-Buura AO assured that gender-sensitive principles are reflected in the documents used by LSG. However, she did not have the necessary information to name the strategies/methods used in AO communities planning. Discussion was arranged around social-economic development plan, which is the main document for community development for the three-year period. Talking about different groups’ requests and intentions, the respondent did not confirm that any specific groups’ needs are reflected in community development planning – the needs of WAM/youth are focused and reflected in the planning. The respondent did not seem to understand the term “peacebuilding,” although after an explanation the respondent claimed they have no conflicts or tensions in the community, thus PB is not required in any form.

Talas Province activists noted that, among other changes, the 2021–2023 strategic plan does introduce gender principles. In the future, the plan will implement various activities to support women. The social workers claimed they were trained on using an inclusive approach at the Ministry of Education. Local social activists claimed they were implementing training activities for heads of kindergartens and schools on how to work with children using the method of inclusive education. C. Output Indicator 3.2.1 - # of Local Action Plans were claimed to be developed on gender-sensitive peacebuilding

Indicator summary and results of the data analysis

This indicator was assessed only through personal in-depth interviews with LSG representatives in six communities. The reasoning for counting those LSGs applying gender-sensitive PB principles were to some extent based on Outcome Indicator 3c reasoning. All participants of qualitative research (LSG representatives) named Socio-Economic Development Plan (also called as Local Action Plan) as main instruments that participants use in all project regions’ AOs. Additionally, LSGs from Bel AO LSG representative called Ayil Kenesh plan as one used when programming activities.

Because four LSG representatives claim they do incorporate gender-sensitive PB principles into their LAPs involving women (and other groups) participating in the PB process, the total number of local action plans (documents) confirmed are 4 (Ak-Tupak, Orozbekov, Bel, and Kara-Buura AOs) and 1 more Ayil Kenesh plan in Bel AO.

Yet, none from local NGOs could confirm that LSG bodies have included the principles of PB with focus on gender-sensitivity in their documents. However, this might be due to that in their view, all planned activities are only kept in paper, no open hearings are held, and budgets to address gender-sensitive and peacebuilding issues are the last to be allocated, after other more common economical needs are met (roads, infrastructure, water etc.).

“I’ll tell you the secret, the whole thing remains on paper. Even if it (gender-sensitive peacebuilding) is in the plan, the actual decisions/activities are not conducted. And there is no one monitoring the implementation of these issues. Unless the government comes and reviews the plans’ development and the work being done properly. And so, sometimes even the dates of these plans execution are changed.” – NGO representative, Jalalabad province

Also, the majority of NGO representatives claim that they did not witness any decisions on WAM needs and matters in plans of AO. There provided the following reasons for that:


• The LSG simply does not have accurate numbers on how many migrants left and how many arrived, and how many intend to leave in the near future. This became more unpredictable due to the COVID-19 situation everywhere.

• There is a lack of resources and specialists that can uncover, process, and address needs of WAM.

• WAM are secretive and do not seek to express their wishes and needs under the oppression of negative gender norms.

At the same time, all LSG representatives claimed they include needs and requests of different socially vulnerable groups such as elder people, people with disabilities and single mothers into their local action plans. No women affected by migration needs are presented there. None of the respondents confirmed having any specialists for LAPs monitoring the assessment, that could provide advising and adjustments.

LSG representatives did not provide specific recommendations in terms of LAP development and implementation, not even regarding taking into account gender principles of PB. The NGO representative in Jalalabad province suggested replacing the work group developing the LAP with active citizens, who can provide much valuable recommendations for CD and PB.

“When we gather, working people mainly come. They are teachers, doctors. They do not have time to work on this plan long. In my opinion, we need to engage such people to design the local action plans, and if their opinions will be considered in implementation, then the plans will work.” – NGO representative, Jalalabad province


XI. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ENDLINE This section is accumulation of lessons learned and recommendations from assessment team on different aspects of monitoring and assessment activities, including methodological, project framework and indicator assessment design. Overall recommendations

1. Time is crucial, so more dynamic communication on the tools and approaches is vital. The assessment team strongly recommends having more deliverable-based calls and discussions between RUNOs and the team to accomplish the following:

• Better understand the expectations of partner organizations and the capacity of the data collector.

• Communicate on requirements and barriers the team faces and support that is needed.

• A more time-distributed approach for discussion and agreement between RUNO and the research team on having enough time for thorough and precise comments and corrections to the documentation delivery.

2. Despite the fact that the baseline is usually the hardest part of the assessment because the tools and methodology

are being developed at this stage (which takes a lot of preparatory work and is a time-consuming procedure), we strongly recommend devoting more time to planning for data analysis and preparation of reports at the endline.

3. Depending on the current epidemiological situation at the endline, the assessment team strongly recommends implementing the data collection staff training offline, implementing face-to face trainings in the northern (Talas) and southern (Osh) regional offices and gathering teams together. The complexity of the Tools requires a face-to face approach, in order to discuss and pilot test the tools during the trainings, so that tools development specialists could personally communicate any difficulties and highlight particular aspects of data collection protocols.

Methodology-related recommendations

The monitoring and assessment approach require using similar techniques and tools in terms of context and methodology within both the baseline and endline assessment. It is extremely important to use identical measurement instruments and sample design when delivering the endline assessment approach based on the baseline. A well-documented, concise description of the methodological and technical approach is a matter of impact assessment success:

1. Sample design and selection approach description and guidance. The methodology is presented in Section 3 of this report in the methodology outline and sample composition (sample frame, structure, and compositions).

2. The toolkit should contain questionnaires, guides, random household selection approach, road maps, and other

documentation in Russian, English, and Kyrgyz languages. An electronic version (program version in relevant software application) of the questionnaire will also be provided to the RUNOs to deploy in the follow-up assessments.

3. The team should deliver detailed technical and piloting reports, confirming any technical difficulties and

fieldwork process adjustments that took place during data collection (e.g., accessibility of settlements during

winter season data collection, the level of non-response rate, COVID-19 influence on the interview process and

preparations, local authority or administrator interference in the data collection, etc.) and should consider all these difficulties during the endline assessment.

4. Data verification protocols, database checkup scripts, random walk guidance, database weights calculation and

application, and any other relevant technical aspects are small factors that make a big difference in the endline

assessment, thus they should be properly considered. Adaptations needed: The main requirement for the endline is to keep the tools more concise and easy to operate. The questionnaire for the baseline consisted of many complex constructions that ordinary respondents had a hard time following during the

interviews and group discussions, and interviewers/moderators had to keep them on track and bring back them to task.


Thus, the accuracy of data collection, following recruiting and interviewing rules, strictly depends on the professionalism and quality control measures during delivery. M-Vector engaged professionals, additional resources, and quality assurance practices to deliver only fully completed and deliberated results within the tight timeline. With another implementing partner, the outcome might be different. Adjusting tools does not mean reformulating the questions – this would be unreasonable, especially for those questions used for the indicators assessment, and would make it logically

and technically impossible to compare the baseline results to the endline results.

Sample composition and power for the endline assessment should also keep to the standards and dimensions set at the

baseline, however slight corrections without quality loss are possible:

1. A slightly quantitative survey sample decrease is possible and using 1,200 respondents and will provide a 2.8 percent margin of sample error (compared with a 2.5 percent margin of sample error for 1,500) using the same 95 percent confidence interval. Thus the following sample distribution will have just a slight (statistically insignificant) increase in the margin of error:

Table 11.1. Alternative sample approach

Baseline

Recommended for endline


cluster Settlement

Population, # of people

15+

% in cluster

Sample, people

Margin of error

%

Sample, people

Margin of error

%

Batken Kadamjai Ak-Tupak Jany Jer 3 535 44,3% 111 9,2 90 10,2

Batken Kadamjai Ak-Tupak Min Chinar 4 449 55,7% 139 8,2 110 9,2

Subtotal: 7 984 100% 250 6,1 200 6,8

Batken Kadamjai Orozbekov Uchkun 1 263 57,3% 143 7,7 110 8,9

Batken Kadamjai Orozbekov Kuduk 942 42,7% 107 8,9 90 9,8

Subtotal: 2 205 100% 250 5,8 200 6,6

Osh Nookat Tolos Murkut 3 887 50,9% 127 8,6 100 9,7

Osh Nookat Tolos Merkit 3 746 49,1% 123 8,7 100 9,7

Subtotal: 7 633 100% 250 6,1 200 6,8

Osh Nookat Bel Bel 5 066 41,9% 105 9,5 90 10,2

Osh Nookat Bel Borbash 7 028 58,1% 145 8,1 110 9,3

Subtotal: 12 094 100% 250 6,1 200 6,9

Jalalabad Suzak Kyzyl Tuu Tashtak 3 268 70,2% 175 7,2 120 8,78

Jalalabad Suzak Kyzyl Tuu Tala-Bulak 1 389 29,8% 75 11,0 80 10,6

Subtotal: 4 657 100% 250 6,0 200 6,8

Talas Kara-Bura Kara-Buura Kyzyl-Adir 13 486 87,5% 190 6,6 120 8,91

Talas Kara-Bura Kara-Buura Chon Kara Bura 1 928 12,5% 60 12,5 80 10,7

Subtotal: 15 414 100% 250 6,2 200 6,9

TOTAL: 6 6 12 49 987 6 1 500 2,5 1 200 2,79

2. Increase the number of WAM in the next sample generation by using a quota sample for this group. Baseline

was 1 to 2 ratio representation, which means 2 WAM and 1 women not affected by migration were randomly selected and interviewed (see Table 2.3.2). For the endline we suggest using a 3 to 1 ratio and interviewing 450 WAM out of 1,200 sampled community members. By decreasing overall sample size and increasing the proportion of WAM the precision for WAM-related indicators will increase, while the margin of error on the community sample will not be too high. This is feasible because most of the indicators are based on the target

groups’ opinions, thus these women should be more represented in the sample for more accurate quantitative

cross-tabulation of findings and indicators values.

3. IDIs should be implemented with NGOs in all regions, including Osh. At the baseline, IDIs for Osh NGO representatives were excluded in favour of adding the JIA business association in Bishkek, which was not very supportive in reasoning of indicators. Osh is presented with four villages in the sample, located in two AOs, thus having at least two NGOs sampled (one per each AO) will increase representativeness (territorial coverage) of reflecting specifics (in terms of indicators assessment and affects to their values) municipalities. When preparing the list of key informants from NGOs, Mr. Janybek from Roza Otunbaeva Foundations should be called for


assistance in building a sample of NGO representatives who are involved and informed on project impact and feasibility.

4. After negotiations over baseline assessment outcomes, the research team recommends using a target sample of household members and self-help group members who took part in GALS activities in the final assessment. This is more relevant if the final assessment will be soon after the final interventions will be delivered, and outcomes of project interventions and impact on community changes will not have time to be fully distributed. Having these groups involved in the active phase of interventions as participants of final assessment will make it possible to unpack the drivers of changes and underline sustainability and long-term impact effects that they would be able to foresee or even have begun to encounter. Their opinions on the project delivery of changes can be extrapolated to the entire population and subgroups.

5. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was also reflected in the assessment implementation process. Among the level of refusals to participate in interviews, more than 10 percent were due to the respondents’ fear of being exposed to the risk of infection, even though the interviewers observed all precautions (distanced themselves and had personal protective equipment for themselves and for the respondent). The research team proposes to discuss holding the final (endline) assessment interviews remotely (online). There are two main survey methods that can be deployed here:

A. Online survey using video conferencing (Zoom, Skype, MS Tims, etc.). This would probably require preliminary recruiting of respondents, making appointments with everyone, making sure that there is a connection and Internet connection on the respondent’s device. All these activities are important and are implemented within the framework of standard implementations of the M-Vector company.

B. Conducting a telephone survey on the phone numbers base of participants from the baseline assessment and also with additional recruiting in the field (similar to the first scenario).

The difference between these two approaches lies not only in the technical implementation, but also in the ability to observe the behaviour of the respondent, to monitor his emotions and attitude to questions / topics. These approaches also have a number of significant advantages, such as the following:

– There is no need for personal contact with respondents during the interview, which mitigates any risk of decease and does not requires gaining AO permission to conduct the survey.

– The approach is more economical because interviewers will not need to bear transportation and travel expenses, make arrangements in the area, get permissions, etc.

– The method is digitally advanced (data immediately goes to the server for processing etc.).

Other options, such as self-filling questionnaires, panel handbooks, etc. are not relevant due to specifics of the survey. Nevertheless, to deliver an online/telephone survey approach, some restrictions (conditions) must be set, mainly the size of the questionnaire, which can’t be too long (20 minutes maximum) because respondents get tired and leave the interview. Baseline survey interview length reached 100 minutes. Thus, using these methods requires that the survey toolkit be logically shaped and shortened, as discussed below.

Indicators assessment, insights, and recommendations:

With the results of a quantitative and qualitative assessment, it is necessary for implementers to have a clear understanding and interpretation of the definitions of such categories as “women affected by migration,”

“peacebuilding,” and “community development.” A clear understanding of each term by project implementers is very

important once they start delivering communication activities and interventions. There should not be different opinions and speculation on these terms between RUNOs specialists, local partners, training institutions, or beneficiaries. That’s why the assessment team paid vast attention determining the target and supplementary group specifications and tried to capture their opinions in the baseline. However, in spite of this, the baseline assessment still suffered from inaccurate wording and too much formality in the terms used in the questions. This issue (and how to avoid it in the final assessment) is discussed in more detail in this chapter below. The endline (and for the baseline for future projects) should be conducted following more informational meetings with RUNOs and Implementing Partners on more comprehensive


understanding the project activities/interventions and project indicators and results, including unpacking and detailed understanding of those indicators and related concepts, prior to conducting work on endline assessment.

Table 11.2. Indicators assessment improvements / suggestions

# Indicator How was it worded in the

baseline assessment? What issues did we have the baseline

language/what did we learn? How should it be worded in the endline assessment?

1

Outcome Indicator 1a -

Proportion (%) of the

population (men and women)

supporting gender equality

and standing against harmful gender norms

towards women in migrant

communities

A1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements…

For the sake of accurate assessment and reasoning, it’s enough to deliver only Agreed/Not agreed types of answers to the question. We should also include WHY questions here. A number of specifying question(s) need to be asked in both quantitative and qualitative toolkit (questionnaires and guides).

After delivering the following question A1., the reasons for not supporting gender equality and standing against harmful gender norms expressions should be revealed, for instance, using the following question/s: A1_1. Out of those cases you mentioned where you don’t agree, can you please explain, why? (Answers should be linked to each expression, that respondent did not confirm/agreed) 1. My family always behave/directives to not… 2. I was raised in this way, I don’t know the other solutions/practices 3. It is not safe for women to do this in the current environment/community situation Or following more situation-oriented questions: -You mentioned you don’t agree (rather or completely) that a woman should have equal rights with a man in family disputes, regarding property. Were there any situations in your community that affected your opinion? The following questions can be also delivered in the qualitative instrument to achieve the reasoning of not giving any harmful gender norms examples/supporting gender equality – IDI and FGD guides: How do you consider the following situations as usual/normal, abnormal and why? 1) Career and family are incompatible for a woman; she has to choose one option. 2) A woman is supposed to give birth, raise children, and run a household. 3) A woman has to be wise and patient and not go against her husband and relatives. 4) A woman has to provide comfort in her home first, and only then take care of herself. 5) A woman should not visit places in the village where her husband forbids her to go. 6) A woman should not meet with a man before marriage. 7) A woman is a weaker sex; she must be feminine. 8) A woman is not suitable for technical professions (such as engineering, construction work, or machinist). 9) A woman is more dependent on a man than a man on a woman. 10) A woman is less intellectually developed than a man. 11) Other, please describe


2

Outcome Indicator 1b - %

of target community

members (men and women) who believe that women affected by

migration play a positive role and contribute

to peacebuilding

and community development

В1. What is a positive role for women in your village who have returned or are planning to go

to labour migration? В2. What negative impact can

women have on your community members when they

return or plan to go to labour migration?

B4. What of the following has happened in your village in the

last 12 months and do you support it.

The design of the assessment is structured such that it’s not possible to reveal the share of respondents who think WAM contribute ONLY to PB or ONLY to CD. This is because the questions and options are arranged in the way that: - Answer options combine both PB and CD initiatives examples. Thus, if respondent selected a certain option, he would count as considering WAM contribute to both PB and CD. - One respondent can select both CD and PB measures at the same time, thus we can’t say that respondent selected ONLY PB or ONLY CD because he/she selected both answer options. If this type of analysis is required in the endline, additional specifications to questions/options need to be added.

The questions B1, B2, and B4 and answer options need to be specifically arranged around PB and CD separately, which means respondents must answer first questions on WAM role and contribution to PB and then answer questions on WAM role and contribution to CD.

The survey team recommends splitting the outcome indicator 1b into 3 sub- indicators: - Play positive role (what exactly?) - Contribute to peacebuilding - Contribute to community development

The question should be reassigned for the indicator assessment: B1 – should be only used for positive role assessment [needs to be revealed positive towards what (family, community, state) and in what way positive (economic, social, informational etc.)] B2 and B4 need to be separated for PB and CD contribution separately.

The indicator content and meaning

Due to a huge perceptional and behavioural difference between women-returned migrants and women and girls potentially vulnerable to labour migration, it may be worth splitting this and other indicators into two sub-indicators, specifying each one for returned or potential migrant women/ girls. The assessment team believes this must be discussed internally with the RUNOs and stakeholders.

1b-1: % of target community members (men and women) who believe that women returned from migration play a positive role and contribute to peacebuilding and community development 1b-2: % of target community members (men and women) who believe that women and girls inclined/prone to forced migration play a positive role and contribute to peacebuilding and community development Questions B1, B2, and B4 need to be adjusted to these two groups accordingly.

3

Output Indicator 1.1 -

% of community

members who report

increased awareness on

the role of women and

girls in community

development and

peacebuilding

The indicator content and meaning

For the endline this will be increased awareness, and at the baseline we all agreed it would be “who report awareness.”

Should be rephrased for the baseline to “% of community members who report awareness of the role of women and girls in community development and peacebuilding” excluding “increased awareness” since this term is a dynamic that will be the subject of the endline assessment.

This indicator considers all women and girls not only WAM. Need to make specifications/ adjustments in the answer options.

1. The following part from the question should be excluded and added: C1. Do you know any situations where women or girls who have been in migration or are planning to go to labour migration have been involved in resolving and preventing disputes/conflicts/tensions (normalizing situation) in your village/community? C3. Do you know of any similar situations that have happened in your village in the last 12 months? Women and girls [returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] participate in supporting peace, solving and preventing disputes and conflicts and in maintaining stability in your village/community 2. Need to add NGO FGDs in Osh province in the endline assessment. 3. Suggestion for question C3. Do you know of any similar situations that have happened in your village in the last 12 months? In assessing Outcome Indicator 2a


4

Outcome Indicator 2a - % of women from

the target group

participating in peacebuilding

initiatives

D4. Have you implemented or participated in the following

activities/projects in your village in the last year

A brief analysis of qualitative outcomes showed the lack of information as the main reason for not participating in peacebuilding initiatives. Thus, the research team recommends adding question in the quantitative tool for the endline.

Need to add after the question D4 – another question specifying the reasons for not participating: D4_1. Why were you not participating on the following activities/projects in your village in the last year? 1. I did not know where/when they were, whom to address (lack of information/awareness) 2. I was shamed/frustrated to take part because of my family/community members’ opinion 3. Etc. 4. Don’t need any, I am not interested to 5. COVID-19 Crisis affected, and all activities were wrapped up Lessons learned: People in rural areas perceive everything from an economic (materialistic) point of view. They are not operating in any abstract «peacebuilding» terminology. They are not from the conflict areas (border areas or interethnic villages), thus do not readily recognize and separate peacebuilding from economical/community development specifically. The entire assessment (especially qualitative one) has a general weakness – trying to ask a very sophisticated questions on “PB”,”CD”, “Social services”, “Civic activism”, “Rights advocacy” and others in the toolkit. For rural (community members) population – training on personal leadership (for example) has both peacebuilding and community development relevance, because it helps attendees to become more persistent when it comes to solving community and family matters and also helps them improve the economic environment of the village as a result. So it is all linked and mixed in and no one can say for sure that this is relevant ONLY to PB and NOT relevant to CD. To address this issue the research team recommends using more distinct terminology and explaining it to respondents by giving examples when delivering questions. This will enable the respondent to find the right path of words/cases/emotions to describe the peacebuilding situation in community specifically. Otherwise the assessment will always get simple answers to complex questions and will not be able to reveal the differences between PB and CD, for instance. Another suggestion to deal with the lack of reasoning on conceptually important aspects is to implement a consequent mixed-method approach. This means having community member FGDs focus (revealing the meanings/perceptions/cases) before the representative quantitative evaluations. These pilot group discussions will deliver better understanding the situation, collect scenarios for answer options, mitigate the possibility of asking the wrong questions of the wrong people, or asking them in an inappropriate way.


D1. Are you a regular/active member/participant of the following groups/associations /assemblies: (READ OUT ANSWER OPTIONS. ANY NUMBER OF ANSWERS.) 1. Group of agricultural producers, cattle breeders, fishery 2. Water Users Association 3. Credit and microfinance groups (e.g., Finca and Bai-Tushum, etc.). 4. Self-help or charity group (to help people in need) 5. Trade and business associations/unions/chambers 6. Public organizations (to improve the situation/quality of life in your village) 7. Member of local government / deputy of local kenesh / women’s committee 8. Active believer, adherent of religious community (Islamic, Christian, Tengriism, new religions) 9. Not a member of any groups/unions/associations

Respondent participation in any groups/associations/assemblies in the survey should be strictly linked to peacebuilding participation. Otherwise, it is not relevant how participation in any council delivers to community peacebuilding. Also, the research team recommends to better unpack the relevance of any initiatives that respondents delivered to PB during qualitative interviews. Insight: Maybe peacebuilding should be considered through interethnic tensions that took place a decade ago (spring 2010)? And all questions should be time measured – “when?”

After the following question is being asked D1 - a question revealing the outcomes (objectives) of participation in these groups/associations/assemblies should be revealed: D1_2. How does your participation in these groups contribute to peacebuilding in your community – examples. The following question should be formulated specifically: D2. (IF D1=1-8) Were you able to implement any assistance or peacebuilding initiative in your village while participating in this group? Also after the following questions are being addressed, respondents should be asked to explain how activities/examples they provided are reflected in peacebuilding improvements: 5.1. Based on your experience, in general, what is the practice of your participation in any projects or peacebuilding initiatives that promote the strengthening of peace and dialogue, resolve conflicts, significantly improve life in your village, or help residents in your communities? If there have been cases, then: 5.1.1. What initiatives/activities have you participated in? What were they about? How actively were you involved? In what way and with whose help are these projects/activities being implemented?

5

Output Indicator 2.1 - % of women

and girls from target

communities who are

equipped with knowledge and skills on how to

advocate for their rights

G2. Do you know how to advocate for your rights, how to resolve the following cases: -NO

on any cases/disputes

Need to reveal the reasons why the target woman does not have the knowledge/skills to advocate for her rights. This was not revealed in the baseline and we recommend exploring it in more detail in follow-up project assessment.

Need to add the following question after G2 question: G2_2. Please explain, what are the reasons you don’t know how to advocate for your rights in case you need to? 1. There is no relevant information in the community. 2. There are no special authorities/counselors to address to. 3. Etc.

6

Outcome Indicator 2c: % of women from target groups

have increased (“who have” –

for the baseline) access

to economic and community

development opportunities.

Qualitative toolkit - Question 5.2.

FGDs with WAM in the baseline did not provide concrete examples of what are/were economic and community development opportunities (in addition to those from the quantitative survey). This weakness should be addressed in the endline assessment

Add/rephrase on the number of cases-oriented questions in the WAM FGD guide after this question: 5.2. From your experience, to what extent are economic and community development opportunities available to women and girls in your village/AO who have returned or are going to migrate for work? • What do you think “economic and community development opportunities” refers to? • What about credits, educational services, medical services, participation in elections? • Please provide examples of economic and community development opportunities from your community. • What was your role in those cases? Who assisted/took part? Who did not, why? • What other opportunities and resources do you need to better use and deliver community development? • What is missing? Why it is missing? • What barriers/prohibitions do WAM face when it comes to accessing economic and social development opportunities? Please provide examples.


7

Outcome Indicator 3b - #

of target municipalities, who support women and

girls affected by migration through

consultations on safe

migration, civic activism and

peacebuilding

Target group Target group

Insight. Because the indicator is focused on a number of target municipalities who support women, it should only look at/analyze answers to the type of support provided specifically by LSGs. Other qualitative component replies should be considered only indirectly/secondary to explaining the reasons for the main group (LSG representatives) knowledge and practices supporting on safe migration, civic activism, and peacebuilding.

Question 7 in LSG and WAM guides

Request from the RUNO team is to discuss if indicator should contain all three: - Safe migration - Civic activism - Peacebuilding Support in one indicator. Respondents tend to mix it all up if asking about all three in one question/set of questions. At least certain logical and interview technical separation among each of three aspects need to be presented in the tools.

In the LSG and WAM guides the following question need to be rephrased/separated specifically: 7. Have you/your organization or your partners carried out informing/awareness activities, consultations, or trainings on safe migration, civic engagement/activism, and peacebuilding (conflict resolving/preventions), on protecting the rights of women and girls who have returned from migration or may be prone to labour migration? - separate one for safe migration - separate one for civic engagement/activism - separate one conflict resolving/preventions

Question 7 in All guides

Unfortunately, despite researchers’ attempts to clarify the situation and receive out some cases of supporting WAM through consultations on safe migration, civic activism, and PB, the respondents were often unable to confidently respond and gave limited examples. All the valuable narratives that we were able to catch up are presented in the report. We recommend to rephrase the question 7 in all guides for the endline so if respondent says NO (they were not receiving any support), assessment don’t skip the probe questions (7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4) from the guide and still ask them (although they need to be rephrased).

Offer to rephrase the probe questions in the following manner: 7.1 Who exactly usually provides such trainings in your community? Where did it usually takes place? 7.2 What are the specific topics/problems that being addressed? Who is usually involved as a trainer/mentor for the training? How does the work being processed? 7.3 What are the practical benefits of the training/events for you and for community members? What are some examples? 7.4 What are the most common/important issues for you and community members in the training/events, why? Which ones were not covered? Why?

Question 8 in All guides

There is no definite explanation for the generally low level of LSG support toward WAM because this question was not aiming to the roots of the reasons in the baseline survey toolkit (both quantitative and qualitative). We recommend including it in the final project assessment.

The following question needs to be supported with examples and probe questions to better unpack the reasons/cases for not providing such support in the LSG guide 8. If no training/activities have been conducted, then: 8.1. Why? Were there any problems with their implementation? What were the problems/reasons for not doing them? (For example: prohibitions at the family level, unwillingness of the participants, etc.) It needs to be expanded/reasoned with the following: 8.2. Why did your LSG not organize such consultations or what would you need in order to organize such consultations in future? 8.3. Is it a matter of funding, support mechanisms, expertise, or something else? 8.4. What might you know about the situation in other communities? Are there any examples/illustrations? We recommend including in the endline assessment questions on specific situations on the support / assistance provided by local self-government bodies to WAM, forms of assistance provided to certain vulnerable groups of the population and whether there individual approaches to WAM on the part of local self-government bodies.


We also suggest using time frames for this indicator. Lessons learned: We recommend that the endline assessment include some cases regarding the lack of peacebuilding support from LSGs that could be helpful when designing questionnaires/cases and understanding the current (baseline) situation: •Funding. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of local self-government bodies that were examined allocate limited budget. This causes many problems, from a lack of qualified specialists to the absence of funds to organize the needed workshops for a number of people, including WAM. •Support mechanisms. Based on the results of the qualitative and quantitative surveys, we can say that in the examined LSGBs, all target groups highly appreciate the mechanism of redirecting inquiring citizens to the appropriate government services or organizations. At the same time, we can note a partial or total lack of mechanisms to support vulnerable groups. •Upon designing work plans, LSGBs do not work or do not want to work on identifying the population’s social needs. Representatives of local NGOs in three regions confirm that work plans are copy-pasted from one year to the next and that planned events and activities are not implemented. These facts lead to an irrational distribution of budget funds.

Offer to add a time dimension to the indicator assessing approach, for example, add “for the last 2 years” to the indicator questions assessment, thus, the indicator will explain “the number of target municipalities, who supported (used to regularly support) women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding for the last 2 years.”


8

Outcome Indicator 3c - #

of target municipalities who claim to apply gender-

responsive peacebuilding principles in support of women’s

participation in community

development (LAPs)

9.2 Do these documents/ strategies/plans take into account the principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding (conflict resolution) involving women in community development? Which documents take into account these principles and how many of them are there? (Name the number of documents/plans). How do these strategies/plans address women’s interests and opportunities? How are women involved in community development in practice?

This indicator and the next one are the ones that suffered most from the following issues: 1. A very superficial, fragmentary knowledge of LSGs on gender-responsive PB, and support of women’s participation in CD. 2. A very academic, generalized approach to question formulation and answer requirements. 3. Weak reasoning basis for unpacking the principles used for delivering gender-sensitive PB by LSGs. If the first factor is hard to deal with (in terms of endline assessment), the second and third issue should be significantly improved by the endline assessment team. It should be noted, that the Outcome Indicator 3c itself is complex to understand, even for professionals, because it combines the question of both peacebuilding and community development and assumes that community development is carried out through peacebuilding, although Outcome Indicator 2a and RUNO experts requested/suggested separation of one concept/activities from another (PB from CD). We also propose that Outcome Indicator 3c be divided into two sub-indicators, each of which will separately consider the application of gender-sensitive principles in peacebuilding and (separately) in (economic / social) community development. An overall comment – exclude ALL parentheses ( ) in the guides, because using them makes it possible to skip the text included since it decreases importance (makes it additional, secondary-type information) from the interviewer/moderator’s point of view). The assessment team recommends that for future projects, this type of indicator should be monitored during program implementation as a programmatic (content analysis type) indicator compared to the indicator for the baseline/endline. This is why we suggested to study the LAP’s content and structure itself. Thus, reasoning for this indicator would generally require additional content analysis of the LAPs itself and that this is more a programmatic indicator that can be monitored during the implementation.

Additional questions unpacking the indicator should be addressed: - Can you please provide me the example (scan or paper form) of the most recent plan that is addressing (explaining) how women and girls are being involved in community development and peacebuilding? Send it to me on WhatsApp? - What do you think “gender-responsive peacebuilding principles” are? (After receiving an answer, a short informative example of gender-responsive peacebuilding principles should be provided to respondent.) - What about these…? Were any of my examples applied in the recent planning process (Local Action Plan designing)? - If not, why do you think these principles are not delivered in community development interventions/planning? - What are the main reasons/barriers that prevent LSG from using gender-responsive peacebuilding principles in support of women’s participation in community development? - Who do you think should take part in planning these gender- responsive principles (a person, organization, institution)? Why and how can this be a good participation? - What was the result of using these gender-responsive principles? – Can you give us a success story? And if impact was negative (or was not delivered at all), then why (tell story)? - How should these principles be communicated/considered in community development? For instance, should women take part personally or should they have a coordinating/controlling role? Why? Should women and girls be represented in 50% share of each step/activity/impact/decision? How is this possible in your community? In what ways should women be engaged, and what should women not do/not be engaged in? Other reasoning questions.


9

Output Indicator 3.2.1 -

# of Local Action Plans

claimed to be developed on

gender-sensitive

peacebuilding

9. Tell me, how does your Ayil Okmotu use gender principles in

its community development plans? What do these plans

include? (EXPLANATION: A PLAN OF KEY ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL (A/O) TO

INCREASE RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AFFECTED

BY MIGRATION TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE-

BUILDING).

Need to provide more examples of LAP, SDP, personal plans, and Kenesh development plan. This is very important because LSG respondents all name documents differently and interviewer should have exact examples (understanding the core) of each document the discussion is turned around.

The question 9 should have more detailed (simplified, case-oriented) explanation in the bracket.

Lacking of numeric question

To measure the number of Local Action Plans developed on gender-sensitive peacebuilding, a simple question should be asked at the final of the topic/section to LSGs representatives on the numeric nature. This is relevant for Output Indicator 2.1.4.

The following question should be asked: “How many LAPs do you have that incorporate gender-sensitive peacebuilding? _____ number.“ And then ask what’s included, who is in charge for preparation and delivery, and so on.

The research team also recommends omitting some of the questions that are of secondary importance for indicator assessment or are not used directly for indicator assessment (are supportive) or are not of primary interest to the project impact targeting (might be). This recommendation can be important in terms of probable online methods delivering in the endline phase, where tools should be shortened and concise: Q2. Is the head of your family a man or a woman? (Even if the head of the family is not at home right now) Q4. How many of them (household members) are 15 years old or older? Q5. How many children under age 15 do you have in your household? (Indicate 0 if there are none) Q9. Does anyone in your family have a disability? If so, how many people have it? Q13. Do you have access to irrigation water to irrigate crops when you need it? S4. In what country/countries do you have citizenship? S5. Please specify your marital status? S7. In 2021, do you plan to get more education/further training? S9. Tell me, do your parents live with you? A4. Have you ever experienced the following situations in relation to yourself? D6 question is not used in Output Indicator 2.1.4 calculation. The “standards” (or, how to count answers to a complex questions / include respondent in the indicator count or not) as well as weights assigned to each question within the indicator assessment should be precisely examined by RUNOs M&E specialists. Focusing on specific awareness-raising or practice-oriented (skills acquiring) activities during the intervention means weights for the endline assessment for a certain indicator composition might be adjusted. Also, there might be suggestions to change the “standard” criteria applied for indicator calculations (see Annex 3). However, the assessment team delivered a balanced approach making each question within the indicator logically flowing, recognized by experts, and reasonable with weight-based integral approach so that the respondent’s opinion on one of several questions used to calculate the indicator value (i.e., characterizing the attitude or practice of manner the issue) could not bias the entire indicator outcome value (this, in fact, is why the weighting of questions within the indicator was used). And overall recommendation is to add a separate section in the toolkit, where beneficiaries and community members will be asked directly about the changes that took place in the community life for the 2020–2021 years when the project took place.


XII. ANNEXES TO THE DOCUMENT

ANNEX 1. DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS (TOOLKIT)

Quantitative survey questionnaire

/ Please invite the head of the family or his deputy, who is more aware of the income/expenses of the household, etc./ Hello, my name is ______. I represent an independent research company “M-Vector”, which together with the UN Women program, the International Organization for Migration and the International Labour Organization conducts a survey on the socio-economic situation of the population of your locality, and on the role of women in the development and well-being of your village. In total, the survey will take about 60 minutes; I will need to interview two people from your family. The information from the survey will be completely confidential and will not be disclosed or shared with anyone. Based on your answers, decisions will be made regarding activities for the development of your village, building peace and well-being. I will provide a small remuneration for your participation. Q2_1. Currently, do you have in your household: Service question. 1. All men => on the Kish card 2. All women => Q2_2. Q2_2. Do you have in your household: Service question. 1. Just women => to the Kish map, excluding for Q2_2 ≠2 or 3 2. Women who have returned from labour migration in the last 3 years => Q1 3. Women planning to go to labour migration in 2021 => Q1

ATTENTION! QUESTIONS FROM Q1 TO Q13 ARE ASKED TO THE PERSON WHO IS AWARE OF THE INCOME IN THE HOUSEHOLD.

Q1. How can I address you (name) _____________________? Q2. Is the head of your family a man or a woman? (Even if the head of the family is not at home right now) 1. Man 2. Woman Q3. How many people in total, including infants and toddlers, live with you permanently in this household under the same roof, sharing food, expenses, and income for at least the last 6 months?

person(s) (including the respondent)

Q4. How many of them are 15 years old or older?

person(s)

Q5. How many children under age 15 do you have in your household? (Indicate 0 if there are none)

person(s) (number has to be equal with (Q3 minus Q4) )

Q6. Do you have people in your family who have been in labour migration in another area of Kyrgyz Republic or in another country in the last three years? 1.Yes, they were only in another province of Kyrgyz Republic 2.Yes, they were only in another country (Kazakhstan, Russia, etc.) 3.Yes, they have been in another province and another country 4.No

Q7. (If Q6=1,2,3) How many people who live permanently in your family have returned from labour migration from another province of Kyrgyz Republic or from another country in the last three years? How many of them are man and how many are woman? (IF THERE IS NO GENDER, PLEASE SPECIFY 0)

Man

Woman

Q8. Does anyone in your family, who is 15 years old or older, plan to go to labour migration in the coming year 2021? If yes, how many men and how many women plan to go? (IF NO GENDER, SPECIFY 0)

Men and boys

Women and girls

Q9. Does anyone in your family have a disability? If so, how many people have it? 1.Yes, quantity: ____________________ 98.No. 99. Difficult to answer (refusal)

Q10. Specify your family’s main source of income: ONE ANSWER OPTION. DO NOT READ THE ANSWERS

1. Agriculture (own farm/household) 2. Agriculture (wage employment) 3. Public service (doctor, teacher, etc.) 4. Private Entrepreneurship/Private Business 5. Unskilled work (temporary/seasonal employment) 8. Pensions/Benefits 9. Assistance from relatives/children/parents 10. Money transfers from migrant relatives from abroad 11 Other_____________________________98. Refusal to answer

Q11. Please indicate your average monthly income for your household (i.e. total income of all family members) in cash and in kind, including: salaries, pensions, scholarships, trade, farming, harvest, etc.?

1. No income 2. Up to 10,000 soms 3. 10,001 - 15,000 soms 4. 15 001 - 20 000 soms 5. 20 001 - 25 000 soms 6. 30 001 - 35 000 soms 7. 35 001 - 40 000 soms 8. 40 001 - 45 000 soms 9. 45 001 - 50 000 soms 7. More than 50,000 soms


98. Refusal to answer 99. Difficult to answer

Q12. Is there a family member in your household who is currently in labour migration?

1. Yes 2. No 99. Difficult to answer / I don’t know

Q13. Do you have access to irrigation water to irrigate crops when you need it? (ONE ANSWER. READ OUT)

1.Yes, we always get water when we need it 2.Yes, we get water, but with great difficulties/problems 3. No, we do not get water when we really need it 4. No need for irrigation water / we do not do agriculture 5. There is access to water, but not on all areas 99. Difficult to answer / I do not know

RANDOM SELECTION OF RESPONDENT (KISH MAP) COMES AFTER QUESTION Q13. FIRST THE KISH MAP IS APPLIED TO MEN, THEN TO WOMEN. IF THERE IS NO MAN RESPONDENT, GO STRAIGHT TO THE SELECTION OF THE WOMAN RESPONDENT. ANYONE 15 YEARS OLD OR OLDER CAN BE SELECTED. MAKE SURE THAT QUOTAS ARE FOLLOWED! PRIORITY IN THE SURVEY GOES TO WOMEN WHO HAVE BEEN IN LABOUR MIGRATION (M2 -1.YES) IN THE LAST THREE YEARS OR PLAN TO GO TO LABOUR MIGRATION IN 2021 (M3 -1.YES). BLOCK S. SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC (FROM THIS CHAPTER, THE QUESTIONS ARE ASKED ONLY TO A RANDOMLY SELECTED RESPONDENT: MAN OR WOMAN)

S0. How can I address you (name) _____________________

S1. /Do not read/ Respondent’s gender: 1. Man 2. Woman

S2. How old are you? (ENTER AGE. IT CANNOT BE 14, 13, ETC. YEARS) 1. _________ years old

S3. Please specify your nationality? (ONE ANSWER) 1. Kyrgyz 2. Uzbek 3. Russian 4. Tajik 5. Kazakh 6. Uighur 7. Multinational 8. Other (do not specify) 99. No answer

S4. What country/countries do you have citizenship? (ANY NUMBER OF ANSWERS) 1. Kyrgyz Republic 2. Russia 3. Uzbekistan 4. Tajikistan 5. Kazakhstan 6. Other (do not specify) 8. No citizenship of any country (no other answers can be chosen if this answer is chosen) 99. No answer

S5. Please specify your marital status? (ONE ANSWER) 1. Never been married 2. Legally married (only registry office) 3. Only Nikah 4. Registry Office and Nikah 5. Cohabitation, without Nikah and the Registry Office 6. Widower/Widow 7. Divorced 98. Disclaimer.

S6. What is your current level of education? (READ OUT. ONE ANSWER) 1. Elementary general education (4 grades) 2. Basic secondary education (9 grades) 3. general secondary education (11 grades) 4. Initial vocational education (vocational lyceum) 5. Secondary vocational education (technical school, college) 6. Incomplete higher education (three or more years) 7. Higher education (completed bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, etc.) 8. No education 98. Refusal to answer.

S7. In 2021, do you plan to get more education/futher training? (ONE ANSWER) 1. Yes 2. No 99. Difficult to answer

S8. Do you have your own children? 1. Yes, how many________________________ 98. No

S9. /IF S1=2/ Tell me, do your parents live with you? 1. Yes, my parents are alive and they live with me. 2. Yes, my parents are alive, but they do not live with me 3. No, my parents are not alive/I do not have them 99. Difficult to answer

BLOCK M. MIGRATION EXPECTATIONS (ASK BOTH MEN AND WOMEN)

M1. Specify what do you do? (ONE ANSWER CHOICE)


1. Unemployed and actively looking for work 2. Unemployed and not looking for work 3. I work in a state institution, 4. I work at a private company 5. Have my own business/work for myself 6. I work for a nongovernmental organization 7. Engaged in agriculture (farmer or working for a farmer) 8. Retired, handicapped 9. Student 10. Housewife(husband) or on maternity leave 97. Other (specify)____________________________ 98. Refusal to answer

M2. Please tell me, have you been in labour migration in other regions of Kyrgyz Republic or abroad in the last 3 years? (READ OUT. ONE ANSWER.) 1. Yes 2. No 99. Difficult to answer

M3. Do you plan to migrate for work in 2021 to other regions of Kyrgyz Republic or abroad? (READ OUT. ONE ANSWER) 1. Yes 2. No 99. Difficult to answer

M4. /Ask question, if M3=1/ For what reason do you plan (what or who forces you) to migrate/go to seek the employment? (DO NOT READ. MULTIPLE RESPONSES)

1. The need to feed/support the family 2. Dream to see another country 3. Desire to go away from home / Unfriendly relationship with members of the household 4. Lack of possibilities to earn money in my village 5. Poor quality of life in my village 6. Helping my migrant loved ones in the host country to work 7. For the purpose of training, combining it with work 8. For the purpose of training/improvement of qualifications/acquiring skills 9. For the decision of relatives/family members 10. Other (Specify)________________________________________ 99. Difficult to answer

M5. /Ask question, if M3 =1 / Where do you plan to migrate/go? (DO NOT READ, MULTIPLE ANSWERS) 1. Russia 2. Kazakhstan 3. Turkey 4. Uzbekistan 5. United Arab Emirates (Dubai) 6. Bishkek/Osh, major center of Kyrgyz Republic 7. Other (Specify)______________________________________________ 99. Difficult to answer

M6. /Ask question, if M3=1/ For how long do you plan your next trip (how long will you be away)? (DO NO READ. ONE ANSWER) 1. Up to 6 months 2. 6 to 11 months 3. 1 to 3 years 4. More than 3 years 5. Don’t plan to come back 6. Other (Specify)______________________________________________ 99. Difficult to answer

BLOCK A. ATTITUDES TOWARD GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER STEREOTYPES (ASK BOTH MEN AND WOMEN)

A1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

1. Totally agree. 2. Rather agree 3. Rather disagree 4. Completely disagree 99. Difficult to answer

1. The employer has the right to indicate in the job advertisement who is better suited for the job - a man or a woman 2. An employer has the right to assign different salaries to a man and a woman in the same position based on his perception of

man and woman employees 3. A woman should have equal rights with a man in family disputes, division of property

4. A man in Kyrgyz Republic can have several wives if he can support them

5. A woman has the right to run her own business or work 6. It is better not to take a woman to work - she may go on maternity leave, get sick, or be frequently absent.

7. If a guy really likes a girl, he can steal her (ala kachuu - bride kidnapping) 8. A woman has the right to take an active part in the development of the village and can be a member of the local government

9. A woman should behave submissively and obey her husband and relatives 10. If the husband has physically harmed his wife, she should not go to anyone for help, since it is their family business

11. During feasts and meetings women have the right to sit with men, at the same table 12. A woman should not date a man before marriage

13. Woman is the weaker gender; she should behave appropriately.

14. Women are not suitable for technical professions (engineers, construction workers, machinists, and other technical professions)

15. In today’s world, a woman has to study and get a good education

A2. Who in your locality combats negative stereotypes/prejudices and mistreatment of women, such as bans and restrictions on women’s participation in meetings and village development, decision-making, etc.? (ANSWER ON EACH LINE)

A3. (If A2=2 or 99 on each line) And who are those people in your village who support negative stereotypes/prejudice against women? (ANSWER ON EACH LINE)


Participants A2 А3 1. Respondent/family members 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A. 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A.

2. Residents of the village/village community 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 3. Local self-government bodies, heads of villages 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A

4. Social workers/psychologists 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 5. Bodies of internal affairs / local policeman 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A

6. Elders / village elders 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A

7. Various NGOs, associations, women’s councils, etc. 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 8. Lawyers / consultants - private and public 1. Yes 2.No 99. D/A 1.Yes 2.No 99. D/A

A4. Have you ever experienced the following situations in relation to yourself? (ANY NUMBER OF ANSWERS. READ OUT): 1. Violence by family members or inner circle 2. Condemnation by society 3. (If S1=2) Forced to get married 4. Lack of job opportunities in your village 5. Ignoring your opinion in making important decisions 6. You was not hired because only men/women were hired 7. Being discriminated against on the basis of nationality 8. Underestimation of knowledge, refusal to accept to work/study 9. Refusal to accept an application, register a business, etc. 10. Hazing/extortion/racketeering 11. Violation of the right to freedom of expression, participation in rallies 12.Other (specify) ________________________ 99. Difficult to answer

А5. [(If М2=2,99 and М3=2,99 and S1=2) or S1=1] Are there women in your community/population who have returned from labour migration or who can go to work, or who are in migration in another country/province?

1. Yes, there are those who have returned. 2. Yes, there are those who are going to 3. Yes, there are those who are in migration 4. No, there are none 99. Don’t know

(RECOMMENDATION: Ask EACH LINE, i.e., first about making decisions about expenses - How should it be, and immediately - How is it now? Then about

income, etc.)

A6. How much do you agree with the following expressions: 1.Yes, equal. 2. No, in a better position 3.No, less favourable 99.Difficult to answer

A7. ((М2=1 or М3=1 and S1=2) or А5=1-3,99) And now in your environment/population, how is it? 1. No, it is not. 2. Most of the time it is not. 3. Most of the time it is 4. Yes, it always is 99. Don’t know/difficult to answer (DO NOT READ)

1. A woman [returning or planning to go to labour migration] should have equal rights with a man in making financial decisions (about family expenses and income, prices and markets for agricultural products) 3. a woman [returning or planning to go to labour migration] should be on an equal footing with a man when choosing a profession and where to go to earn money

4. a woman [returning or planning to go to labour migration] should be on an equal footing with a man in the allocation of housework 5. a woman [returning or planning to go to labour migration] should be equal to a man in access to education and the quality of received education 6. a woman [returning or planning to go into labour migration] should be on an equal footing with a man in accessing health care 7. a woman [returning or planning to go to labour migration] should be on an equal footing with a man in accessing economic resources (credit, loans) 8. a woman [returning or planning to go into labour migration] should be on an equal footing with a man in access to land resources (land) and machinery 9. a woman [who has returned or is planning to go to labour migration] must be on an equal footing with a man in participating in the political life of the village and district

10. a woman [returning or planning to go to labour migration] should be on an equal footing with a man in planning her leisure time

BLOCK C. ATTITUDES TOWARD WOMAN LABOUR MIGRATION (ASK BOTH MEN AND WOMEN)

В1. What is a positive role for women in your village who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration? (MULTIPLE CHOICE OF ANSWERS. DO NOT READ OUT)

1. support other women and share their experiences/experiences of migration 2. support their family financially 3. Strengthen family relations/ give more love and attention to their children 4. Share skills to resolve conflicts and disputes in their village 5. Contribute to resolving conflicts/disputes and promoting peace in the family 6. Start their own businesses, create jobs, invest in local initiatives 7. Other_______________________________ 8. No positive impact 99. Difficult to answer/non-answer

В2. What negative impact can women have on your villagers when they return or plan to go to labour migration? (MULTIPLE CHOICE OF ANSWERS. READ OUT IF IT’S NECESSARY)

1. Not engaged in the development / in search for prospects for decent earnings in their village 2. Induce other women to migrate/to leave their home/family 3. Their behavioral culture changes, they become more liberated and do not listen to their elders/men 4. Begin to promote non-traditional values/freedom and rights of women 5. Shame the family with their immoral behavior (divorce, dating guys before marriage, etc.) 6. Do not read the Koran / do not follow the basic canons of religion / do not wear a headscarf


77. Other_______________________________ 8. No negative influence 99. Difficult to answer/non-answer

B3. To what extent do you agree:

1 - Totally agree 2 - Rather agree 3 - Rather disagree 4. Completely agree 99. Don’t know/difficult to answer (DO NOT READ)

1. Women [who have returned or are planning to migrate] should not be present at village meetings where important issues in terms of rural development are decided

2. Women [who have returned or are planning to migrate] should not join associations/groups/unions of your village

3. Women [who have returned or are planning to migrate] should take care of their homes and children, not participate in rural development

B4. (М2=1 or М3=1 and S1=2 or А5=1-3,99) What of the following has happened in your village in the last 12 months and do you support it:

1. It was, and I support it.

2. It was, and I do not support it.

3.It was not

99. I don’t remember/diffic

ult to answer

1. There were cases when some woman [who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration] made a decision / provided support and everyone in the village said

2. There were situations when men asked the women [who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration] of your village for advice on important issues (of an economic, political, medical, or domestic nature)

3. women [who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration] freely expressed proposals on rural development issues at village meetings

4. Decisions expressed by women [who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration] at meetings were eventually implemented by the women themselves (if B4_3=1, 2)

5. Women [who have returned or are planning to go to labour migration] were involved in conflict resolution and relationship building within your village

BLOCK C. AWARENESS OF WOMEN’S ROLE IN PEACEFUL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (ASK BOTH MEN AND WOMEN)

C1. (М2=1 or М3=1 and S1=2 or А5=1-3,99) Do you know any situations where women or girls who have been in migration or are planning to go to labour migration have been involved in resolving and preventing disputes and conflicts in your village? (ONE ANSWER)

1. Yes 2. No 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

C2. / Ask, if C1=1 / Have you shared these stories/examples with others in your family or your village? 1. Yes 2. No 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

C3. (М2=1 or М3=1 and S1=2 or А5=1-3,99) Do you know of any similar situations that have happened in your village in the last 12 months? 1.Yes 2.No

99. Difficult to answer / refusal

to answer 1. Women [who returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] are engaged in entrepreneurship, negotiating with suppliers of raw materials and resources

1 2 99

2. Women and girls [returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] participate in supporting peace, solving and preventing disputes and conflicts and in maintaining stability in your village

1 2 99

3. women and girls [returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] establish support groups for the population, self-help groups, support centers for dysfunctional families, support for migrants, etc.

1 2 99

4. Heads of local government and district administration support women and girls [who returned from labour migration or who can go to labour migration] in their initiatives and proposals, help them in obtaining social, public services/assistance

1 2 99

5. Women and girls [who returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] implement or participate in social projects aimed at helping residents of the locality to establish peace and stability, economic well-being

1 2 99

6. Women [who returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] more actively express their opinions in your village, join initiative groups, support each other in everyday life and family matters

1 2 99

7. Residents of the village respect women [who returned from labour migration or who may go to labour migration] who returned from labour migration, listen to their opinions, discuss with them solutions within the village

1 2 99

BLOCK D. WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL INITIATIVES (ASK ONLY WOMEN WHO MIGRATE S1=2, M2=1 or M3=1)

D1. Are you a regular/active member/participant of the following groups/associations/assemblies: (READ OUT ANSWER OPTIONS. ANY NUMBER OF ANSWERS.)

1. Group of agricultural producers, cattle breeders, fishery 2. Water Users Association (WUA) 3. Credit and microfinance groups (e.g. Finca and Bai-Tushum, etc.). 4. Self-help or charity group (to help people in need). 5. Trade and business associations/unions/chambers 6. Public organizations (to improve the situation/quality of life in your village) 7. Member of local government / deputy of local kenesh / women’s committee


8. Active believer, adherent of religious community (Islamic, Christian, Tengriism, new religions) 9. Not a member of any groups/unions/associations 98. Refusal to answer

D2. (IF D1=1-8) Were you able to implement any assistance or initiative in your village while participating in this group? 1. Yes 2. No 98. Refusal to answer

D3. Do you know of any cases where a woman from your village who has returned from migration or is planning to go into labour migration has achieved the following results:

1.Yes 2.No 99. Difficult to answer / Refusal to answer

1. She opened her own business, headed an organization or association 1 2 99 2. She received a diploma or encouragement (award) for her contribution to the development of your village 1 2 99

3. She set an example/behavioral model for residents 1 2 99

4. She organized an event to bring people together in your village 1 2 99

5. A woman who returned from labour migration suggested modern solutions, which were implemented in your village

1 2 99

D4. Have you implemented or participated in the following activities/projects in your village in the last year

1.Yes, I implemented

2.Yes, I took a part

3.No 99. Difficult to answer /

Refusal to answer

1. Teaching inter-ethnic toleration and tolerance among the population 2. Teaching negotiation and communication skills among different population groups

3. Teaching priorities and planning, starting a business, business planning

4. Support for vulnerable groups, the elderly, and low-income people 5. Implementation of infrastructure initiatives for the development of our village:

construction, cleaning, landscaping, etc.

6. Teaching computer skills and technologies

7. Activities on resolving controversial situations in families 8. Public hearings to promote the interests and needs of women and girls in your village

9. Activities to resolve contentious situations in the village 10. Meetings on equitable distribution of resources - water, electricity, etc.

11. Sports competitions and activities 12. Training activities aimed at personal growth, development of leadership skills

13. Development and/or dissemination of information materials of social nature (health, labour migration, women’s rights, etc.)

14. Other activities aimed at maintaining peace and well-being in your village: rallies to establish discipline and law

D5. [Ask, If there were answers D4=1,2] In the last 12 months, how many of these activities/projects in which you participated were implemented in your locality and beyond:

1. Number of initiatives _____________________________ 99. Don’t remember / difficult to answer

D6. /Ask, if there were answers D4=1, 2/ How useful were these events for their participants? (ONE ANSWER) 1. There was no benefit. 2. The benefit was insignificant. 3. The benefit was significant/tangible 4. Benefit was there, but not from all 99. Difficult to answer

BLOCK E. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN. SOCIAL SUPPORT/SERVICES (THIS BLOCK IS ONLY FOR WOMEN, S1=2, M2=1 or M3=1. EXCEPT FOR QUESTION E6

E1. In case of need, can you yourself get information about where to apply for any help to protect your rights? 1. I never can. 2. Rather, I can’t. 3. Rather, I can 4. I always can 99.Don’t know / Refusal to answer

E2. In the last 12 months, have you contacted social services, nongovernmental or government agencies for the following help/support:

1.Yes 2. No, but help was needed 3. No, there was no need

1. Counseling about alimony/benefits/pensions 1 2 99

2. Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, placing them in foster care, or making arrangements for custody in order to be able to leave to earn money

1 2 99

3. Employment (looking for a job, preparing a resume, etc) 1 2 99

4. Legal assistance (advice on rights, property, alimony, etc.) 1 2 99

5. Medical assistance for yourself or a child/assistance for people with disabilities 1 2 99 6. Obtaining benefits / pensions / discounts or rebates 1 2 99

7. Obtaining documents / certificates / registration / passport, etc. 1 2 99

8. Provision of housing / land / equipment 1 2 99 9. Getting a microcredit/loan 1 2 99

10. Getting education / taking courses / competitive examination 1 2 99 11. Migration assistance (what to do before you go to migration, check yourself in blacklists, etc.)

1 2 99

12. Protection from crimes, domestic violence 1 2 99

13. Assistance in solving land/property disputes 1 2 99 14. Assistance in getting irrigation or drinking water, electricity, fuel 1 2 99

E3. (For those where E2=1) How would you rate the help you received from social services, NGOs, or government agencies? (ANSWER FOR EACH LINE)


1. Counseling about alimony/benefits/rebates/pensions 2. Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, placing them in foster care, or making arrangements for custody in order to be able to leave to earn money 3. Employment (looking for a job, preparing a resume, etc) 4. Legal assistance (advice on rights, property, alimony, etc.) 5. Medical assistance for yourself or a child/assistance for people with disabilities 6. Obtaining benefits / pensions / discounts or rebates 7. Obtaining documents / certificates / registration / passport, etc. 8. Provision of housing / land / equipment 9. Getting a microcredit / loan 10. Getting education / taking courses / competitive examination 11. Help with migration issues (what to do before you go to migration, check yourself in blacklists, etc.) 12. Protection from crimes, domestic violence 13. Assistance in solving land/property disputes 14. For help in getting irrigation or drinking water, electricity, fuel 77. Other (Specify)______________________________

The answer for each line 1. Received fully 2. Did not receive fully 99. Don’t remember / Difficult to answer

E4. (For those where E2=2) Why did you not contact social services, nongovernmental or government agencies? (ANSWER FOR EACH LINE) 1. Consultation about alimony/benefits/rebates/pensions 2. Enrolling children in school or kindergarten, placing them in foster care, or arranging for custody so that they can leave to earn money 3. Employment (looking for a job, preparing a resume, etc) 4. Legal assistance (advice on rights, property, alimony, etc.) 5. Medical assistance for yourself or a child/assistance for people with disabilities 6. Obtaining benefits / pensions / discounts or rebates 7. Obtaining documents / certificates / registration / passport, etc. 8. Provision of accommodation / land / equipment 9. Getting a microcredit / loan 10. Getting education / taking courses / competitive examination 11. Help with migration issues (what to do before you go to migration, check yourself in blacklists, etc.) 12. Protection from crimes, domestic violence 13. Assistance in solving land/property disputes 14. Help in getting irrigation or drinking water, electricity, fuel

The answer for each line 1. I don’t know where or to whom, but there was a need 2. I am forbidden by family members/environment, but there was a need 99. Don’t remember / Difficult to answer

E5. /If Е2 = 1 / Please specify where did you apply for help to protect your rights and for social assistance/support? (Multiple choice, select all appropriate answers)

1. Law enforcement agencies 2. District/regional courts 3. Local self-government bodies (Aiyl Okmotu) 4. Women’s Councils 5. Youth councils 6. Crisis (counseling) centers 7. Hospices, charitable organizations 8. Centers for social adaptation 9. Helplines 10. Business associations 11. Orphanages, Homes for the Elderly 12. Local NGOs 13. Other (Specify)_________________ 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

E6. [Ask both man and woman S1=1 or 2] Have you personally seen or heard from relatives or friends about how women have successfully asserted their rights within proceedings at the local or judicial level? 1. Yes, I have seen it personally. 2. Yes, I have heard from others 3 No, I have not heard 4. No, there were no successful cases 99. Don’t remember/refusal to answer

BLOCK F. ACCESS TO ECONOMIC AND PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES (QUESTIONS ARE ONLY FOR WOMEN WHO ARE MIGRATED, S1=2, M2=1 or M3=1. EXCEPT F4) F1. Please assess how well you are informed (know) about the following economic opportunities in your village: (ANSWER ON EACH LINE. READ OUT).

1. Obtaining grants from donor organizations and investors 2. Obtaining business development services - consulting, mentoring, experience exchange, exhibitions, master classes 3. Cooperation with local businesses/companies 4. Trainings on entrepreneurship and financial literacy 5. Access to deposits and savings accounts for saving and/or investing 6. Obtaining microloans, loans, and financial products for businesses 7. Obtaining professional skills and education 8. Learning business skills for running your own business 9. Transfer of knowledge and experience between residents of the locality

The answer for each line: 1. I don’t know anything. 2. I know very little / superficially


3. I know everything I need to know 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

F2. [For those who answered F1= 2,3] On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very difficult to obtain and 5 is very easy to obtain, rate how accessible the following resources/services/solutions are for you to use in your village/Ayil okmotu: (ANSWER FOR EACH LINE. READ OUT)

1. Obtaining grants from donor organizations and investors 2. Obtaining business development services - consulting, mentoring, experience exchange, exhibitions, master classes 3. Cooperation with local businesses/companies 4. 4. trainings on entrepreneurship and financial literacy 5. Access to deposits and savings accounts for saving and/or investing 6. Obtaining microcredits, loans, and financial products for businesses 7. Obtaining professional skills and education 8. Learning business skills for running your own business 9. Business/company registration services 10. Transfer of knowledge and experience between residents of the locality 11. Irrigation water for land irrigation (vegetable garden, field) 12. Purchase of fertilizers and seeds 13. Rent of space/area for professional needs 14. Information technology (I.T.), software solutions for business 15. Agriculture - land cultivation, sowing, growing and harvesting 16. Engage in animal husbandry - raising animals, raising poultry, etc. 17. Technical service (repair of machines and equipment, diagnostics and preventive maintenance) 18. Getting electricity and fuel

Answer for each line: 1. 1 - Very difficult/impossible to obtain 2. 2 - Difficult to obtain 3. 3 - Not easy, but possible to obtain 4. 4 - Easy to obtain. 5. 5 - Very easy, absolutely available 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

F3. [If there is even one F2 = 1,2,3] Why do you think there might be difficulties in obtaining these economic resources/opportunities? (NO MORE THAN THREE ANSWERS. DO NOT READ OUT) 1. Not available in our village 2. Financial difficulties 3. Not enough knowledge to get them 4. No time / lots of other things to do and worry about 5. Negative attitude from villagers, stereotypes, negative perception 6. Lack of support from relatives, environment 77. Other: __________________ 98. No problems/obstacles 99. Difficult to answer

F4. [The question is asked of both the man and the woman: S1=1,2] Would you like to participate in a project in the next 6 months to help women and girls exposed to migration, training in gender conflict resolution, prevention of tension, increasing women’s participation in decision-making, access to economic opportunities for the development of your village, etc.? (ONE ANSWER) 1. I definitely would like to participate 2. Hard to say, maybe yes/maybe no. 3. I definitely would not want to participate

BLOCK G. SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE GAINED IN DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN (BLOCK IS GIVEN ONLY TO A WOMAN S1=2)

G1. How well you know about the following rights, rate from 1 to 5, where 1 is nothing, 3 is excellent: (ANSWER FOR EACH LINE) 1. Basic human rights (right to life, right to liberty and integrity, freedom of movement, etc.) 2. Right to safe migration and official employment 3. labour rights - vacation, working hours, etc. 4. Right to build dialogue between local government, women’s council, local people, etc. 5. Right to create own business, to participate in market relations 6. Right to protection against violence and cruelty to women and girls 7. Right to protection against discrimination on the basis of gender. 8. 8. Right to speak as representatives from the community, to participate in self-help groups 9. Right to participate in elections, campaigning, informing

Answer for each line: 1. I don’t know anything. 2. I know very little / superficially 3. I know very well 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

G2. Do you know how to assert your rights, resolve the following disagreements: (ANSWER ON EACH LINE)

1. Disputes over real estate and land rights 2. How to open a business in your locality/district. 3. How to prepare and safely go to work in another country/migrate 4. Disagreement / prohibition on getting a loan or credit for your own needs from your husband and family members 5. Disagreement/prohibition on your choice of profession and occupation from your husband or family members 6. How to prevent physical violence and discrimination in the family/village 7. How to prevent humiliation and discrimination at work, including refusal to accept to work on the basis of gender 8. Disagreements about children’s upbringing and education 9. Prevention of early marriage, forced marriage 10. How to assert and protect your rights in the state bodies, to get action from the authorities 11. How to protect yourself and not to be a victim of fraudsters, extremists/recruiters


12. How to establish peace and settle relations between people of different nationalities

Answers for each line: 1. I don’t know what to do 2. I know very little / superficially 3. I know very well what to do 99. 99. Difficult to answer / Refusal

G3. (If G2=2 or 3) Specify what ways and means you know to assert your rights? (DO NOT READ. ANY NUMBER OF ANSWERS) 1. informing the local community about the problem, a collective solution 2. ask for support from local administration/local authorities 3. Participate and hold local events with the support of local authorities, partnership 3. Maintain a dialogue with religious leaders, village heads 4. Ask for assistance from law enforcement agencies (police, court) 5. Involvement and support of self-help groups and social associations 6. Participation in local community meetings, hearings 7. Participation in rallies/petitions/demonstrations 8. Other______________________________________________ 98. I don’t know how to protect rights 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

G4. Where would you go if your rights were violated? (INTERVIEWER, FOR EXAMPLE AYIL OKMOTU, RED CRESCENT, etc.) 1. _____________________ 2. _____________________ 3. _____________________ 99. Difficult to answer

G5. Have you participated in activities/events in your village in the last year that were aimed at: (ANY NUMBER OF RESPONSES) 1. Building a dialogue between local authorities, women’s council, local population, etc. 2. Creating opportunities for women entrepreneurs, creating jobs for women in the village/district. 3. Preventing the violation of rights and discrimination based on gender 4. informing about safe migration and protection of labour rights 5. Preventing radicalization / participation in illegal groups / actions of violent nature 6. Prevention of early marriage, forced marriage 7. Prevention/resolution of border conflicts 8. Establishment of peace/resolution of relations between people of different nationalities 9. Training and knowledge sharing to protect and stand up for women’s rights 10. Protecting and restoring the rights of women migrant workers who have been subjected to violence and violations of their rights 11. Creation of women’s self-help groups 98. Did not participate in any of the activities/events (when selecting this, no other answers can be selected) 99. Difficult to answer

BLOCK H. MUNICIPALITIES CONSULTING ON GENDER QUESTIONS (BLOCK IS REQUIRED TO WOMEN WHO MIGRATE S1=2, M2=1, or M3=1. EXCEPT S12, S13, S14)

H1. Tell us who in your village supports and helps women and girls who have returned or who may go to labour migration (IF RESPONDENT THINKS FOR A LONG TIME -THEN READ THE ANSWERS OUT):

1. They are going to leave for labour migration for the first time under the influence of relatives 2. Returned from labour migration from another country 3. Coming from economically dysfunctional families (low-income families, families without both parents) 4. Involved in radical groups, exposed to extremist trends and influences 5. Exposed to family violence/discrimination and oppression 6. Have three or more children 7. Engaged in heavy manual labour 8. Unemployed 9. With disabilities

Answers for each line: 1. Villagers/families 2. local authorities, heads of villages 3. Social workers/psychologists 4. Internal affairs authorities/district police officer 5. Village heads / elders 6. Various NGOs, associations, women’s councils, etc. 7. Lawyers/consultants - private and public 8. Mass media/newspapers/information centers 9. No one to help / there is nobody to help 10. Medical workers (Family medicine centers) 11. They manage on their own, that’ s why no one helps 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

H2. Have you received support on the following issues from Aiyl Okmotu/Local Government: (READ OUT) 1. How to make a labour trip to another country safe / safe migration 2. How to re-enter/re-integrate into village life after returning from a labour trip 3. How to be civically active / engage in public activities / participate in decision-making at the village level 4. Creating opportunities and jobs, employment 5. Building peace, dialogue and prevention of conflicts/disputes in the village 6. Defending and protecting the rights of migrant women 7. Supporting women’s initiatives and start-ups 8. Supporting the participation of women in the social life of your village

Answer for each line:

1. Yes


2. We haven’t received it, but we needed the support. 3. It wasn’t needed 99. Difficult to answer / refusal to answer

H3. [For answers H2=1,2] Who was approached for support on the following issues: (READ OUT) 1. How to make a labour trip to another country safe / safe migration 2. How to re-enter/re-integrate into village life after returning from a labour trip 3. How to be civically active / engage in social activities / participate in decision-making at the village level 4. Creating opportunities and jobs, employment 5. Building peace, dialogue and prevention of conflicts/disputes in the village 6. Defending and protecting the rights of migrant women 7. Supporting women’s initiatives and start-ups 8. Supporting the participation of women in the social life of your village Answer for each line: 1. Local government bodies 2. Nongovernmental organizations/projects/internationals 3. Individuals/acquaintances 4. Health care providers/psychologists/counsellors 5. It wasn’t necessary 6. I didn´t know where to go 7. Other (do not specify) 99. Difficult to answer

S12 [ASK BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, S1=1 or 2]. Please indicate your average monthly personal income? 1. No income 2. Up to 2 000 soms 3. 2 001 - 5 000 soms 4. 5 001 - 10 000 som 5. 10 001 - 15 000 som 6. 15 001 - 20 000 soms 7 .20 001 - 25 000 soms 8. 30 001 - 35 000 soms 9. More than 35 000 soms 98. Refusal to answer 99. Difficult to answer

S13. [ASK BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, S1=1 or 2]. Please provide your phone number for possible verification of my work: _______________________________________________ S14. [ASK BOTH MAN AND WOMAN, S1=1 or 2]. Specify your address (street, house number): _________________________________________

Here we finish our interview, thank you for your time!

/ SERVICE QUESTIONS, DO NOT READ OUT TO THE RESPONDENT /

S15. Province where the survey was conducted:

ONE OF SEVERAL

1. Batken province 2. Jalalabad province 3. Osh province 4. Talas province

S16. Survey district:

ONE OF SEVERAL

1. Suzak District 2. Nookat district 3. Kadamjay district 4. Kara-Buura district

S17. Aiyl okmotu, where the survey is conducted:

ONE OF SEVERA

1. Kyzyl-Tuu aiyl okmotu 2. Toolos aiyl okmotu 3. Bel aiyl okmotu 4. Orozbekov aiyl okmotu 5. Ak-Turpak aiyl okmotu 6. Kara-Buura aiyl okmotu

S18. The locality where the survey is conducted:

(To the developer of the program: to make on the principle of a funnel, depending on the province to give out districts, -> AO -> Villages).

1. Zhany Zher. 2. Min Chynar. 3. Uchkun 4. Kuduk 5. Murkut 6. Merkit 7. Bel 8. Borbash 9. Tashtak 10. Tala - Bulak 11. Kyzyl Adyr. 12. Chon Kara Buura

S19. Interviewer’s full name S20. Household code


GUIDE №1 (IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE 1) For in-depth interviews among representatives:

1. State Agency for Local Government and Inter-Ethnic Relations - 2. Forum of Women Deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic

Hello, my name is ______. I represent an independent research company “M-Vector”, which together with the UN Women program, the International Organization for Migration and the International Labour Organization conducts a survey among state and municipal authorities, as well as among representatives of local NGOs, civil society organizations about the role of women in the development and well-being of rural communities. In total the interview will take about 1 hour. Information from the survey will be completely confidential and will not be disclosed or shared with anyone. Based on your answers, decisions will be made on the implementation of activities for the development of your village, building peace and well-being.

1. Respondent’s name, age and phone number_______________________________________________________ 2. Name of the organization where you work__________________________________________ 3. Specifics of activity of the organization/institution/project_________________________ 4. Your occupation, position__________________________________________________________

BLOCK A. ASSESSING THE CURRENT SITUATION: GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER STEREOTYPES 1. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b] From your experience, what is the current situation in Kyrgyz Republic regarding gender equality and the perception of women’s role in general, including those who are exposed to labour migration? Clarification questions:

1.1. What are the negative gender norms and stereotypes in rural areas of our country about women and their role in the family and society? (INTERVIEWER, e.g., INEQUALITY IN EMPLOYMENT, INEQUALITY IN PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING, INEQUALITY IN DECISION-MAKING IN THE FAMILY, etc.) Where do these norms and rules of behavior and stereotypes about women come from? How harmful are they?

1.2. What harmful gender norms/practices/stereotypes exist in relation to women who have returned from labour migration from abroad: 1.2.1. What are these norms/stereotypes? Provide examples? 1.2.2. How do these norms harm women and others? What exactly do these negative norms prohibit a woman from doing? Do they affect her ability

to participate in the development of the community, to participate in conflict resolution, dispute resolution, and assistance to villagers? 1.2.3. Where do these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them? At the local level (village/district level)? 1.2.4. Is there anything discriminatory about women who have returned from migration at the country level, at the law/policy level? What exactly? 1.2.5. Who do you think struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the national level? How exactly do they struggle? What are the

results of this struggle/ counteraction in recent years? 1.2.6. Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the local level (at the village and Ayil Okmotu levels)? How

exactly does the struggle take place? What are the results of this struggle/ counteraction in the last years? 1.3. What are the negative stereotypes and harmful norms about the perception of women and girls from vulnerable families who may become migrant

workers in the future, or who come from families with migrants? 1.3.1. What are these norms/stereotypes? Provide examples?

1.3.2. How do these norms harm the woman/girl and those who surround her? What exactly do these negative norms prohibit a woman/girl from doing? Do they affect her ability to participate in the development of the community, to participate in the resolution of conflicts and disputes, to help the villagers?

1.3.3. Where did these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them? At the local level (village/district level)? 1.3.4. Is there anything discriminatory about women who have returned from migration at the country level, at the law/policy level? What exactly is

there? 1.3.5. Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the national level? How exactly do they fight? What are the

results of this struggle/ counteraction in last years? 1.3.6. Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the local level (village and Ayil Okmotu level)? How exactly does

the struggle take place? What are the results of this struggle/ counteraction in recent years? 1.4. What are some positive and negative examples from your experience of how women affected by labour migration participate in the development of the

locality/community, namely: 1.4.1. Do women who returned from labour migration positively contribute to the development of their community? What is this

contribution/development (political, economic, social)? (For example, bringing positive news to their fellow citizens; having knowledge - advise residents how to be in this or that situation; participate in self-help groups; having received resources they manage them effectively, etc.). Has the situation changed in recent years? In which direction? Why?

1.4.2. What positive contribution to the development of the community do women and girls from disadvantaged and vulnerable families, who due to circumstances can be sent to labour migration? What is this contribution/development (political, economic, social)?

1.4.3. Do women who have returned from labour migration and women/girls potentially going into labour migration have any negative impact on the development of their locality? If yes, who and what is the negative impact?

2. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b, Output Indicator 1.1] What is your attitude to labour migration of women and girls, in particular to forced labour migration? Clarification questions: 2.1. What do you think forces/pushes women to leave their village and migrate to work in another province/country? In your opinion, how widespread is forced

migration of women and girls in Kyrgyz Republic? What causes forced migration? 2.2. Which families are most vulnerable to forced migration of women and girls? Why these particular families? What problems do women and girls often face

when they go on a labour trip/migration? How prepared are they to deal with these problems? What do they lack/need?

BLOCK B. INFORMING AND REPORTING 3. [Output Indicator 1.1, Outcome Indicator 3 c] To what extent do you think the rural population is aware/informed about the positive role of women in rural development, their role in maintaining peace and conflict resolution in Kyrgyz Republic? Clarification questions: 3.1. In your opinion, to what extent are the residents of villages and ayil okmotu in Talas, Osh, Batken and Jalal - Abad regions informed about the woman who

returned from labour migration, about her role in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do the residents know in relation to women? What don’t they know? (For example, do they know what she went through in migration? Do they know what she learned while she was away? How can she help with economic, social, and political issues in the village?)

3.2. If we talk about women and girls who have not been in migration, but may go, or girls from disadvantaged families, from families with migrants - how much

do you think residents of villages and ayil okmotu in Talas, Osh, Batken and Jalalabad regions are informed about the role of these women and girls in


peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do residents know about the role of women and girls? What don’t they know?

3.3. What do you think needs to be done to raise awareness among residents about the role of women and girls affected by labour migration? What materials and

ways of disseminating information does your organization use about the positive contribution of women and girls affected by migration/migrant workers to community development, entrepreneurship and peacebuilding? What are the problems in disseminating this information? If not, why not?

3.4. Do you have any activities/initiatives to promote gender equality and raise awareness of the role of migrant-affected women and girls in rural development

and peacebuilding (conflict resolution)? If yes, what kind of activities? What is your target audience? Why did you choose this particular target audience? What challenges have you encountered in implementing these activities?

3.5. Has your organization conducted (or been involved in) any activities/ events to support women and girls who are planning to go to or have returned from

labour migration? If yes, which ones? In relation to what risks have you protected? What gender-oriented approach was taken when providing assistance? (For example, did you take into account age, vulnerability, psycho-emotional status, etc.) What challenges did you face in implementing these activities/programs/initiatives?

BLOCK C. WOMEN’S INVOLVEMENT IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 5. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 2 c, Output Indicator 2.1.4] Now let’s talk about the participation of rural women in conflict resolution, in peacekeeping and tolerance, and in the economic development of villages. Clarifying questions: 5.1. Based on your experience, in general, what is the practice of participation of women from Talas, Osh, Batken and Jalalabad regions in any projects or

peacebuilding initiatives that promote the strengthening of peace and dialogue, significantly improve life in their villages or help residents in their communities? 5.1.1. If there have been cases, in which initiatives are women involved? How active is the participation of women? In what way and with whose help

are these projects/activities implemented? (For example: With the support of other villagers, with the support of women; With the support of their family members; With the support of self-help groups; With the support of local self-government bodies; With the support of NGOs, With the support of religious leaders, etc.)

5.1.2. What problematic situations/conflicts were resolved with women’s participation? (For example: Resolved conflicts over access to irrigation/water, Resolved disputes and conflicts over access to resources, credit, land; Resolved border conflicts, political disputes, social problems?)

5.1.3. If we talk about women and girls who have returned from labour migration or are going to migrate - do they participate in similar projects/initiatives more often or less often than other women? Why? What are the limitations of their participation/influence? What problems do they face in implementing such projects/initiatives?

5.2. From your experience, to what extent are economic and social development opportunities available to women and girls in rural areas of Kyrgyz Republic who

have returned or are going to migrate for work? (For example: loans, educational services, medical services, participation in elections, etc.) What other opportunities and resources do they need? What is lacking? What are the barriers/prohibitions for women and girls when accessing economic and social development opportunities?

5.3. Do you provide support to help women and girls who have returned or are going to labour migration realize their projects/initiatives? If yes, what kind of

support do you provide? Who else is involved in providing this support? What problems/obstacles do you face in providing this support? (For example: bans on receiving assistance from family members of women, lack of willingness and readiness of women and girls themselves, lack of opportunity to come/access assistance/consultation, etc.)

BLOCK D. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS 6. [Output Indicator 2.1] How well are rural women in Talas, Osh, Batken and Jalalabad regions aware of their rights and able to assert them independently? 6.1. Give an overall rating if 1 is very poor knowledge and 5 is excellent knowledge of women’s rights. What grade would you give? Explain why that grade? Now

give a grade from 1 to 5 in terms of how skilled they are /to what extent they assert their rights? Explain why that rating? 6.2. What knowledge/what is missing to protect rights? What is necessary to do, and who should make women and girls more aware/advocate for their rights? 6.3. What about women and girls in villages who have returned or may migrate - how aware are they of their rights and able to assert them? Give a score from 1 to

5? What is important to them that they do not know? What has to be done and who has to make sure that women and girls know more about the rights/ assert their rights ?

7. Has your organization or your partners conducted educational events, consultations, or trainings on the rights of women and girls who have returned from migration or may go to work? 7.1. If yes, what topics were taught? Who was involved as a trainer for this training? How was the training conducted? 7.2. What were the practical benefits of the training for your target audience? Please give examples? 7.3. Do women who have returned from labour migration or girls who may have been sent to migrate come to you personally or to your organization for help or

social support? What are the 5 most common issues on which they most often ask for help? How and with what do you help?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION! Questions from the respondent: __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________


GUIDE №2 (IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW GUIDE 2)

For in-depth interviews among: 1. Heads of bodies or representatives of local government (Ayil Okmotu Bashchylary) 2. Local nongovernmental organizations (Local NGOs)

Hello, my name is ______. I represent an independent research company “M-Vector”, which together with the UN Women program, the International Organization for Migration and the International Labour Organization conducts a survey among representatives of state and municipal authorities, as well as among representatives of local NGOs, civil society organizations about the role of women in the development and well-being of your village. In total, the interview will take about 1 hour. The information obtained in the survey will be completely confidential and will not be disclosed or shared with anyone. Based on your answers, decisions will be made on the implementation of the implementation of activities for the development of your village, building peace and well-being. 1. Respondent’s name, age and phone number_______________________________________________________ 2. Name of the organization where you work__________________________________________ 3. Specifics of activity of the organization/institution/project_________________________

4. Your occupation, position__________________________________________________________ BLOCK A. ASSESSING THE CURRENT SITUATION: GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER STEREOTYPES 1. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b] Based on your experience, what is the current situation in your locality / Ayil Okmotu with regard to gender equality and the perception of women’s role in general, including those who are exposed to labour migration? Clarifying questions: 1.1. What are the negative gender norms and stereotypes about women in your village/Ayil Okmotu, her role in the family and society? Where do these negative

norms and rules of behavior and stereotypes regarding women come from? How harmful are they? (Examples of gender stereotypes for the interviewer/moderator:

1) Career and family are incompatible for a woman; she has to choose one or the other, 2) A woman is supposed to give birth and raise a child, and run a household. 3) a woman has to be wise, patient and has not to go against her husband and relatives 4) A woman has to provide comfort in her home first of all, and only then take care of herself 5) A woman should not visit places in the village where her husband forbids her to go 6) A woman should not meet with a man before marriage. 7) A woman is a weaker sex; she must be feminine 8) A woman is not suitable for technical professions (engineers, construction workers, machinists and other technical professions) 9) A woman is more dependent on a man than a man on a woman 10) a woman is less intellectually developed than a man)

1.2. What harmful gender norms/practices/stereotypes exist in relation to women who have returned from labour migration from abroad:

1.2.1. What are these norms/stereotypes? Provide examples? 1.2.2. How do these norms harm women and others? What exactly do these negative norms prohibit a woman from doing? Do they affect her ability to

participate in the development of the community, to make decisions, to participate in the resolution of conflicts and disputes, and to help the villagers?

1.2.3. Where did these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them? At the local level (village/district level)? 1.2.4. Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the local level (village and Ayil Okmotu level)? How exactly does the

struggle take place? What are the results of this struggle/ counteraction in recent years? 1.3. What are the negative stereotypes and harmful norms of perception of vulnerable women and girls from disadvantaged families who may become migrant

workers in the future, or from families with migrants? 1.3.1. What are these norms/stereotypes? Provide examples? 1.3.2. How do these norms harm the woman/girl and the people around her? What exactly do these negative norms prohibit a woman/girl from doing?

Do they affect her ability to participate in the development of the community, to participate in youth groups, cultural life of the village, to participate in resolving conflicts and disputes, to help the villagers?

1.3.3. Where did these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them at the village/district level? 1.3.4. Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes in the villages and Ayil Okmotu? How does he/she struggle? What are

the results of this struggle/ counteraction in recent years?

1.4. What are some positive and negative examples from your experience of how women affected by labour migration participate in the development of the locality/community, namely: 1.4.1. What positive contribution to the development of their locality/community do women who returned from labour migration make? What is this

contribution/development (political, economic, social)? (For example, they bring positive news to their fellow citizens; with their knowledge, they tell residents how to deal with this or that situation; they participate in self-help groups; having received resources, they manage them effectively, etc.). Has the situation changed in recent years? In what direction? Why?

1.4.2. What positive contribution to the development of the community do women and girls from disadvantaged and vulnerable families, who due to circumstances can be sent to labour migration? What is this contribution/development (political, economic, social)?

1.4.3. Do women who returned from labour migration and women/girls potentially going into labour migration have any negative impact on the development of their locality? If yes, which of these two groups and what is the negative impact?

2. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b, Output Indicator 1.1] What is your attitude to labour migration of women and girls from your village/AO, in particular to forced labour migration? Clarifying questions: 2.1. What do you think forces/pushes women to leave their village and migrate to another province/country to earn money? In your opinion, how widespread is

forced migration of women and girls in your village/district? What causes forced migration? 2.2. Which families are most vulnerable to forced migration of women and girls? Why these particular families? What problems do women and girls often face

when they go on a labour/migration trip? How prepared are they to deal with these problems? What do they lack/need? BLOCK B. INFORMING AND REPORTING 3. [Output Indicator 1.1, Outcome Indicator 3 b, Outcome Indicator 3 c] In your opinion, to what extent is the population of your village/AO aware/informed about the positive role of women in rural development, their role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution? Clarifying questions:


In your opinion, to what extent are the residents of your village/AO informed about women who returned from labour migration, about their role and importance in

peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do the residents know in relation to women? What don’t they know? (For example, do they know what she went through in migration? Do they know what she learned while she was away? How can she help with economic, social, and political issues in the village?) Where do they learn/receive information about the role of women returning from migration?

3.1. If we are talking about women and girls who have not been in migration but may go, or girls from disadvantaged families and from families with migrants -

in your opinion, to what extent are residents of your village/AO informed about the role of these women and girls in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do residents know about the importance of the role of women and girls? What don’t they know?

3.2. What do you think needs to be done to raise awareness among villagers about the positive role of women and girls in conflict resolution who plan to go to

labour migration or who returned from it? What materials and ways do you use to disseminate information about the positive contributions of women and girls affected by migration to community development, entrepreneurship and peacebuilding? What challenges do you face in disseminating this information? If not, why not?

3.3. Do you have any activities/initiatives to inform villagers about the importance of including women and girls who plan to go to labour migration or who

returned from it in village development and peacebuilding (conflict resolution)? If yes, what kind of activities? What is your target audience? What challenges do you face when you implement these activities?

3.4. Have you personally or your organization/network/forum conducted (or participated in) any events/activities aimed at supporting women and girls who are

planning to go to labour migration or who have returned from labour migration? If so, which ones? Regarding what risks have you protected? What gender-sensitive approach was taken to assistance? (For example, did you take into account age, vulnerability, psycho-emotional status, etc.) What challenges did you face in implementing these activities/programs/initiatives?

BLOCK C. WOMEN’S INVOLVEMENT IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 4. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b] Let’s talk about access to social services for women in your village/AO. 4.1. How often (in the sphere of your work) have you encountered cases when women from your community applied for social services to you or to any services?

For example, for issues such as:

4.1.1 Consultation with a social worker on alimony, social benefits and allowances? Who did they contact exactly? How often?

4.1.2 Enrolling children in schools and kindergartens when planning to leave for migration, transferring children to guardianship, obtaining legal documentation, passport, registration and checking the possibility to leave for labour migration? Who was contacted? How often?

4.1.3 Help with access to water, electricity, coal and gas? Who was contacted? How often?

4.1.4 For protection from domestic violence/appeal to law enforcement? Who was contacted? How often?

4.1.5 For medical care or help for children/family members with disabilities? Who was contacted? How often? 4.2. Which of these services are usually accessed by women who have had migration experience, i.e. who have previously been abroad for work? How often do they

apply? What kind of support are they unable to receive? Why? 4.3. What services do girls from families with migrant workers or those who plan to go to work for the first time apply for? How often do they apply? What kind of

support are they not able to get anyway? Why? 4.4. Why don’t women and girls usually go to social services for these services? What are the barriers to this? What do you think they need to do to start applying? 5. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 2 c, Output Indicator 2.1.4] Let’s now talk about the participation of women and girls who have returned from migration or are planning a labour trip from your village - in conflict resolution, peacekeeping and tolerance, and in the economic development of the village.

5.1. Based on your experience, in general, what is the participation practice of women/girls in any projects or peacemaking initiatives that promote peace and dialogue, resolve conflicts, significantly improve life in their villages, or help residents in their communities? If there have been cases, then: 5.1.1. In what initiatives/activities do women who have returned from labour migration participate? What are they about? How active is the participation

of women? In what way and with whose help are these projects/activities implemented? (For example: With the support of other villagers, with the support of women; With the support of their family members; With the support of self-help groups; With the support of local self-government bodies; With the support of NGOs, With the support of religious leaders, etc.)

5.1.2. How long and how many women who returned from migration from your village have participated in them? Do you share these positive stories and experiences with others? If yes, how do you do it? What channels and tools do you use for this?

5.1.3. What problematic situations/conflicts were solved with the participation of women who returned from labour migration in your village? What was the result? (For example: Resolved conflicts over access to irrigation/water, Resolved disputes and conflicts over access to resources, credit, land; Resolved border conflicts, political disputes, social problems?)

5.1.4. What about girls who are going to migrate for work - do they participate in such projects/initiatives more often or less often than other women? Why? What are the limitations of their participation/influence? What problems do they face in implementing such projects/initiatives?

5.1.5. Do women and girls affected by migration in your village speak out at public hearings on local issues? How interested are they in these issues/problems? What do they need to actively participate/what do they lack?

5.2. If there have NOT been incidents, then: 5.2.1. Why haven’t women and girls participated? What was keeping them out of it, what were the obstacles? 5.2.2. Do women and girls in general see their role in participating in initiatives/activities? What is this role? 5.2.3. Who takes part instead of them when it comes to building peace and development?

5.3. From your experience, to what extent are opportunities for economic and social development available to women and girls in your village/AO who have returned or are going to migrate for work? (For example: credits, educational services, medical services, participation in elections, etc.) What other opportunities and resources do they need? What is missing? What barriers/prohibitions do women and girls face when it comes to accessing economic and social development opportunities?

5.4. Do you give them any support - to help women and girls who have returned or are going to migrate for work to realize their projects/initiatives? If yes, what kind of support? Who else is involved in providing this support? What problems/obstacles do you face in providing this support? (For example: bans on receiving assistance from family members of women, lack of willingness and readiness of women and girls themselves, lack of opportunity to come/access assistance/consultation, etc.)


BLOCK D. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS 6. [Output Indicator 2.1] How well are women and girls (affected by labour migration in your village/AO) aware of their rights and able to assert them independently? 6.1. Give an overall grade if 1 is very poor knowledge and 5 is excellent knowledge of women’s rights. What grade would you give? Explain why that grade? Now

give a grade from 1 to 5 in terms of how proficient they are/ to what extent they are able to assert their rights? Explain why that rating? 6.2. How do women and girls affected by migration assert their rights? How do they assert their rights? Where/ from whom did they learn about how to assert

their rights? 6.3. What knowledge/what is missing to protect rights? What needs to be done, and who should make sure that women and girls know more about their rights/

women an girls assert their rights? 7. [Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 3 b, Output Indicator 1.1.3.] Have you/your organization or your partners carried out training/awareness activities, consultations or trainings on safe migration, civic engagement and conflict resolution, on protecting the rights of women and girls who have returned from migration or may go to work? If so: 7.1. Who exactly conducted this training? Where did it take place? 7.2. What topics were covered / what problems were solved? Who was involved as a trainer/mentor for the training? How did the process work? 7.3. What were the practical benefits of the training/events for the target audience? Please provide examples? 7.4. Do women who returned from labour migration or girls who are sent to migrate come to you personally / to your organization for help or social support?

What are the 5 most common issues for which they most often ask for help? How and with what do you help? 8. If no training/activities have been conducted, then: 8.1. Why? Were there any problems with their implementation? What were the problems/reasons for not doing them? (For example: prohibitions at the family level,

unwillingness of the participants, etc.)? BLOCK E. ELABOURATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS 9. [Output Indicator 3.2.1., Outcome Indicator 3 c] Tell me, how does your Ayil Okmotu use gender principles in its community development plans? What do these plans include? (EXPLANATION: A PLAN OF KEY ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL (A/O) TO INCREASE RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AFFECTED BY MIGRATION TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE-BUILDING).

9.1. Please list which documents/strategies/plans are used in your community? (For example: Social and Economic Development Plans, Local Development Plans, Action Plans?) Who develops what document/plan? What activities/works are usually included in these documents/plans? What goals are included in these plans?)

9.2. Do these documents/strategies/plans take into account the principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding (conflict resolution) involving women in community development? Which documents address these principles and how many of them are there? (specify the number of documents/plans). How do these strategies/plans address women’s interests and opportunities? How are women involved in community development in practice?

9.3. Do these plans reflect the interests of women who have returned from labour migration to the community? How are their interests addressed/reflected? If not, why not?

9.4. Does the plan include the interests and support of women and girls exposed to forced migration or family members of migrants? How are their interests addressed/reflected? If not, why not?

9.5. How are local development plans monitored for their relevance to the needs of different groups, such as the elderly and other socially vulnerable groups such as PWDs, the elderly, and others?

9.6. What do you think, is the role of local government (Ayil Okmotu) in the implementation of these plans applying gender equality principles? How are the gender principles of peacebuilding applied? What do you think these principles are? How well are YOU (- for LGBs)/they implementing these principles? What are the challenges/barriers?

9.7. What guidelines exist for developing local development plans that incorporate gender-sensitive peacebuilding (conflict resolution) principles? Are these recommendations used by LGBs?

9.8. Do you know gender-sensitive and socially inclusive approaches? If so, do you use them in your work? What gender-sensitive and socially inclusive approaches do you use in your work and life? How do you do it? 9.8.1. Have you or your colleagues received training on Gender Equality and Social Integration (inclusiveness) approaches? 9.8.2. If he/she is trained, then: where and when did you receive training? What kind of knowledge and skills did you gain?

(NOTE: A GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION APPROACH IS AN APPROACH AT WORK THAT PROMOTES EQUAL AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCESS, DECISION-MAKING, PARTICIPATION AND WELL-BEING FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE; TRANSFORMS SYSTEMS, SOCIAL NORMS AND RELATIONSHIPS TO ENABLE THE MOST VULNERABLE GROUPS TO PARTICIPATE AND BENEFIT EQUALLY FROM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES; DEVELOPS INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE AGENCY, RESILIENCE AND ACTION; AND PROMOTES THE EMPOWERMENT AND WELL-BEING OF VULNERABLE CHILDREN, THEIR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES).

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION!

Questions from the respondent: _____________________________________________________________________________________________


GUIDE №3 (FGD GUIDE 3)

For FGD with participation of: 1. Social workers 2. Deputies of the local assembly / local councils / keneshes 3. Representatives of women’s councils 4. Local leaders / community activists / civic activists 5. Social educators from schools 6. Representatives from aksakal courts 7. Representatives of the youth committee 8. Representatives of the Migrant Fund (if available)

Maximum focus on the search for participants from the target villages (12 villages). It is forbidden to invite participants from nearby settlements - only by agreement with the manager. Hello, my name is ______. I represent an independent research company “M-Vector”, which together with the UN Women program, the International Organization for Migration and the International Labour Organization conducts a survey among women affected by labour migration, among representatives of civil society organizations, social workers and other community participants about the role of women in the development and well-being of your locality. In total, our focus group discussion will take about 1.5 hours. The information obtained during the survey will be completely confidential and will not be disclosed or shared with anyone. Based on your answers, decisions will be made on the implementation of activities for the development of your village, building peace and well-being.

1. Name, age and phone number of FGD participants_________________________________________________________________ 2. Name of the organization where the FGD participants work__________________________________________ 3. Specifics of activity of the organization/institution/project________________________________________ 4. Occupation, position of FGD participants__________________________________________________________

BLOCK A. ASSESSING THE CURRENT SITUATION: GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER STEREOTYPES

1. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b] Based on your experience, what is the current situation in your locality / Ayil Okmotu with regard to gender equality and the perception of women’s role in general, and also women exposed to labour migration? Clarifying questions:

1.1. What are the negative gender norms and stereotypes about women in your village/Ayil Okmotu, her role in the family and society? Where do these negative norms and rules of behavior and stereotypes about women come from? How harmful are they? (Examples of gender stereotypes for the interviewer/moderator: 1) Career and family are incompatible for a woman; she has to choose one option 2) A woman is supposed to give birth and raise a child, run a household 3) A woman has to be wise, patient and not go against her husband and relatives 4) A woman has to provide comfort in her home first, and only then take care of herself 5) A woman should not visit places in the village where her husband forbids her to go 6) A woman should not meet with a man before marriage. 7) A woman is a weaker sex; she must be feminine 8) A woman is not suitable for technical professions (engineers, construction workers, machinists and other technical professions) 9) A woman is more dependent on a man than a man on a woman 10) a woman is less intellectually developed than a man)

1.2. What harmful gender norms/practices/stereotypes there are about women who returned from labour migration: 1.2.1 What are these norms/stereotypes? Give examples? 1.2.2 How do these norms harm women and others? What do these negative norms prohibit or restrict for women? Do they affect her ability to participate in

community development, make decisions, participate in conflict resolution and in building peace and well-being? 1.2.3 Where do these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them? At the local level (village/district level)? 1.2.4 Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the local level (village and Ayil Okmotu level)? How exactly does the


workers in the future, or from families with migrants? 1.3.1 What are these norms/stereotypes? Give examples? 1.3.2 How do these norms harm the woman/girl and others around her? What exactly do these negative norms prohibit for the woman/girl? Do they affect

her ability to participate in community development, participate in youth groups, cultural life of the village, participate in conflict resolution and in building peace and well-being?

1.3.3 Where do these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them at the village/district level? 1.3.4 Who, in your opinion, in the villages and Ayil Okmotu struggle with negative gender norms and stereotypes? How exactly do they fight? What are the

results of this struggle/ counteraction in recent years? 1.4. What are positive and negative examples from your experience of how women affected by labour migration participate in the development of the

locality/community, namely: 1.4.1. What positive contribution do women who returned from labour migration make to the development of their locality/community? What is this


1.4.2 What positive contribution to the development of the community do women and girls make, that are from disadvantaged and vulnerable families, who due to circumstances can be sent to labour migration? What is this contribution/development (political, economic, social)?

1.4.3 Do women who have returned from labour migration and women/girls potentially going to labour migration have any negative impact on the development of their locality? If yes, which of these two groups and what is the negative impact?

2. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b, Output Indicator 1.1] What is your attitude to labour migration of women and girls from your village/AO, in particular to forced labour migration? Clarifying questions:

2.1 What do you think forces/pushes women to leave their village and migrate to another province/country to earn money? In your opinion, how widespread is forced migration of women and girls in your village/district? What causes forced migration?

2.2 Which families are most vulnerable to forced migration of women and girls? Why these particular families? What problems do women and girls often face when they go on a labour trip/migration? How prepared are they to deal with these problems? What do they lack/need?

BLOCK B. INFORMING AND REPORTING 3. [Output Indicator 1.1, Outcome Indicator 3 b, Outcome Indicator 3 c] In your opinion, how aware/informed are the people of your village/AO about the positive role of women in rural development and their role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution? Clarifying questions:


3.1 In your opinion, to what extent are the residents of your village/AO informed about women who returned from labour migration, their role and importance in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do the residents know in relation to women? What don’t they know? (For example, do they know what she went through in migration? Do they know what she learned while she was away? How can she help with economic, social, and political issues in the village?) Where do they learn/receive information about the role of women who returned from migration?

3.5. 3.5. If we are talking about women and girls who have not been in migration but may go, or girls from disadvantaged families and from families with migrants - how informed are the residents of your village/AO about the role of these women and girls in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do residents know about the importance of the role of women and girls? What don’t they know?

3.2. What do you think needs to be done to raise awareness among villagers about the role of women and girls who plan to go to labour migration or who have

returned from it? What materials and ways do you use to disseminate information about the positive contributions of women and girls affected by migration to community development, entrepreneurship and peacebuilding? What challenges do you face in disseminating this information? If not, why not?

3.3 Do you have any activities/initiatives to inform villagers about the importance of including women and girls who plan to go to labour migration or who have

returned from labour migration in village development and peacebuilding (conflict resolution)? If so, what kind of activities? What is your target audience? What difficulties did you face/are you facing when implementing these activities?

3.4 Have you or your organization/network/forum personally conducted (or participated in) any events/activities to support women and girls who are planning to go to or have returned from labour migration? If so, which ones? In relation to what risks have you protected? What gender-sensitive approach was taken to assistance? (For example, did you take into account age, vulnerability, psycho-emotional status, etc.) What challenges did you face in implementing these activities/programs/initiatives?

BLOCK C. WOMEN’S INVOLVEMENT IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

4. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b] Let’s talk about access to social services for women in your village/AO.

4.1. How often (in the field of your work) have you encountered cases when women from your community applied for social services to you or to any services? For example, for issues such as: 4.1.1 Consultation with a social worker on alimony, social benefits and allowances? Who was contacted exactly? How often? 4.1.2 Placement of children in schools and kindergartens when planning to leave for migration, transfer of children to guardianship, obtaining legal

documentation, passport, registration and checking the possibility to leave for labour migration? Who was contacted? How often? 4.1.3 Help with access to water, electricity, coal and gas? Who was contacted? How often? 4.1.4. For protection from domestic violence/appeals to law enforcement? Who was contacted? How often? 4.1.5. For medical care or assistance for children/family members with disabilities? Who was contacted? How often?

4.2. Which of these services are usually requested by women who have had migration experience, i.e. have been abroad for work before? How often do they apply? What kind of support are they unable to get? Why?

4.3. And what services do girls from families with migrant workers or those who plan to go to work for the first time apply for? How often do they apply? What kind of support are they unable to get anyway? Why not?

4.4 Tell us why women and girls usually do not apply to social services for these services? What are the barriers for this? What do you think they need to do to start applying?

5. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 2 c, Output Indicator 2.1.4] Let’s now talk about the participation of women and girls who have returned from migration or plan a labour trip from your village - in conflict resolution, peacekeeping and tolerance, and in the economic development of the village.

5.5. 5.5 Based on your experience, in general, what is the practice of women/girls participating in any projects or peacebuilding initiatives that promote the strengthening of peace and dialogue, resolve conflicts, significantly improve life in their villages, or help residents in their communities? If there have been cases, then: 5.5.1. What initiatives/activities do women who have returned from labour migration participate in? What are they about? How active is the participation

of women? In what way and with whose help are these projects/activities implemented? (For example: With the support of other villagers, with the support of women; With the support of their family members; With the support of self-help groups; With the support of local self-government bodies; With the support of NGOs, With the support of religious leaders, etc.)

5.5.2. How long and how many women who returned from migration have participated in them from your village? Do you share these positive stories and experiences with others? If yes, how do you do it? What channels and tools do you use for this?

5.5.3. What problematic situations/conflicts were solved with the participation of women who returned from labour migration in your village? What was the result? (For example: Resolved conflicts about the access to irrigation/water, Resolved disputes and conflicts about access to resources, credit, land; Resolved border conflicts, political disputes, social problems?)

5.5.4. What about girls planning to go into labour migration - do they participate in similar projects/initiatives more often or less often than other women? Why? What are the limitations of their participation/influence? What problems do they face in implementing such projects/initiatives?

5.5.5. Do women and girls affected by migration in your village speak out at public hearings on local issues? How interested are they in these issues/problems? What do they need to actively participate/what do they lack?

5.2. If there have NOT been cases, then: 5.2.1 Why didn’t women and girls participate? What is stopping them, what are the obstacles? 5.2.2 Do women and girls generally see their role in participating in initiatives/activities? What is this role? 5.2.3 Who takes their place when it comes to peacebuilding and development activities?


5.3. Do you give any support to help women and girls who have returned or plan to go into labour migration to realize their projects/initiatives? If yes, what kind of support? Who else is involved in providing this support? What problems/obstacles do you face in providing this support? (For example: bans on receiving assistance from family members of women, lack of willingness and readiness of women and girls themselves, lack of opportunity to come/access assistance/consultation, etc.)

BLOCK D. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS 6. [Output Indicator 2.1] How well are women in your village/AO aware of their rights and able to assert them independently? 6.1 Give an overall rating if 1 is very poor knowledge and 5 is excellent knowledge of women’s rights. What grade would you give? Explain why that grade? Now give

a grade from 1 to 5 in terms of how proficient are they in their rights/ how well they asserted their rights? Explain why that grade? 6.2 What knowledge/what do they lack to protect their rights? What needs to be done, and who should make women and girls more aware of/assert their rights? 6.3 What about women and girls in villages who have returned or may migrate - how aware are they of their rights and able to assert them? Give a score from 1 to

5? What is important to them that they do not know? What needs to be done and who needs to make women and girls more aware/advocate for their rights?


7. [Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 3 b, Output Indicator 1.1.3.] Have you/your organization or your partners carried out training/awareness activities, consultations or trainings on safe migration, civic engagement and conflict resolution, on protecting the rights of women and girls who have returned from migration or may go to work? If yes: 7.1 Who exactly did the training? Where did it take place? 7.2 What were the specific topics/problems that were addressed? Who was involved as a trainer/mentor for the training? How did the process work? 7.3 What were the practical benefits of the training/events for the target audience? What are some examples? 7.4 Do women who returned from labour migration or girls who were sent to migrate come to you personally / to your organization for help or social support? What

are the 5 most common issues for which they most often ask for help? How and with what do you help? 8. If no training/activities have been conducted, then: 8.1. Why? Were there any problems with their implementation? What were the problems/reasons for not doing them? (For example: prohibitions at the family level,

unwillingness of the participants themselves, etc.)? BLOCK E. ELABOURATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS 9. [Output Indicator 3.2.1., Outcome Indicator 3 c] Tell me, how does your Ayil Okmotu use gender principles in its community development plans? What do these plans include? (EXPLANATION: A PLAN OF KEY ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL (A/O) TO INCREASE RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AFFECTED BY MIGRATION TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE-BUILDING). 9.1 Please list which documents/strategies/plans are used in your locality? (For example: Social and Economic Development Plans, Local Development Plans, Action

Plans?) Who develops what document/plan? What activities/works are usually included in these documents/plans? What goals are included in these plans? 9.2 Do these documents/strategies/plans take into account the principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding (conflict resolution) involving women in locality

development? Which documents take into account these principles and how many of them are there? (Name the number of documents/plans). How do these strategies/plans address women’s interests and opportunities? How are women involved in community development in practice?

9.3 Do these plans reflect the interests of women who have returned from labour migration to the locality? How are their interests addressed/reflected? If not, why

not? 9.4 Does the plan include the interests and support of women and girls exposed to forced migration or family members of migrants? How are their interests

addressed/reflected? If not, why not? 9.5 How is the relevance of local development plans provided/monitored to the needs of different groups such as older people and other socially vulnerable groups

such as PWDs, etc.? 9.6 What do you think is the role of local authorities (Ayil okmotu) in implementing these plans with gender equality principles? How are the gender principles of

peacebuilding applied? What do you think these principles are? How well do local governments implement these principles? What are the problems/barriers? 9.7 What guidelines exist for developing local development plans that incorporate gender-responsive peacebuilding (conflict resolution) principles? Are these

recommendations used by local governments? 9.8 Are you aware of gender-sensitive and socially inclusive approaches? If so, do you use them in your work? What gender-sensitive and socially inclusive

approaches do you use in your work and life? How do you do it? 9.8.1. Have you or your colleagues received training in Gender Equality and Social Integration (inclusivity) approaches? 9.8.2. If trained, where and when did you receive the training? What knowledge and skills did you gain?

(NOTE: A GENDER EQUALITY AND SOCIAL INCLUSION APPROACH IS AN APPROACH AT WORK THAT PROMOTES EQUAL AND COMPREHENSIVE ACCESS, DECISION-MAKING, PARTICIPATION AND WELL-BEING FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE; TRANSFORMS SYSTEMS, SOCIAL NORMS AND RELATIONSHIPS TO ENABLE THE MOST VULNERABLE GROUPS TO PARTICIPATE IN AND BENEFIT EQUALLY FROM DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES; DEVELOPS INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE AGENCY, RESILIENCE AND ACTION; AND PROMOTES THE EMPOWERMENT AND WELL-BEING OF VULNERABLE CHILDREN, THEIR FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES).

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION!

Questions from FGD participants:_______________________________________________________________________________________________


GUIDE №4 (FGD GUIDE 4)

For FGD with participation of:

Women and girls who returned from labour migration or who plan to go to labour migration (mixed focus groups).

Maximum focus on the search for participants from the target villages (12 villages). It is forbidden to invite participants from nearby settlements - only by agreement with the manager.

Hello, my name is ______. I represent an independent research company “M-Vector”, which together with the UN Women program, the International Organization for Migration and the International Labour Organization is conducting a survey among women who have been in labour migration and women and girls who may go into labour migration - about the role of women in the development and well-being of your locality. In total, our focus group discussion will take about 1.5 hours. The information from the survey will be completely confidential and will not be disclosed or shared with anyone. Based on your answers, decisions will be made on activities for the development of your village, building peace and well-being.

1. Name, age and phone number of FGD participants_________________________________________________________________ 2. Name of the organization where the FGD participants work__________________________________________ 3. Specifics of activity of the organization/institution/project________________________________________ 4. Occupation, position of FGD participants__________________________________________________________

BLOCK A. ASSESSING THE CURRENT SITUATION: GENDER EQUALITY AND GENDER STEREOTYPES 1. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b] Based on your experience, what is the current situation in your locality / Ayil Okmotu with regard to gender equality and the perception of women’s role in general, including women exposed to labour migration? Clarifying questions: 1.1. What are the negative gender norms and stereotypes about women in your village/Ayil Okmotu, her role in the family and society? Where do these negative

norms and rules of behavior and stereotypes about women come from? How harmful are they? (Examples of gender stereotypes for the interviewer/moderator: 1) Career and family are incompatible for a woman; she has to choose one option 2) A woman is supposed to give birth and raise a child, run a household 3) A woman has to be wise, patient and not go against her husband and relatives 4) A woman has to provide comfort in her home first, and only then take care of herself 5) A woman should not visit places in the village where her husband forbids her to go 6) A woman should not meet with a man before marriage. 7) A woman is a weaker sex; she must be feminine 8) A woman is not suitable for technical professions (engineers, construction workers, machinists and other technical professions) 9) A woman is more dependent on a man than a man on a woman 10) a woman is less intellectually developed than a man)

1.2. What harmful gender norms/practices/stereotypes there are about women who returned from labour migration:

1.2.1 What are these norms/stereotypes? Give examples? 1.2.2 How do these norms harm women and others? What do these negative norms prohibit or restrict for women? Do they affect her ability to participate in

locality development, make decisions, participate in conflict resolution and in building peace and well-being? 1.2.3 Where do these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them? At the local level (village/district level)? 1.2.4 Who, in your opinion, struggles with negative gender norms and stereotypes at the local level (village and Ayil Okmotu level)? How exactly does the


workers in the future, or from families with migrants? 1.3.1 What are these norms/stereotypes? Give examples? 1.3.2 How do these norms harm the woman/girl and others around her? What exactly do these negative norms prohibit for the woman/girl? Do they affect

her ability to participate in locality development, participate in youth groups, cultural life of the village, participate in conflict resolution and in building peace and well-being?

1.3.3 Where do these harmful gender norms come from/what causes them at the village/district level? 1.3.4 Who, in your opinion, in the villages and Ayil Okmotu struggle with negative gender norms and stereotypes? How exactly do they fight? What are the

results of this struggle/ counteraction in recent years? 1.4. What are some positive and negative examples from your experience of women affected by labour migration being involved in the development of the

locality/community, namely: 1.4.1 What positive contribution to the development of their locality/community do women who returned from labour migration make? What is this


1.4.2 What positive contribution to the development of the locality do women and girls make, that are from disadvantaged and vulnerable families, who due to circumstances can be sent to labour migration? What is this contribution/development (political, economic, social)?

1.4.3 Do women who have returned from labour migration and women/girls potentially going to labour migration have any negative impact on the development of their locality? If yes, which of these two groups and what is the negative impact?

2. [Outcome Indicator 1a, Outcome Indicator 1 b, Output Indicator 1.1] What is your attitude to labour migration of women and girls from your village/AO, in particular to forced labour migration? Clarifying questions: 2.1 What do you think forces/pushes women to leave their village and migrate to another province/country to earn money? In your opinion, how widespread is

forced migration of women and girls in your village/district? What causes forced migration? 2.2 Which families are most vulnerable to forced migration of women and girls? Why these particular families? What problems do women and girls often face when

they go on a labour trip/migration? How prepared are they to deal with these problems? What do they lack/need? BLOCK B. INFORMING AND REPORTING 3. [Output Indicator 1.1, Outcome Indicator 3 b, Outcome Indicator 3 c] In your opinion, how aware/informed are the people of your village/AO about the positive role of women in rural development, their role in peacekeeping and conflict resolution? Clarifying questions: 3.1. In your opinion, to what extent are the residents of your village/AO informed about women who returned from labour migration, about their role and importance

in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do the residents know in relation to women? What don’t they know?


(For example, do they know what she went through in migration? Do they know what she learned while she was away? How can she help with economic, social, and political issues in the village?) Where do they learn/receive information about the role of women who returned from migration?

3.6. If we are talking about women and girls who have not been in migration but may go, or girls from disadvantaged families and from families with migrants - how informed are the residents of your village/AO about the role of these women and girls in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) and village/community development? What exactly do residents know about the importance of the role of women and girls? What don’t they know?

3.2. What do you think needs to be done to raise awareness among villagers about the role of women and girls who plan to go to labour migration or who have

returned from it? What materials and ways of disseminating information about the positive contributions of women and girls affected by migration to community development, entrepreneurship and peacebuilding do you know? What are the challenges in disseminating this information? If this information is not being disseminated, why not?

3.3. Are there any activities/initiatives carried out in your village by local government or other organizations to inform villagers about the importance of including women and girls (who plan to go to labour migration or return from it) in village development and peacebuilding (conflict resolution)? If yes, who exactly and what kind of activities/initiatives?

3.4. Have you personally participated in any events/activities aimed at supporting women and girls who are planning to go to labour migration or have returned from it? If yes, in which activities? In relation to what risks/problems did you defend, what did you help with? Who conducted these activities? How was it done? -> For example, did they take into account your age, marital status, emotional state, etc.? What challenges did you encounter when participating in these activities/programs/initiatives?

BLOCK C. WOMEN’S INVOLVEMENT IN PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

4. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b] Let’s talk about access to social services.

4.1. How often did you apply for social services to any services/organizations in your village/Ayil Okmotu? For example, for issues such as: 4.1.1 Consultation with a social worker on alimony, social benefits and allowances? Who was contacted exactly? How often? Were you able to get the

service/support? If not, why not? 4.1.2 Enrollment of children in schools and kindergartens when planning to leave for migration, transfer of children to guardianship, obtaining legal

documentation - passport, registration and checking the possibility to leave for labour migration? Who exactly was contacted? How often? Were you able to get the service/support? If not, why not?

4.1.3. Assistance in solving problems with access to water, getting electricity, coal and gas? Who exactly was contacted? How often? Were you able to get support? If not, why not?

4.1.4 For protection from domestic violence/appeals to law enforcement? Who was contacted? How often? Were you able to get support? If not, why not? 4.1.5 For medical assistance for you/your children or family members with disabilities, if any? Who did you contact? How often? Were you able to get support?

If not, why not? 4.2. [If there are those who haven’t applied] Tell me why you have not applied to social services/organizations for these services? What are the obstacles to this?

What do you think should be done in order for you and other women who have migrated or plan to migrate to start applying for and receiving support/services?

5. [Outcome Indicator 2 a, Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 2 c, Output Indicator 2.1.4] Now let’s talk about your involvement in conflict resolution, peacekeeping and tolerance, and the economic development of the village.

5.1. Based on your experience, in general, what is the practice of your participation in any projects or peacebuilding initiatives that promote the strengthening of peace and dialogue, resolve conflicts, significantly improve life in your villages, or help residents in your communities? If there have been cases, then: 5.1.1. What initiatives/activities have you participated in? What were they about? How actively were you involved? In what way and with whose help are

these projects/activities being implemented? (For example: With the support of other villagers, with the support of women; With the support of your family members; With the support of self-help groups; With the support of local government; With the support of NGOs, With the support of religious leaders, etc.)

5.1.2. How long have you been involved in them? Do you share these positive stories and experiences with other residents? If so, how do you do it? What channels and tools do you use to do it?

5.1.3. What problematic situations/conflicts have been resolved with your participation in your village recently? What was the result? (For example: Resolved conflicts about the access to irrigation/water, resolved disputes and conflicts about the access to resources, credit, land; Resolved border conflicts, political disputes, social problems?)

5.1.4. What about girls going into labour migration - do they participate in similar projects/initiatives more often or less often than other women? Why? What are the limitations of their participation/influence? What problems do they face in implementing such projects/initiatives?

5.1.5. Do you speak at public hearings on local issues in your village? How interested are you in these issues/problems? What do you need for more active participation/what do you lack?

5.2. If there have NOT been any cases of any of you participating in such events/initiatives, then: 5.2.1 Why didn’t you participate? What is stopping you, what are the obstacles? 5.2.2 Do you generally see your role in participating in initiatives/activities? What is this role? 5.2.3 Who participates instead of you when it comes to peacebuilding and development activities?


5.3. Do you receive any support to help you implement your projects/initiatives for economic and social development of your village? If yes, what kind of support is provided? From whom? Who else is involved in providing this support? If not - why not? What problems/obstacles do you face in receiving this support? (For example: bans on getting help from family members of women, lack of willingness and readiness on your part, lack of opportunity to come/access help/consultation, etc.).

BLOCK D. KNOWLEDGE AND PROTECTION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS

6. [Output Indicator 2.1] How well do you know about your rights? Are you able to independently assert them? 6.1. Give an overall grade of 1 - if you know your rights very poorly and 5 - if you know your rights very well. What grade would you give? Explain why that rating?

Now give a score from 1 to 5 in terms of how well you know how to assert your rights (1 - being unable to do it, 5 - being excellent at asserting)? Explain why you would give this rating?

6.2. What knowledge/what do you lack to protect your rights? What needs to be done, and who should make sure you know/defend your rights more?


7. [Outcome Indicator 2 b, Outcome Indicator 3 b, Output Indicator 1.1.3.] Have you participated in training/awareness activities, consultations or trainings on safe migration, civic engagement and conflict resolution, protecting the rights of women and girls who have returned from migration or may go to work? If yes: 7.1 Who exactly did the training? Where did it take place? 7.2 What were the specific topics/problems that were addressed? Who was involved as a trainer/mentor for the training? How did the process work? 7.3 What were the practical benefits of the training/events for you? What are some examples? 7.4 What were the most common/important issues for you in the training/events? Which ones were not covered? 8. If not, then: 8.1. Why? Were there any problems that prevented you from participating? What were the problems/reasons for not participating? (For example: Bans at the family

level, your personal reluctance, Lack of such activities, etc.)? BLOCK E. ELABOURATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS 9. [Output Indicator 3.2.1., Outcome Indicator 3 c] Let’s talk briefly about your village development plans. Do you know about such plans? What do these plans include? (EXPLANATION: A PLAN OF KEY ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL (A/O) TO ENHANCE RECOGNITION OF THE ROLE AND CONTRIBUTION OF WOMEN AND GIRLS AFFECTED BY MIGRATION TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE-BUILDING). 9.1 Do you know anything about documents/strategies/plans for the development of your locality? (For example: Social and Economic Development Plans, Local

Development Plans, Action Plans?) Who develops and what document/plan? What activities/works are usually included in these documents/plans? What goals are included in these plans?

9.2 Do these plans reflect the interests of women who have returned from labour migration to your community? How are their interests addressed/reflected? If not,

why not? 9.3 Does the plan include the interests and support of women and girls exposed to forced migration or family members of migrants? How are their interests

addressed/reflected? If not, why not? 9.4 What do you think is the role of local authorities (Ayil okmotu) in implementing these plans with gender equality principles? How are gender principles of

peacebuilding applied? What do you think these principles are? How well do local governments implement these principles? What are the problems/barriers? 9.7 What recommendations would you give for the elabouration of local development plans with your interests in mind? Are these recommendations being used

now by local governments? Why not, what do you think?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND INFORMATION! Questions from FGD participants: __________________________________ __________________________________ ________________________________


Appendix to the GUIDE for In-Depth Interviews and FGDs.

CONSENT FORM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW/FOCUS GROUP ON THE PROJECT’S BASELINE STUDY:

«WOMEN IN MIGRATION, PEACEBUILDING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT»

This is a form of consent to participate in an interview/focus group as part of a baseline assessment. The assessment is based on a survey and discussion combining qualitative and quantitative methods of information collection. The baseline assessment will consist of the collection of personal opinions, including a household survey, focus group discussions, and in-depth interviews with various target groups and Project partners. The survey will be conducted by the research company M-Vector. This informed consent form has two parts:

1. Information sheet (to provide information to the participant); 2. Statement of consent (which has to be signed if you decide to participate in the study).

The respondent must be given a copy of the completed informed consent form.

PART I. INFORMATION SHEET (INTERVIEWER/MODERATOR - READ OUT)

I, _______________________________________________, work for a research company called M-Vector. I am going to provide you with information about the study and invite you to participate in the survey. It is possible that this consent form contains words that you may not understand. In this case, ask me what do they mean and I will explain. Your answers will be analyzed and the results of the analysis will be included in the research report. The purpose of the study is to conduct a baseline assessment of the perceptions and practices of women and girls’ involvement in peacebuilding (conflict resolution) processes in targeted localities in Kyrgyz Republic by promoting full acceptance of the role of migrant women and girls in community development and peacebuilding. The target groups to be interviewed in the study include representatives of the following organizations/partners/persons/residents: 1. State Agency for Local Government and Interethnic Relations 2. Forum of Women Deputies of Jogorku Kenesh of the Kyrgyz Republic 3. Heads of bodies or representatives of local self-government (Ayil Okmotu Bashchylary) 4. Local nongovernmental organizations 5. Business Association JIA (Bishkek) 6. Social workers 7. Deputies of local assembly / local kenesh / councils 8. Representatives of women’s councils 9. Local leaders / community activists / civic activists 10. Social educators from schools 11. Representatives from aksakal courts 12. Representatives of the youth committee 13. Representatives of the migrant fund (if available) 14. Women and girls who have returned from labour migration or who plan to go to labour migration. Since you represent one or more groups, we invite you to participate in this study and provide answers that will help the Project. Voluntary Participation. Your participation in the survey is completely voluntary. You may opt out of the survey entirely at any time. Even if you agree to participate, you may choose not to answer questions that you find unacceptable and still answer other interview questions that are acceptable to you. The results of the discussion will be included in the survey report without any names or addresses. Duration. The discussion will take about one hour for in-depth interviews and an hour and a half for FGDs. Please make yourself comfortable during the discussion. If you agree to participate, we will ask you questions and take your answers into account. Your answers will be recorded for further processing. Privacy. We will not share any information about you or any other information that you have given to anyone outside the research team. The information we receive as a result of this research project will not be disclosed. All information about you will be coded and will not include your last name. Only researchers will know the code assigned to you, all information will be kept under lock and key. It will not be shared with anyone except the organizer of the research. Risks. You may accidentally share some personal information or feel uncomfortable talking about certain topics. You should not answer any question on the questionnaire if you think it is too personal or if you feel uncomfortable talking about it. Cost-recovery. You will be paid a small fee for your time and participation. You will receive it regardless of the answers to the questions. Further information. If you need more information about the study, you can contact Margarita Dmitrieva by phone: +996 (312) 97 92 93, or by email: [email protected]

PART II. STATEMENT OF CONSENT (CONSENT FORM)

I, _______________________________________________, was invited to participate in the study. I have read the information above. I voluntarily consent to become a participant in this interview/focus group. Participant’s first and last name in block letters: ________________________________________________________________ Participant’s signature________________________________________________ Date __________________________________________

mailto:[email protected]


INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWER/MODERATOR

THE GOALS OF THE PROJECT TO BE EVALUATED:

The overall goal of the project is to make a tangible contribution to peacebuilding in targeted communities in Kyrgyz Republic by promoting full acceptance of the role of women and migrant girls in inclusive community development and peacebuilding by achieving the following key results: 1. Result 1: Community residents and leaders acknowledge and support the role of women and girls and their contributions to peacebuilding and

community/community development. This result will facilitate knowledge sharing in order to highlight local positive social practices to expand the rights and opportunities of migrant women. Also it will facilitate positive perceptions in target communities and broader networks of the role of migrant-affected women and girls in participating in community development and peacebuilding, and show how gender relations have changed over time.

2. Result 2. Women and girls in communities affected by migration are politically empowered, economically and socially able to protect their rights and participate in the peaceful development of society. This result will provide women and girls (affected by migration) with the knowledge and skills to effectively assert their basic rights and have improved access to economic opportunities to strengthen their financial skills through their development. Participation in self-help groups will create and strengthen new positive values in gender relations. It will increase the meaningful participation of women and girls affected by migration in community development and peacebuilding.

3. Result 3. National and local authorities will more effectively apply socially inclusive approaches to policy development and implement gender-sensitive peacebuilding at the local level in communities affected by migration. This result will seek to ensure that key national and local processes and mechanisms facilitate the participation of women and girls affected by migration in peacebuilding and community development. Particular attention will be paid to the development of a project for a gender-sensitive state migration policy that will be aligned with relevant national peacebuilding strategies.

To assess the feasibility of these results, to implement adjustments to the program and interventions, to track progress, and to understand the context and issues in depth, we ask the FGD respondent/participant to participate in the discussion.

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWER/MODERATOR: Make sure the conversation addresses all of the topics listed in each section. If it doesn’t, use the prompts for more information.

Guiding Questions: Guiding questions are not necessarily fact-finding questions; they are designed to find answers that will help you think differently about a problem, consider different options, make a topic more interesting, etc. The answers to guiding questions are usually not unambiguous. It’s even a good thing when someone can’t answer a guiding question quickly or answers quickly without thinking properly. A good guiding question challenges the person answering the question and then the person asking it (i.e., YOU).

Allow the respondent/participant to discuss related areas that he/she feels are relevant, but at the same time try not to deviate from the main topic so that you have time to cover all areas. There are three basic approaches to obtaining additional information from a respondent:

1. Ask for more information or an explanation of the answer. For example: ● Tell us more about ______ ● Could you give us an example of _____? ● Where/when/how did it happen?

2. Explore the reasons for giving a particular answer. For example: ● Why do you say that? ● What exactly in ____ prompted you to_____?

3. Seek clarity and identify inconsistencies. For example: ● Could you explain what you mean when you say....? ● Earlier you said ______ but I also think ______. Could you please explain?

Remember that this document is a GUIDE, not a questionnaire. This means that the focus should be on finding and studying the answers provided, rather than completing all the questions as quickly as possible. It is not necessary to follow the exact order of the questions. Research each topic as needed to get enough information. Make notes in the guide as reminders to come back to a question later or to continue working on a particular question. If the discussion deviates from the subject matter, look for opportunities to return to the subject. Steps to follow when conducting a DEEP INTERVIEW/FGD: 1. Introduce the purpose and objectives of the discussion, explaining that the purpose of the discussion is to understand the knowledge, attitudes, and practices

related to the role of women in peacebuilding and rural/community development. 2. Provide the respondent with a consent form. 3. Inform the participant that you will discuss her/his own experiences and attitudes toward gender equality and the roles of women and girls exposed

to migration from a personal/professional perspective. Note that participation in the survey is voluntary, and the participant can stop participating at any time if he/she is uncomfortable answering any questions.

4. Inform the participant that the conversation will be recorded, but that all statements and comments will remain anonymous and confidential, so that no one can understand to whom such statements belong or know the name.

5. Ask if the respondent has any questions and if clarification is needed at this point; if not, ask him or her to sign a consent form. 6. Ask whether the participant agrees to take part in the conversation and answer the interview questions; if the participant does not agree, politely thank

them for their time and say goodbye. 7. Ask the participant to sign the consent form. Collect the signed forms and thank the participant for their consent. Principles of information collection:

1. The use of a recording device to record information is highly recommended. Be aware of the culture and environment you are in. 2. Despite recording the discussion, notes should also be taken in the case of a device malfunction so that the information is available immediately after the

discussion to prepare a report on the interview. The recordings will be kept as backups of the interview. 3. After the interview, collect any suggestions/desires you have for inaccuracies in the guide and give them to your supervisor/manager. Any

recommendations are welcome! Note them on the guide during the interview/discussion.

143

ANNEX 2. DATASET WEIGHTING APPROACH

Taking into account the possible change in the structure of the sample during the fieldwork survey, when certain categories of respondents may not be found and interviewed (for instance aged 55+) in a small village (taking into account COVID-19 risks and concealing),the weighting procedure is crucial in terms of representing findings for the overall area of project interventions and impact assessment in the future. Thus, the sample will need to be weighted based on the data of the sampling frame of each stratum/cluster. Weight calculation. The weight will be calculated for each observation as the reciprocal of the probability of including the observation in the sample in a particular stratum (multiplying the weights to obtain a summary weight for the country / group of strata). The formula for calculating weight is as follows:

di =1/𝜋𝑖 Taking into account the different structure of the sampling frames, accurate data for calculating weights will be obtained during fieldwork. As part of the screening, data on the province and size of the entity will be clarified and fixed. Based on these data, the sampling frame will be adjusted. The proportions will be used to calculate the corrective weights. Weighting is crucial in terms of statistical extrapolating survey results to the total population (Province or target areas level), which will be used for project performance targeting and impact assessment by comparing and matching data with the previous surveys results.

Total pop. National Stat. committee 2019 Sample

Province District Ayil

Okmotu

Village Total

Men Women

Total

Men Women

15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54

55+ 15-24 25-54 55+

Batken Kadamjai

Ak-Turpak

Jani Jer 3 535 486 1 051 276 445 965 312 112 8 36 14 9 39 6

Min-Chinar 4 449 612 1 322 348 560 1 214 392 139 7 51 12 15 47 7

Total: 7 984 1 098 2 373 624 1 006 2 179 704 251 15 87 26 24 86 13

Orozbekov

Uchkun 1 263 174 375 99 159 345 111 144 6 49 20 10 46 13

Kunduk 942 130 280 74 119 257 83 108 6 27 21 8 38 8

Total: 2 205 303 655 172 278 602 194 252 12 76 41 18 84 21

Osh Nookat

Toolos Murkut 3 887 535 1 131 290 512 1 075 344 127 3 42 19 10 44 9

Merkit 3 746 516 1 090 279 493 1 036 331 122 14 35 13 18 36 6

Total: 7 633 1 051 2 222 569 1 005 2 111 675 249 17 77 32 28 80 15

Bel Bel 5 066 698 1 475 377 667 1 401 448 106 12 25 16 6 42 5

Borbash 7 028 968 2 046 523 925 1 944 622 143 17 45 11 12 52 6

Total:

12 094 1 666 3 520 901 1 592 3 345 1 070 249 29 70 27 18 94 11

Jalalabad Suzak Kizil Tuu

Tashtak 3 268 455 961 241 435 892 282 176 13 57 19 15 64 8

Tala-Bulak 1 389 194 409 102 185 379 120 73 5 27 5 4 30 2

Total: 4 657 649 1 370 344 620 1 272 403 249 18 84 24 19 94 10

Talas Kara-Buura

Kara-Buura

Kyzyl-Adyr 13 486 1 945 3 852 1 103 1 832 3 378 1 377 191 7 67 24 14 65 14

Chon Kara Bura

1 928 278 551 158 262 483 197 59 6 17 6 9 20 1

Total: 15 414 2 223 4 402 1 261 2 094 3 861 1 574 250 13 84 30 23 85 15

TOTAL: 49 987 6 990 14 543 3 870 6 594 13 370 4 620 1 500 104 478 180 130 523 85


Shares% Men Women

Men Women

15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54 55+

Ak-Turpak Jani Jer 13,8% 29,7% 7,8% 12,6% 27,3% 8,8% 7,1% 32,1% 12,5% 8,0% 34,8% 5,4%

Min-Chinar 13,8% 29,7% 7,8% 12,6% 27,3% 8,8% 5,0% 36,7% 8,6% 10,8% 33,8% 5,0%

Orozbekov Uchkun 13,8% 29,7% 7,8% 12,6% 27,3% 8,8% 4,2% 34,0% 13,9% 6,9% 31,9% 9,0%

Kunduk 13,8% 29,7% 7,8% 12,6% 27,3% 8,8% 5,6% 25,0% 19,4% 7,4% 35,2% 7,4%

Toolos Murkut 13,8% 29,1% 7,4% 13,2% 27,7% 8,8% 2,4% 33,1% 15,0% 7,9% 34,6% 7,1%

Merkit 13,8% 29,1% 7,4% 13,2% 27,7% 8,8% 11,5% 28,7% 10,7% 14,8% 29,5% 4,9%

Bel Bel 13,8% 29,1% 7,4% 13,2% 27,7% 8,8% 11,3% 23,6% 15,1% 5,7% 39,6% 4,7%

Borbash 13,8% 29,1% 7,4% 13,2% 27,7% 8,8% 11,9% 31,5% 7,7% 8,4% 36,4% 4,2%

Kizil Tuu Tashtak 13,9% 29,4% 7,4% 13,3% 27,3% 8,6% 7,4% 32,4% 10,8% 8,5% 36,4% 4,5%

Tala-Bulak 13,9% 29,4% 7,4% 13,3% 27,3% 8,6% 6,8% 37,0% 6,8% 5,5% 41,1% 2,7%

Kara-Buura Kyzyl-Adyr 14,4% 28,6% 8,2% 13,6% 25,0% 10,2% 3,7% 35,1% 12,6% 7,3% 34,0% 7,3%

Chon Kara Bura 14,4% 28,6% 8,2% 13,6% 25,0% 10,2% 10,2% 28,8% 10,2% 15,3% 33,9% 1,7%

14,4% 28,6% 8,2% 13,6% 25,0% 10,2% 5,2% 33,6% 12,0% 9,2% 34,0% 6,0%

14,0% 29,1% 7,7% 13,2% 26,7% 9,2% 6,9% 31,9% 12,0% 8,7% 34,9% 5,7%

Difference (Sample – GP))


Non-representation correction weights calculated:

AO / village Men Women

15-24 25-54 55+ 15-24 25-54 55+

Ak-Turpak

Jani Jer 1,9252601 0,9246457 0,6255630 1,5675696 0,7837328 1,6465141

Min-Chinar

2,7307261 0,8100363 0,9057630 1,1672795 0,8071079 1,7515214

Orozbekov Uchkun 3,3004459 0,8734263 0,5630067 1,8139020 0,8543175 0,9770524

Kunduk 2,4753344 1,1888302 0,4021476 1,7005331 0,7756303 1,1907826

Toolos Murkut 5,8300097 0,8801612 0,4978363 1,6716858 0,7984198 1,2485536

Merkit 1,2001032 1,0146110 0,6989610 0,8921508 0,9374272 1,7990968

Bel Bel 1,2164981 1,2341662 0,4934264 2,3254422 0,6981308 1,8757797

Borbash 1,1584410 0,9249778 0,9682328 1,5685766 0,7606992 2,1087775

Kizil Tuu Tashtak 1,8866362 0,9083552 0,6835036 1,5628377 0,7508543 1,9017097

Tala-Bulak 2,0345656 0,7953842 1,0772948 2,4308343 0,6643923 3,1551092

Kara-Buura

Kyzyl-Adyr 3,9351677 0,8141811 0,6508355 1,8533735 0,7359651 1,3927629

Chon Kara Bura

1,4181713 0,9912097 0,8041737 0,8905681 0,7388550 6,0231527


ANNEX 3. INDICATORS ASSESSMENT TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Outcome Indicator 1a - Proportion (%) of the population (men and women) in support of gender equality

and who stand against harmful gender norms towards women in migrant communities

Introduction to Outcome indicator 1a

The results framework for Outcome 1 of the “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for inclusive and peaceful

community development” project contains two outcome level indicators (Outcome Indicator 1a and Outcome Indicator 1 b)

and one output level indicator (Output Indicator 1.1) that were measured with a baseline assessment and will be described

in the current and upcoming chapters. Outcome 1 puts a light on the local positive social practice of empowering women

migrants and the positive perceptions within the target communities and wider networks on the role of women and girls

affected by migration in participating in community development and peacebuilding. It also shows how gender relations

change over the time.

Indicator 1a of Outcome 1 is aimed at measuring the proportion (%) of the population (men and women) supporting gender

equality and standing against harmful gender norms concerning women in migrant communities.

A brief description of the indicator assessment methodology - quantitative and qualitative

The baseline assessment for Indicator 1a includes both quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context) data.

To calculate Indicator 1a, the results of the quantitative questions A1, A6, B3 were used:

A1. To what extent do you agree with the following statements? (Addressing 15 stereotypes and harmful gender norms)

A6. How much do you agree with the following expressions? (10 expressions targeting respondents’ attitudes toward

gender equality)

B3. To what extent do you agree with the following…? (Examples of cases of women affected by migration involved in

the local development environment)

Each question has standard answer option(s) enabling to include the respondent to a “support group” of gender equality, or

not. For example, for sub-questions A1, the standard is marked as “Agree” for positive statements and “Disagree” for negative

ones. The overall decision on defining respondents as “supportive” of gender equality is made when a respondent provided

at least 10 standard answers out of 15 total statements on question A1. Question A6 requires respondents to provide correct

ALL standard answers, and question B3 requires having disagreed with all three harmful gender norms expressions

(suggestions)to be counted as “supportive”. In addition, each question (A1, A6 and B6) has a specific weight in the total

Indicator calculation. This means that the indicator is integral – it is based on answers to several perceptional/knowledge

level questions. This integral approach provides a more precise assessment for indicator(s) in terms of gender inequality

context variability. Weights were assigned based on M-Vector’s expertise, where questions more related to the indicator

were assigned a higher weight value, while those indirectly related were given a smaller weight value. Thus, the share of

respondents who gave at least 7 standard answers out of 15 in question A1 was weighted by 0.4. As for question A3 (5

standard answers out of 10) the weight 0.3 was used and question B3 (2 standard answers out of 3) was weighted by 0.3.

Accordingly, the sum of the weighted shares of respondents who stayed within standard answers reflects the total value for

Indicator 1a (1 or 100% maximum).

Results for Indicator 1a are confirmed with explanations and context taken from the qualitative research study, specifically

in-depth interviews with national and local government representatives, forum of women deputies members, NGOs, business

associations and focus group discussions with women who returned from labour migration in the past three years or who

plan to go on labour migration in 2021. Answers to the following questions from the qualitative tools were used to support

and explain the quantitative results:

1.1. What are the negative gender norms and stereotypes in the villages /our country regarding women and their role

in the family and in society?

1.2. What are the harmful gender norms/behavioral practices/stereotypes concerning women who have returned from

labour migration abroad?

1.3. What are the negative stereotypes and harmful perceptions of women and girls from vulnerable families who may

become labour migrants in the future, or who are from families with migrants?


As a result, Indicator 1a represents the proportion of the sample (%) for whom the total weight possible equals 1 and the

maximum possible value of the indicator is 100%. For the detailed indicator assessment methodology refer to Annex 2.

Outcome Indicator 1b - % of target community members (men and women) who believe that women

affected by migration play a positive role and contribute to peacebuilding and community development

Introduction to Outcome Indicator 1 b

Indicator 1b of Outcome 1 is aimed at measuring the proportion (%) of target community members (men and women) who

believe that women affected by migration play a positive role and contribute to peacebuilding and community development.


The baseline assessment for Indicator 1b includes both quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context) data.

To calculate Indicator 1b, the results of the quantitative questions B1, B2, B4 were used:

B1. What is the positive role of women in your village who have returned from migration or are planning to go on labour

migration?

B2. What negative impact can women have on your villagers when they return or plan to go on labour migration?

B4. Which of the following has happened in your village over the past 12 months and do you support it?

Questions B1, B2 and B4 have examples of cases of positive and negative roles of women affected by migration in

peacebuilding and community development. The overall decision on defining respondents as “confirming” the positive role

of women affected by migration is based on having indicated at least three positive cases of women affected by migration

in peacebuilding activities. Question B2 requires that respondent indicate the absence or uncertainty of negative impact of

women affected by migration, and question B4 requires having experienced and supporting at least two positive cases of

women affected by migration involved in community development to be included as “confirming”. In addition, each question

(B1, B3 and B4) has a specific weight in the total Indicator calculation. The share of respondents who stated at least 3 positive

roles in question B1 was weighted by 0.3. The same applies to question B2 (no negative influence or difficult to answer) using

a weight of 0.3, and question B4 (2 positive cases out of 3) was weighted by 0.4. Accordingly, the sum of weighted shares of

respondents who stayed within standards reflects the total value for Indicator 1b (sum of weights = 1 or 100% maximum

possible indicator value).

Results for Indicator 1b are supported with the explanations and context taken from the qualitative research study,

specifically in-depth interviews with national and local government representatives, forum of women deputies members,

NGOs, business associations and focus group discussions with women who returned from labour migration in the past three

years or who plan to go on labour migration in 2021. Answers to the following question from the qualitative tools were used

to support and explain the quantitative results:

1.4. Which of your experiences are positive and negative examples of how a woman affected by labour migration

participates in the settlement/community development?

As a result, Indicator 1b represents the proportion of the sample (%) with a total weight possible equal to 1 and the maximum

possible indicator value of 100%.

Output Indicator 1.1 - % of community members who report increased awareness on the role of women

and girls in community development and peacebuilding

Introduction to Output Indicator 1.1

The results framework for Output indicator 1 of the Outcome 1 of the “Empowering women and girls affected by migration

for inclusive and peaceful community development” project contains one output level indicator (Output Indicator 1.1) that

was measured with a baseline assessment and will be described in the current chapter.


Output 1.1. consists in the following: target communities have access to accurate information and knowledge on the role of

women and girls in peacebuilding. The first step in ensuring women’s inclusion and empowerment in the target communities

is to make sure that the potential and positive contributions of women as change agents are recognized by their communities.

To address the gap in gendered analysis and research linked to peacebuilding as highlighted in the context analysis, the

project started by conducting an assessment to identify existing strong knowledge and attitudes concerning women migrants

and their role in community development and peacebuilding. Through this output, public information campaigns and

outreach activities will be conducted to demonstrate the positive potential and past contributions of women and girls

migrants to community development and peacebuilding.

Indicator 1.1 of Output 1 is aimed at measuring the proportion (%) of community members who report increased awareness

on the role of women and girls in community development and peacebuilding.


The total population representative sample of communities was involved in this indicator quantitative assessment. The

baseline assessment for Indicator 1.1 includes both quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context) data. To

calculate Indicator 1.1 the results of the quantitative questions C1, C2, C3 were applied:

C1. Do you know of any situations where women or girls who have been in migration or are planning to go on labour

migration have been involved in resolving and preventing disputes and conflicts in your village?

C2. Have you shared these stories/examples with others in your family or your village?

С3. Do you know of any similar situations that have happened in your village in the past 12 months?

Questions C1 and C2 are dichotomous questions with answer options Yes/No regarding the participation of women and girls

in resolving and preventing disputes and conflicts in the community and sharing these stories/examples with others. Question

C3 has examples of cases of women and girls participating in community development and peacebuilding. The overall

decision on determining the respondents as people with increased awareness of the role of women and girls in community

development and peacebuilding is based on having provided positive answers to question C1 and C2. Question C3 requires

being aware of at least three cases of women and girls involved in community development to be counted as a person with

increased awareness. In addition, each question (C1, C2 and C3) has a specific weight in the total indicator calculation. This

means that the indicator is integral – based on answers to several practices level questions. This integral approach provides

a more precise assessment for indicator(s) in terms of gender inequality context variability. Weights were assigned based on

M-Vector’s expertise, where questions more related to the indicator were assigned a higher weight value, while those

indirectly related were given a smaller value. Thus, the share of respondents who gave positive answers in question C1 was

weighted by 0.4, the same applies to question C2 (positive answers) using a weight of 0.2 and for question C3 (aware of at

least 3 cases out of 7) with a weight of 0.4. Accordingly, the sum of the weighted shares of respondents who stayed within

standards reflects the total value for indicator 1.1 (100% maximum perfect scenario).

Results for Indicator 1.1 are supported with the explanations and context taken from the qualitative research study,

specifically In-depth interviews with national and local government representatives, forum of women deputies members,


years or who plan to go on labour migration in 2021. Answers to the following questions from the qualitative tools were

used to support and explain the quantitative results:

2. Tell us about your attitude towards labour migration of women and girls, in particular towards forced labour

migration? (sub-question 2.1 and 2.2)

3. How well do you think the rural population is aware / informed about the positive role of women in rural development,

their role in maintaining peace and resolving conflicts in Kyrgyz Republic? (sub-questions 3.1-3.4)

As a result, Indicator 1.1 represents the proportion of the sample (%) with a total weight possible equal to 1 and a maximum

possible indicator value of 100% with support of context analysis of key informants and stakeholders. For the detailed

indicator assessment methodology refer to Annex 2.


Outcome Indicator 2a - % of women from the target group participating in peacebuilding initiatives

Introduction to Outcome Indicator 2a

The next indicators are specifically targeted at Project beneficiaries, considering women affected by migration’s (those, who

returned and those planning to migrate or at risk of being forced to migrate) knowledge, attitudes and practices toward

community development and peacebuilding initiatives.

The results framework for Outcome 2 of the “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for inclusive and peaceful

community development” project contains three outcome level indicators (Outcome Indicator 2a, Outcome Indicator 2b and

Outcome Indicator 2c) and one output level indicator (Output Indicator 2.1) that were measured with a baseline assessment

and will be described in current and upcoming chapters. Outcome 2 ensures that women and girls affected by migration in

the target communities are equipped with knowledge and skills to effectively advocate for their basic rights and enjoy an

improved access to economic opportunities in order to strengthen their financial capabilities through the development of

specific skills. Being involved in self-help groups creates and reinforces new positive values in gender relations. This enhances

the meaningful participation of women and girls affected by migration in the community development and peacebuilding.


The baseline assessment for Indicator 2a includes both quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context) data.

To calculate Indicator 2a, the results of the quantitative questions D1, D2, D3 and D4 were used:

D1. Are you a regular/active member/participant of the following groups/associations/assemblies?

D2. Were you able to implement any assistance or initiative in your village while participating in this group?

D4. Have you implemented or participated in the following activities/projects in your village in the last year?

Questions D3 and D4 have answer option(s) standards that determine the respondent as “participating” in peacebuilding

initiatives, or not. The overall decision on determining a respondent as “participating” in peacebuilding initiatives is based on

being a member of at least one group out of 8 in question D1; question D2 requires the respondent to have implemented

some assistance while being member of the group. Question D4 requires implementing at least one peacebuilding

activity/project to be counted as “participating” in peacebuilding initiatives. In addition, each question (D1, D2 and D4) has

a specific weight in the total Indicator calculation. This means that the indicator is integral – it is based on answers to several

perceptional/knowledge level questions. This integral approach provides a more precise assessment for the indicator(s) in

terms of gender inequality context variability. The weights were assigned based on M-Vector’s expertise, where questions

more related to the indicator were assigned a higher weight value, while those indirectly related were given a smaller weight

value. Thus, the share of respondents who participate in at least 1 association out of 8 in question D1 was weighted by 0.25;

the proportion of participants who gave positive answer in question D2 was weighted by 0.25. As for question D4 (1 initiative

out of 4 peacebuilding ones, options1, 2, 9, 14) was weighted by 0.5. Accordingly, the sum of weighted shares of respondents

who stayed within the standards reflects the total value for Indicator 2a (1 or 100% maximum).

Results of Indicator 2a are supported with the explanations and context taken from the qualitative research study,

specifically In-depth interviews with national and local government representatives, forum of women deputies members,




5.1. Based on your experience, in general, what is the practice for the participation of women from the Talas, Osh, Batken

and Jalalabad regions in any projects or peacebuilding initiatives that contribute to strengthening peace and dialogue,

significantly improving life in their villages or helping residents in the communities?

5.2. What are the reasons for the absence of participation of women from the Talas, Osh, Batken and Jalalabad regions in

any projects or peacebuilding initiatives that contribute to strengthening peace and dialogue, significantly improving

life in their villages or helping residents in the communities?

As a result, Indicator 2a represents the proportion of the sample (%) with a total weight possible equal to 1 and a maximum

possible indicator value of 100%.


Output Indicator 2.1.4 - # of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected by migration.

Introduction to Output Indicator 2.1.4

The results framework for Output 2.1 of the Outcome 2 of the “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for

inclusive and peaceful community development” project contains two output level indicator (Output Indicator 2.1 and Output

Indicator 2.14) that were measured with a baseline assessment and will be described in the current and upcoming chapters.

Output 2.1. consists in the following: Women and girls in target communities are equipped with knowledge and skills to

effectively advocate for their rights. In order to empower and capacitate women and girls migrants, this output indicator

focuses on awareness raising and skills development for targeted groups of women and girls, by organizing self-help groups

for women and girls, conducting thematic trainings to build their capacities, implementing awareness campaigns on gender

equality and organizing joint peacebuilding initiatives in support of Local Action Plans (LAPs).

Indicator 2.1.4 of Output 2.1 is aimed at measuring the number (#) of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected

by migration.


The baseline assessment for Indicator 2.1.4 includes both quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context)

data. To calculate Indicator 2.1.4, the results of the quantitative questions D4, D5, D6 were used:

D4. Have you implemented or participated in the following activities/projects in your village in the last year?

D5. In the last 12 months, how many of the activities/projects in which you participated were implemented in your locality

and beyond?

D6. How useful were these events for their participants?

Question D5 was used to calculate the mean value of the number of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected

by migration in target areas.

Questions D4 and D6 were used to calculate the proportion of women affected by migration who participated in the

peacebuilding initiatives. The overall decision on determining a respondent as “participating” in peacebuilding initiatives is

based on participating in at least one initiative out of 14 in question D4; and question D6 requires for respondents to evaluate

the benefit from these activities as significant. In addition, each question (D4 and D6) has an equal weight of 0.5 in the total

Indicator calculation. This means that both questions are equally related to Indicator 2.1.4. Accordingly, the sum of the

weighted shares of respondents who stayed within standards reflects the total value for Indicator 2.1.4 (1 or 100% maximum).

Results for Indicator 2.1.4 are supported with the explanations and context taken from the qualitative research study,

specifically in-depth interviews with national and local government representatives, forum of women deputies members,




5.1.1. What initiatives / activities are women returning from labour migration involved in?

5.1.2. How many women return-migrant from your village participated in them and how long ago?

5.1.4. And if we talk about girls/women who are going no labour migration - are they more or less often involved in

similar projects / initiatives than other women?

As a result, Indicator 2.1.4 represents the proportion of the sample (%) with a total weight possible equal to 1 and a maximum

possible indicator value of 100%. For the detailed indicator assessment methodology refer to Annex 2.


Outcome Indicator 2b - % of women from the target group who refer to social services for protection

of their rights

Introduction to Outcome Indicator 2b

Outcome 2 - level indicators are directed at interventions for women and girls in communities affected by migration to be

empowered politically, economically and socially to protect their rights and participate in peaceful community development.

This Outcome ensures women and girls affected by migration in the target communities are equipped with knowledge and

skills to effectively advocate for their basic rights and have an improved access to economic opportunities in order to

strengthen their financial capabilities through the development of specific skills. Being involved in self-help groups creates

and reinforces new positive values in gender relations. This enhances the meaningful participation of women and girls

affected by migration in the community development and peacebuilding.


The quantitative assessment technique for Indicator 2b is developed around the following four objectives concerning

women affected by migration’s perception of self-dependence in applying for social assistance, their practice and awareness

of social environment assistance:

E1. In case of need, can you yourself get information about where to apply for some help to protect your rights?

E2. In the last 12 months, have you contacted social services, nongovernmental or government agencies for the following

help/support:

E5. Please specify where you applied for help to protect your rights and for social assistance/support?

E6. Have you personally seen, or heard from relatives or friends, a situation when women have successfully asserted their

rights within proceedings at the local or judicial level?

These questions are formulated in a way to triangulate key aspects of personal action: to know what to do, to have experience

doing so, and to know of similar cases. There are no so-called standard answers for these questions because each answer

option refers to knowledge and practices for protecting social rights. The indicator value (% proportion) counts those who

answered 3. Mostly, I can or 4. I always can to E1, those who gave at least 3 answers out of 14 options to E2, those who could

name at least one organization/informant they have turned to and those who answered that they know of cases of rights

protection by women in their community. Weights for the questions were assigned as following: E1 –0.3, as it’s an awareness

level question, E2 - 0.3 and E5 - 0.2 as they are practice oriented questions and E6 –0.2 for being informed of similar rights

protection cases in the local community. The sum of weights equals to 1 (which implies a 100% maximum indicator value).

From the qualitative point of view, the following information was collected to support the indicator assessment with

causal environment and key informants’ opinions:

In-depth interviews with State Agency on LSG and Interethnic relations, JIA business association (Bishkek) and Forum of

Women Parliamentarians members were asked if they were turned to for help or social support from women who have

returned from labour migration or girls who might be sent on labour migration, which top 5 questions were asked, and the

way they provided help, etc (Guide 1. Main question: Q7 (7.3).

In-depth interviews with Local Self-Government representatives and local NGOs, and focus groups discussions with: Social

workers, Deputies of the local assembly / local kenesh / councils, Women’s council representatives, Local leaders / activists

of communities / civic activists, Social pedagogues from schools, Representatives of aksakal courts, Representatives of the

youth committees, Migration fund representatives (if present in localities). Participants were asked about their awareness and

involvement in addressing some of the following quires (Guides 2, 3. Main questions: Q4 (4.1-4.4), Q5 (5.4), Q7 (7.4):

● Child support, social benefits and alimony. Who exactly did you contact? How often.

● Sending children in schools and kindergartens when women plan to leave for migration. Obtaining legal

documentation, a passport, registration and checking the possibility of leaving for labour migration

● Access to water, electricity, coal and gas

● Seeking Domestic Violence Protection / Law Enforcement

● They were questioned if women returned from labour migration turned to them for help or social support. What were

the 5 most common questions most often asked.


● They were also asked if they provided women any support to implement their projects / initiatives. If so, what kind of

support? Who else is involved in providing this support? What problems / obstacles were faced in providing this

support?

Focus group discussions with women and girls who have returned from labour migration or who plan to go on labour

migration included the similar questions (Guide 4. Main questions: Q4 (4.1-4.2), Q5 (5.4), Q7 (7.4)).

Output Indicator 2.1 - % of women and girls from target communities who are equipped with knowledge

and skills on how to advocate for their rights

Introduction to Output Indicator 2.1

Indicator explains Output 2.1. which aims women and girls in target communities to be equipped with knowledge and skills

to effectively advocate for their rights. In order to empower and capacitate women and girls migrants, this output will focus

on awareness raising and skill development for targeted groups of women and girls, by organizing self-help groups for

women and girls, conducting thematic trainings to strengthen their capacities, and awareness-raising campaigns on gender

equality and organize joint peacebuilding initiative in support of Local Action Plans (LAPs).

Thus, output 2.1. indicator correlates to output 2.1 target group and context (knowledge and skills) and will be further

developed accordingly.

A brief description of indicator assessment methodology - quantitative and qualitative

Output Indicator 2.1. quantitative assessment approach is developed around the following four objectives implying women

and girls from target communities acquiring knowledge and skills on advocating for their rights and do so if needed:

G1. How well you know about the following rights, rate from 1 to 5, where 1 means know nothing, 3 know excellent

G2. Do you know how to assert your rights, resolve the following disagreements/disputes

G3. Specify what ways and means you know to advocate for your rights?

G4. Where would you go/adress if your rights were violated?

G5. Have you participated in activities/events in your village in the last year that were aimed at…

These questions are also formulated in a way of awareness of rights, understanding the rights-asserting methods/means and

taking part in capacity building initiatives (equipping with knowledge and resources). There are following standard answers

for two questions: G1 – Option 3. I know very well, G2 – Option 3. I know very well what to do. For other questions standard

answer is not applicable since any positive answer is counted as standard (taken into count). Indicator value (% proportion)

counts those who answered Option 3. I know very well for at last three cases out of ten for G1, those who gave answer 3. I

know very well what to do to at least 4 out of 14 options to G2, those who could name at least one way/measure to protect

rights in G3, those named any body to address in case of rights violations on G4 and those, who took part in

trainings/activities aimed to - Creating opportunities for women entrepreneurs, creating jobs for women in the village/district;

Preventing the violation of rights and discrimination based on gender; Prevention of early marriage, forced marriage; Training

and knowledge sharing to protect and stand up for women’s rights; Protecting and restoring the rights of women migrant

workers who have been subjected to violence and violations of their rights. Equal weights for questions were assigned as

following: G1 = weight is 0.2, G2 = 0.2, G3 = 0.2, G4 = 0.2 and G5 =0.2. The sum of weights equals to 1 (which implies to

100% maximum indicator value).

From the qualitative pint of view, information on the following questions was collected to support indicator assessment

with opinions of ALL participant groups of FGDs and IDIs:

6. How well are women in your village / AO aware of their rights and know how to protect them on their own?

6.1. Give an overall rating if 1 is very poorly known, and 5 if women are well aware of their rights. How would you rate? Explain

why such an assessment? Now give a rating from 1 to 5 in terms of how they can / defend their rights? Explain why

such an assessment?

6.2. What knowledge / what is lacking to protect rights? What needs to be done and who needs to make women and girls

more aware of / asserting their rights?

6.3. How about women and girls in villages who have returned or may migrate - how aware are they of their rights and how

can they defend them? Give a rating from 1 to 5? What is important for them that they do not know? What needs to

be done and who needs to do so that women and girls know more/ advocate for their rights?


Outcome Indicator 2c - % of women from target groups with increased (who have) access to economic

and community development opportunities.

Introduction to Outcome Indicator 2 с

Outcome 2 of the “Empowering women and girls affected by migration for inclusive and peaceful community/development”

project results framework contains 2 outcome level indicators (Outcome Indicator 2a, Outcome Indicator 2b and Indicator

2c) and two output level indicator (Output Indicator 2.1 and Output Indicator 2.1.4) that were measured with a baseline

assessment and will be described in current and upcoming chapter.

This Outcome will ensure women and girls affected by migration in target communities are equipped with knowledge and

skills to effectively advocate for their basic rights and have an improved access to economic opportunities to strengthen their

financial capabilities through specific skills development scheme. Being involved in self-help groups will create and reinforce

new positive values in gender relations. This will enhance meaningful participation of women and girls affected by migration

in the community development and peacebuilding.

Indicator 2c of Outcome 2 is aimed at measuring the proportion % of women from target groups with increased access to

economic and community development opportunities.

A brief description of indicator assessment method - quantitative and qualitative

Baseline assessment of Indicator 2c includes both quantitative and qualitative information targeted. To calculate Indicator 2c

the results of the quantitative questions F1 and F2 were used:

F1. How far are you aware (know well) of the following economic opportunities?

F2. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 – very difficult to access, а 5 – very easy to access, how accessible the following

resources/services/solutions are in your village/ayil okmotu?

Each question has its standards for including the answer of the respondent in the indicator determination. For example, for

questions F1 the standard answer would be “I know everything what is necessary”, and for questions F2 - “Difficult, but

possible to access”, “Easily accessible”, and “Fully accessible”. Identifying the respondent as someone who has access to social

and economic development opportunities is based upon providing three or more standard answers for question F1. Question

F2 requires the respondent to give nine or more standard answers out of 18 possible.

Besides, each question (F1, F2) carries weight in the overall determination of the indicator. And that means the indicator is

inclusive, based on answers to several questions on a level of perceptions and experience of accessing economic resources

and opportunities. This integrated approach provides a better assessment of the indicator given the differences in access to

economic opportunities. Experts at M-Vector assigned weights by giving more importance to questions directly related to

the indicator, and less importance to indirectly related ones. However, the weight value of individual questions could not be

less than 0.2 and over 0.5. Since experts estimate questions F1 and F2 to have an equal impact on the assessment of the

indicator 2c, those questions have received matched values of 0.5 shares of the total weight. Accordingly, the sum of weighted

shares of respondents, who stayed within the standard, reflects the total indicator 2c value.

Results of Indicator 2с are supported with the reasons and context received from the qualitative research, specifically:

✔ In-depth interviews with national and local government representatives, forum of women deputies, NGOs, business

associations and

✔ Focus group discussions with women who returned from labour migration in the past three years or who plan to go on

labour migration in 2021.

Answers to the following questions from the qualitative tools were used to support and explain quantitative results:

5.2. Based on your experience, how accessible social and economic development opportunities in rural areas of Kyrgyz

Republic for women and girls returned or prospective migrant workers? What other opportunities are needed? What is

missing? What are the challenges?

5.3. Do you support women affected by migration in implementing their projects/initiatives? If so, what support do you offer?

Who else is engaged in supporting? What problems/obstacles do you face in providing this support?

As a result, Indicator 2c represents the proportion of the sample (%) with the total weight possible equals 1 and the indicator

maximum possible value of 100%.


Outcome Indicator 3b - # of target municipalities, who support women and girls affected by migration

through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding

Introduction to Outcome Indicator 3b

Outcome 3 should lead to national and local authorities applying socially inclusive approaches in policy making and

implementing gender-responsive peacebuilding at the local level in communities affected by migration. This Outcome will

ensure key national and local processes and mechanisms are conducive to participation of women and girls affected by

migration in peacebuilding and community development. Specific focus will be on drafting gender-responsive state

migration policy, which will be aligned to respective national strategies around peacebuilding and GEWE.

Outcome Indicator 3 b - number of target municipalities, who support women and girls affected by migration through

consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding.


Baseline assessment of Indicator 1a includes both quantitative (shares, numbers) and qualitative (reasons, context) data. To

calculate Indicator 1a the results of the quantitative questions H1, H2, H3 and G5 were used:

H1. Tell us who in your village supports and helps women and girls who have returned or who may go to labour migration

H2. Have you received support on the following issues from Aiyl Okmotu/Local Government

H3. Who did you address for support on the following issues?

G5. Have you participated in activities/events in your village in the last year that were aimed at

The weights were distributed as follows: H1 = 0.4, H2 = 0.2, H3 = 0.2, G5 = 0.2 (Total = 1).

For H1 only local decision makers and local activists were applied for indicator count: local authorities, heads of villages,

Social workers/psychologists, Internal affairs authorities/district police officer, Village heads / elders, Various NGOs,

associations, women’s councils, etc., Lawyers/consultants - private and public, Mass media/newspapers/information centers,

Medical workers (Family medicine centers).

H2 counts those who received support in at least two situations (only those count, who needed support, those who did not

need – excluded from the calculation of Indicator).

H3 declares specific bodies the respondent personally addressed on the number of issues (How to make a labour trip to

another country safe / safe migration, how to re-enter/re-integrate into village life after returning from a labour trip, how to

be civically active / engage in social activities / participate in decision-making at the village level, creating opportunities and

jobs, employment and others.). Only those who addressed LSGs were considered - Local government bodies,

nongovernmental organizations/ projects/ internationals, Individuals/ acquaintances, health care providers/ psychologists/

counsellors.

The G5 question was also used in Output Indicator 2.1 assessment, however only the following answer options were taken

into consideration for Outcome Indicator 3 b assessment purposes: Building a dialogue between local authorities, women’s

council, local population, etc., Informing about safe migration and protection of labour rights, Preventing radicalization /

participation in illegal groups / actions of violent nature, Prevention/resolution of border conflicts, establishment of

peace/resolution of relations between people of different nationalities, Creation of women’s self-help groups. These options

are more relevant to the indicator context (safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding).

For the qualitative part of the assessment the following groups and questions were assigned/revealed:

Guide 1 (the State agency for local self-government and inter-ethnic relations, JIA business association, Forum of women

deputies). Main questions: Q7 (7.1 – 7.3)

● Have you/your organization or your partners conducted educational/awareness-raising activities, consultations or

training on safe migration, civic engagement and conflict resolution, to protect the rights of women and girls who

have returned from migration or may go to work? Who exactly provided this training? Where did it take place? On

what topics were the events held / what problems were solved? Who was involved as a trainer/mentor for training?

How did the process go? What was the practical benefit of the training/activities for the target audience? Give

examples?

Guide 2 (Executive heads or LSG representatives (Ayil okmotu Bashchilary, Local NGOs).


Guide 3 (Social workers, local gathering, kenesh/council deputies, women’s councils representatives, Local leaders/activists

within the community/civil activists and other local activists).

Guide 4 (Women, affected by migration)

Were asked the set of following questions with different orientations: Q3 (3.5), Q5 (5.4), Q7 (7.1 -7.4), Q8:

● Do you support women and girls affected by migration in implementing their projects/initiatives? If so, what support

do you offer? Who else is engaged in supporting? What problems/obstacles do you face in providing this support?

● Have you personally or your organization/network/forum conducted (or participated) any other meetings/activity to

support women and girls who plan to work abroad or have returned from it? If so, what were they? Regarding what

risks they protected? What gender-sensitive approach has been taken in assisting?

● Have you/your organization or your partners conducted educational or awareness-raising activities, consultations or

trainings on safe migration, civic engagement and conflict resolution to protect the rights of women and girls who

have returned from or may go to working abroad? Who exactly provided this training?

Results of the quantitative research analysis are presented in terms of municipalities (ayil okmotu) to be able to reconcile

results with the indicator’s estimated values based on quantitative assessment.

Outcome Indicator 3c - # of target municipalities who claim to be applying gender-responsive

peacebuilding principles in support of women’s participation in community development (LAPs)

Introduction to Outcome Indicator 3 c

Outcome Indicator 3c was also deployed to evaluate accessibility and delivery of Outcome 3, which tracking in applying

socially inclusive approaches in policy making and implementing gender-oriented peacebuilding initiatives at the local level

in community, affected by migration. Outcome indicator 3c is used to reveal those municipalities who correspond to this

outcome and the degree they implement socially and gender-inclusive approach in their policies and interventions.

Thus, the indicator stated as the formally the number of target municipalities who apply gender-responsive peacebuilding

principles in support of women’s participation in community development (LAPs). However baseline assessment not only

provides quantitative decision on whether municipality applies or not to this approach, but also why and how it applies.


Methodology used was referring to those key informants and local activists for having their opinions and proofs of outcome

3 delivery – National level partners, LSG and NGOs, as well as Local activists and target group of women. The following

questions were addressed to the following groups under indicator assessment approach - National level partners and local

activists, local activists and leaders and target women, Local level authorities and NGOs:

3.5. Has your organization implemented (or took part in) any events / activities aimed at supporting women and girls

who are planning to go to labour migration or have returned from it? If so, which ones? What risks did you

mitigate? What gender-sensitive approach has been taken in providing assistance? What difficulties did you

encounter in the implementation of these activities / programs / initiatives?

9.2. Do your documents / strategies / plans take into account the principles of gender-sensitive peacebuilding (conflict

resolution) with the participation of women in human settlement development? What documents take these

principles into account and how many are there? How exactly do these strategies / plans take into account the

interests and opportunities of women? How are women involved in community development in practice?

Output Indicator 3.2.1 - # of Local Action Plans were claimed to be developed on gender-sensitive

peacebuilding

Introduction to Output Indicator 3.2.1

Indicator uses to target Output 3.2., which is - Local authorities in pilot communities affected by migration and prone to

conflict are able to develop and implement Local Action Plans (LAPs) on gender-responsive peacebuilding in line with NAP

1325.

The baseline for this Output was determined as revealing the number of LAPs developed on gender-sensitive peacebuilding.



Methodology was built around the quantitative interviews and group discussion questions addressed to the following groups

-local activists, local activists, target women, Local level authorities and NGOs:

9.1. Do you know anything about documents / strategies / plans for your community-level development? Who is

responsible for which document / plan? What activities / initiatives are usually applied to these documents / plans?

What are the goals of these plans and docs?

9.2. Do these plans reflect the interests of women who have returned from labour migration to your locality? How are

their interests affected / reflected? If not reflected, then why?

9.3. Do the plans include the interests and support of women and girls exposed to forced migration or members of

migrant families? How are their interests affected / reflected? If not reflected, then why?

9.4. What do you think is the role of local authorities (Ayil okmotu) in the implementation of these plans, applying the

principles of gender equality? How gender peacebuilding principles are applied? What, in your opinion, are these

principles? How well are local governments implementing these principles? What are the problems / barriers?

9.7. What advice would you give for developing local development plans tailored to your interests? Are these

recommendations being used by local self-government bodies now? Why not?

Table 1. Progress indicators mixed method assessment approach

# Indicator

type/# Indicator

Data collection method / target group

Geography and target group Which instrument/

tool Calculation process

1 Outcome Indicator 1a

Proportion (%) of the population (men and women) supporting gender equality and standing against harmful gender norms towards women in migrant communities

Quantitative survey, simple random selection, representatives on sex, age group and population distribution parameter

Local communities’ members – population 15+. 12 settlements, 6 municipalities, 6 districts and 4 Regions (province). Local population in the target localities, aged 15+, men (and boys) and women (and girls)

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 A1, А6, B3

Total X =∑wmXm

Where: m=1…n n – number of survey questions re this indicator x – share of respondents answered certain options w – context weight X will be disaggregated by province and gender

Qualitative in-depth interviews with national stakeholders and partners (Guide #1)

National level partners and informants. Bishkek. Involving the following groups:

✔ State Agency on LSG and Interethnic relations,

✔ Forum of Women Parliamentarians

✔ JIA business association

In-depth interview Guide 1. Main questions: Q1, Q2

The qualitative information will be used to support the Total X cause effect factors. A more precise context weight will be delivered based on the in-depth interviews outcomes/replies. Qualitative in-depth

interviews with local stakeholders (Guide #2)

Local level authorities and NGOs. Talas Province, Osh Province, Batken Province, Jalalabad Province. Interviewing the following groups: LSG and Local NGOs


Qualitative Focus Group Discussions (Guide #3 and #4)

Local activists and leaders and target women. Talas Province (kara-Buura District), Osh Province (Nookat District), Batken Province (Kadamjai District), Jalalabad province (Suzak District). Involving discussion with the following groups: 1. Social workers 2. Deputies of the local assembly

/ local kenesh / councils 3. Women’s council

representatives

FGD guide 3. Main questions: Q1, Q2

The qualitative information will be used to support the Total X cause effect factors. A more precise context weight will be delivered based on the focus group discussions outcomes.


4. Local leaders / activists of communities / civic activists

5. Social pedagogues from schools

6. Representatives of aksakal courts

7. Representatives of the youth committee

8. Migration fund representatives (if present in localities)

9. Potential migrant women and girls and returned migrant women and girls (mixed focus groups)

2 Outcome Indicator 1 b




Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13 S1-S9, M1, M1_1, M1_2, M2_2 B1, B2, B4

Total X =∑wmXm



National level partners and informants. As in previous indicator.


The qualitative information will be used to support the Total X cause effect factors. A more precise context weight will be delivered based on the in-depth interviews outcomes/replies.


Local level authorities and NGOs. As in previous indicator.



Local activists and leaders and target women. As in previous indicator.







Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 C1, C2, C3

Total X =∑wmXm



National level partners and informants. As in previous indicator.

In-depth interview Guide 1. Main questi-ons: Q2, Q3

The qualitative information will be used to support the Total X cause effect factors. A more precise context weight will be delivered based on the in-depth interviews outcomes/replies.


Local level authorities and NGOs. As in previous indicator.

In-depth interview Guide 2. Main questi-ons: Q2, Q3


Qualitative Focus Group Discussion (Guide #3 and #4)

Local activists and leaders and target women. As in previous indicator.



9 Outcome Indicator 2 a


Quantitative survey, simple random selection, representatives on age group and population distribution parameter


Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 D1, D2, D3, D4

Total X =∑wmXm





The qualitative information will be collected to support the monitoring reports, database on #/% of women included in the list of peacebuilding initiatives, updated and baseline survey outcomes justification in targeted communities from different key informants point of view.


Local peacebuilding initiatives makers and target women. As in previous indicators.



% of women from the target group who turn to social services for the protection of their rights



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 E1, E2, E5, Е6

Total X =∑wmXm




In-depth interview Guide 2. Main questions: Q4, Q5, Q7

The qualitative information will be collected to support baseline survey outcomes on the access and delivery of social services in targeted communities from different key informants’ point of view. Data triangulation.


Local activists and leaders and target women. As in previous indicators.

FGD guide 3. Main questions: Q4, Q5, Q7

11 Outcome Indicator 2 c

% of women from target groups with increased (who have) access to economic and community development opportunities



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 F1, F2

Total X =∑wmXm


Qualitative in-depth interviews with national stakeholders and partners

National level partners and informants. As in previous indicators.

In-depth interview Guide 1. Main questions:

Qualitative information on the access to economic and community development


(Guide #1) Q5 opportunities at the national/regional level.




The qualitative information will be collected to support baseline survey outcomes on the access to economic and community development opportunities in targeted communities from different key informants’ points of view. Data triangulation.


local activists and leaders and target women. As in previous indicators.

FGD guide 3. Main questions: Q5


% of women and girls from target communities who are equipped with knowledge and skills on how to advocate for their rights


Local communities’ members – women and girls 15+. 12 settlements, 6 municipalities, 6 districts and 4 Regions (province). Local population in the target localities of the program, aged 15+, men (and boys) and women (and girls)

Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 G1, G2, G3, G4, G5

Total X =∑wmXm


Qualitative in-depth interviews with national stakeholders and partners

(Guide #1)



Qualitative information on the experience of claiming rights and skills of women and girls at the national/regional level.




The qualitative information will be collected to support baseline survey outcomes on the skills gained by project beneficiaries and key informants in targeted communities. Data triangulation.

Qualitative Focus Group Discussion (Guide #3 and #4)




# of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected by migration



Survey questionnaire. Questions: Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 D4, D5, D6

Total X =∑wmXm





Gaining evidence of number and types of peacebuilding initiatives implemented by women affected by migration








# of target municipalities, who support

Quantitative survey, simple random selection,


Survey questionnaire. Questions:

Total X =∑wmXm

Where: m=1…n


women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding

representatives on age group and population distribution parameter

Q1-Q13, S1-S9, M1, M2, M3 H1, H2, H3, G5

n – number of survey questions re this indicator x – share of respondents answered certain options w – context weight X will be disaggregated by province and gender




Evidence-based qualitative information regarding the practices of supporting women and girls affected by migration through consultations on safe migration, civic activism and peacebuilding.




26 Outcome Indicator 3 c

# of target municipalities who claim to be applying gender-responsive peacebuilding principles in support of women’s participation in community development (LAPs)

Qualitative in-depth interview with national stakeholders and partners (Guide #1)



Evidence-based qualitative information regarding the number of target municipalities that apply gender-responsive peacebuilding principles in support of women’s participation in community development (LAPs).



In-depth interview Guide 2. Main questions: Q3, Q9 (9.2.)



FGD guide 3. Main questions: Q3, Q9 (9.2.)


# of Local Action Plans were claimed to be developed on gender-sensitive peacebuilding




Qualitative information on the LSGs development of LAPs on gender sensitive peacebuilding




empowering women and girls affected by migration for

Documents