MID TERM EVALUATION REPORT FOR THE WOMEN EMPOWERMENT IN ZANZIBAR (WEZA)

PROJECT

Joke Hoogerbrugge joke@cats-net.com Dar es Salaam, April 2010

2

List of abbreviations ASSP Agriculture Support Services Program CBOs Community-based Organizations CRPs Community Resource Persons IGAs Income Generating Activities CORPS Catalyst Organization for Women Progress in Zanzibar FAWE Forum for African Women Educationalists JOCDO Jozani Credit and Development Organization MACEMP PAC Marine and Coastal Environmental Management Program

Project Advisory Committee PADEP Participatory Agricultural Development program PESACA Pemba Saving and Credit Association TASAF Tanzania Social Action Fund SC Shehia coordinators SPM Selection Planning and Management of Business TAMWA Tanzania Media Women Association TGNP Tanzania Gender Network UWAMWIMA Umoja wa Wakulima wa Mboga Mboga Wilaya ya Magharibi VCEDS Value Chain and Enterprise Development Specialist VS&L Village Savings and loan WEDTF Women Development Trust Fund WEZA Women Empowerment in Zanzibar ZAGC. Zanzibar Gender Coalition ZAMEW Zanzibar Media Women Forum ZAT Zanzibar Association of Tourism ZAC Zanzibar Aids Commission ZAFELA Zanzibar Female Lawyers Association

3

Executive summary 5

1.0 Introduction 8

2.0 Background 8

2.1 Strategic context and concept of the intervention 9

2.2 Detailed description of activities and comparison with the log frame 9

3.0 Key questions used for primary data collection 17

3.1 Elements of the project cycle for evaluation 17

3.2 Type and depth of the review and composition of the sample 18

3.3 Whom are the recommendations addressing? 18

4.0 Evaluation criteria 19

4.1 Relevance 19

4.2 Compliance 24

4.3 Effectiveness 25

4.4 Efficiency 27

4.5 Impact 28

4.6 Sustainability 31

4.7 Participation and shared responsibility 33

5.0 SWOT Analysis 34

6.0 Conclusion 35

7.0 Lessons learnt 35

8.0 Recommendations 37

4

ANNEXES 40

Annex 1. Workplan 40

Annex 2: Summary achievements of the project ERs to Dec 09 in the log

frame for field work implementation 41

Annex 3: Questionnaire for Mid-term Evaluation 44

Annex 4: List of analysis tables 49

Annex 5: Number of respondents per shehia in Unguja and Pemba 66

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Women Empowerment in Zanzibar (WEZA) is a multi-facetted project operating in 60 Shehias distributed in four districts in the Islands of Unguja and Pemba (Central and South districts in Unguja; Micheweni and Wete districts in Pemba). Next to economic empowerment through village saving schemes, product development and business training, the project has a component of social change that addresses the social, cultural and political barriers to women’s empowerment. Grassroots women’s empowerment efforts are effectively supported by building the capacity and enhancing efforts of local and national institutions.

In order to assess progress made by the project against the targets, this mid-term evaluation was carried out between December 2009 and January 2010. It also aimed at addressing different key questions on aspects of the relevance of the project interventions, compliance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability, participation and shared responsibility. Besides reviewing project and other relevant documents for secondary data collection, primary data was collected through discussions with key stakeholders and by administering a questionnaire at the community level. The questionnaire was developed with input from WEZA staff and associates, before the actual data collection in the field.

So far, the project has made commendable achievements and has also experienced challenges and lessons that can be documented and used as a guide for further programming. A sample size of 697 (528 MHH; Male Headed Households), 112 FHH; Female Headed Households and 57 Men) corresponding to 76% MHH, 16% FHH and 8% Men respondents was used for both focus group and individual questionnaire. A total of 32 focus groups discussions, 16 in Unguja and 16 in Pemba were conducted. The individual questionnaire was set with an overall proportion of 42.47% for Unguja and 57. 53%. This was also based on the number of the VS&L groups in each island (120VS&L groups in Unguja and 180 groups in Pemba).

The evaluation results provide valuable experiences and lessons for implementers, stakeholders and for decision makers including donors, the recipient local institutions and the communities. It also highlights the trend of project implementation and recommends actions to be taken to improve performance which will ultimately lead to achievements of the project objectives and impact. Additionally, the evaluation fulfills the requirement of the project contract between donor and the implementing agency.

The mid-term evaluation shows that WEZA is well in progress in contributing towards its expected results and objectives and it is therefore worthwhile proceeding with the implementation of the current strategies and approaches to skills building of women groups in savings, income generation and social change processes. The project has been able to reach 7,242 women against the set target of 6,000 women by the end of year 2. These women have been able to save an equivalent of 133,276 Euros against the baseline status of 68,000 Euros. The capacitated women’s civil society organizations such as ZAFELA, ZAMEW, ODEO have improved their support to women’s empowerment by enhancing capacities on governance, advocacy, networking and analytical skills. WEZA has also contributed towards strengthening of the technical and organizational capacity of JOCDO and PESACA (Village Savings and Loan organizations) to enable them to support women’s economic and social empowerment efforts.

6

Lessons learnt:

Some of the lessons learnt from this study include:

• Acceptability of the project by the community and collaboration with the local authorities as well as adherence to government policies are among the most important factors for the project success.

• Close monitoring of VS&L groups ensure groups stability and compatibility with the project initiatives. • Use of CRPs and Shehia Coordinators have played significant role in promoting effective and sustainable project performance at the community level. • Technical support to JOCDO and PESACA credit organizations is crucial in

improving services to the target community. • Communities have basic knowledge on viable income generating activities related

to their situations though they lack marketing strategies and technicalities of initiating and running business projects.

• Multi institutional interventions are very effective in increasing awareness to the women in the rural areas.

• Media is a powerful tool in communicating the project issues and seeking to address pressing issues e.g. Issues around Gender Based Violence etc.

Conclusion

This assessment covers a period of the first two years of the project implementation. (January 2008 to December 2009). During these two years, the project concentrated on sensitizing the targeted community members, beneficiaries and other stakeholders to join the project implementation process which, according to this study, has turned out to be a very successful undertaking. Along with the sensitization processes, the project also focused on building capacities of the project staff particularly partners, associates and the community resource persons who took a leading role in building capacities of the targeted community members, CSOs/CBOs and networks who are expected to take over the implementation of the interventions when the project is phased out. With this effort the project has realized active participation of the community and the community resource persons that has lead to community’s increased income through the VSLs and income generating activities; increased awareness of their rights and capacity to make duty bearers accountable. It is hoped that if this positive trend continues it will certainly impact the lives of the targeted community especially women.

Recommendations

• Continued collaboration with different stakeholders at community level including the local governments and local leadership, Shehia Coordinators and CRPs as well as community groups using participatory processes will enhance acceptability of the project and ease project implementation.

• Continued monitoring and mentoring support to VS&L groups ensure groups stability and compatibility of the project initiatives.

• Increased awareness to community leaders and men on different gender issues and women empowerment is crucial to the project as it changes their negative attitudes towards women empowerment.

7

• Further identification of training needs for CRPs and Shehia Coordinators will assure continued strengthening of the capacity of the community.

• WEZA is to identify areas of technical support to enable JOCDO and PESACA to document their experiences in savings and credit systems including best practices and to explore ways for establishing community banking for the VS&L groups.

• Given that marketing and value chain development is a relatively new field for WEZA project, great emphasis need to be placed in regular and continuous monitoring and technical assistance with regards to product design, development and value addition to sustain production of quality produces as well as proper documentation of experiences.

• On dissemination of broad scale awareness on project interventions attention should be paid to rural communities.

• Special efforts should be taken to ensure that WEZA women use their loans for investments so that to improve their capital and net cash income.

• The project also can explore effective ways for engaging men (especially religious leaders, influential men, etc.) to promote women empowerment and gender equality. Concentrating fully on women alone can be counterproductive.

8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The WEZA project has a set of objectives and targets which should be achieved within the project timeframe. To assess the achievements, the contract agreement scheduled the mid-term and end-term evaluations. The project implementation has reached half way since it was launched in January 2008. Since then a variety of activities have been accomplished or initiated. The project is addressing new and rather complicated issues such as those related to social change. It is also a participatory process of learning and doing that involves a wide range of less experienced actors such as marginalized rural community members, local government institutions and local civil society organizations. At this stage where the project implementation is half way, it is important to have reasonably comprehensive assessment to determine the implementation status. Therefore the indicators set out in the log frame and measured during the baseline need to be assessed and compared against the expected results and objectives at this point in time.

This evaluation is intended to provide in depth understanding of the status of the issues and learning experiences and lessons from the previous stages of the project cycle. It also aims to promote communication among key stakeholders and inform the groundwork for decision-making at both management and political levels.

The primary purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to assess the extent to which the project has achieved its expected results and objectives and whether it is worth proceeding with the current implementation approaches and strategies.

2.0 BACKGROUND

CARE International in Tanzania together with her main partner TAMWA (Tanzania Media Women Association) and the three associates – Jozani Credit and Development Organization (JOCDO), Pemba Saving and Credit Association (PESACA) and Forum for African Women Educationalists (FAWE) are implementing Women Empowerment in Zanzibar (WEZA) project funded jointly by European Union, the Government of Austria, CARE Austria and CARE Tanzania at the ratio of 50%, 33.33%, 15% and 1.67% respectively. It is a four years project to be implemented between January 2008 and December 2011 with a budget of €1.5mill. WEZA is operating in 60 Shehias of which 30 are in two districts of Pemba North (Micheweni district and Wete district) and 30 are in two districts of Unguja South (Central district and South district).

For the first time CARE in Zanzibar is implementing a project with a component of social change that addresses the social, cultural and political barriers to women’s empowerment. The project is closely collaborating with a number of Civil Society Organizations such as Zanzibar Female Lawyers Association (ZAFELA), Zanzibar Association for Children’s Advancement (ZACA), Network of Vegetable Growers Western District (UWAMWIMA); the Coalition of twenty CSOs and local government at the levels of Shehia and District (60 Shehias and four districts). All these participate in and benefit from the implementation of the project directly or indirectly.

9

The overall project objective is to contribute to reduced poverty and improved social justice in Zanzibar (as per Millennium Development Goals 1 and 3); while the specific objective states that: Income increased and social, cultural, and political barriers to women’s empowerment progressively overcome for 6,000 rural poor women in four districts of northern Pemba and Southern Unguja.

The day-to-day implementation of the project is operated under the following four main Expected Results:

ER1: At least 300 women’s groups, mobilized and successfully implementing village savings and loan scheme.

ER2: 5,000 women undertaking action for social change towards women’s empowerment.

ER3: 2,500 women profiting from 4 new or improved market-driven products.

ER4: Grassroots women’s empowerment efforts effectively supported by 60 local and national institutions.

The key documents reviewed during this evaluation (see List of documents in the Annex) include:

• WEZA project document which contains project logical framework with indicators • Project work plans and progress reports • Project monitoring and evaluation plan; • Several study reports such as wealth ranking, social change analysis, market

analysis, etc • Log frame

2.1 Strategic context and concept of the intervention WEZA project is basically focusing on reducing poverty in the rural areas of Zanzibar through supporting the women in four districts to increase their income and overcome the existing social, cultural and political barriers to women’s empowerment. This is achieved through skills building of women groups in savings, income generation and social change processes, as well as building capacity of women’s civil society organizations to improve their support to women’s empowerment through improved analytical, governance, advocacy and networking capacity. WEZA also aims to strengthen the technical and organizational capacity of JOCDO and PESACA (Village Savings and Loan organizations) to enable them to support women’s economic and social empowerment efforts.

2.2 Detailed description of activities and comparison with the log frame In the following sections activities related to the four main expected results are elaborated.

Inception Phase Activities: During the three-month inception phase, WEZA finalized agreements with partners and associates, hired staff and established offices and procured equipment. Also during this time, CARE organized a two-day meeting of key stakeholders from civil society and government institutions potentially to be involved in the project on each island. TAMWA

10

Social Change Officers and JOCDO/PESACA Community Resource Persons facilitated extensive mobilization within Shehias through community meetings to spread awareness about the Village Savings and Loan methodology, income generation, and ‘action for social change’ and to promote civil society capacity strengthening activities. In each Shehia (Village), TAMWA Social Change Officers disseminated information about the project and conducted wealth ranking and discussions with Shehia Coordinators,1 local civil society organizations and women representatives to identify poorest groups to target specific beneficiaries.

Activities for Expected Result 1: At least 300 women’s groups, comprising 6,000 women, mobilized and successfully implementing village savings and loan scheme for investment in livelihood, income generating and social development activities

Activity 1.1: Provide technical support to JOCDO and PESACA to develop business plan and improve services to communities

A care taker committee consisting of 12 Community Resource Persons from Village Savings and Loan groups was formed in early 2003 in Unguja as CARE was phasing out its Jozani-Chwaka Bay Conservation Project. This resulted in the development of the Jozani Credit and Development Organization (JOCDO), registered as an NGO in October 2003 to continue supporting communities on Village Savings and Loan activities. Membership to JOCDO is group based, and is operated primarily by volunteer Community Resource Persons who have been identified by Village Savings and Loan groups as having strong capacity to provide technical assistance on an as-needed basis in implementation of the VS&L methodology. JOCDO has established a fee structure whereby communities pay for Village Savings and Loan technical assistance and training services. Since JCBCP ended and JOCDO began, JOCDO has received two loans from CARE, one for on-lending to the initial groups performing well and the second one for purchase of office equipment such as computer and printer, and other items such as cash boxes for sale to groups.

In Pemba, the Pemba Savings and Credit Association (PESACA) has emerged in a similar manner, from the initiative of Community Resource Persons initially recruited by groups benefiting from CARE’s Misali Island and Ngezi Forest Conservation Projects.

An evaluation of JOCDO found that its fee base, and financial viability, could be increased, with enhanced quality to JOCDO’s training services. The evaluation also highlighted the need for a business plan that clearly outlines and plans for all inputs and costs to ensure financial viability over the long-term. While PESACA has not been formally evaluated, many of the same issues needed to be addressed. Under WEZA, CARE’s Capacity Building Officer for Savings and Income provided technical support to JOCDO and PESACA to develop business plans, and enhance financial sustainability of their organizations. Additionally, CARE provided training for JOCDO and PESACA Community Resource Persons for Year 1 and Year 2. Both JOCDO and PESACA received technical assistance and training workshops on business plan development and organizational development in June 2009. In support of JOCDO and PESACA, field observations were conducted and re-training took place for 60 Community Resource Persons (30 Unguja; 30 Pemba) to improve their competences and to address common

1 Shehia Coordinators” are women in each Shehia who have been selected by MLYWCD to compile data and follow-up on women’s and children’s

issues, reporting to the Ministry of Labour ,Youth, Women and Children Development

11

problems observed in follow-up visits e.g. poor record keeping and misleading ways of loans issuing. In support of PESACA 17 new community resource persons were identified and trained to cover for the gap for the married who moved to other places and those who proved to be less interested or competent in providing services to the communities in Pemba.

Activity 1.2: Introduce Village Savings and Loan program and facilitate group formation for 6,000 women in 300 Village Savings and Loan groups

To identify interested community women for the Village Savings and Loan component of the project, the CARE Capacity Building Officer for Savings and Income, in collaboration with TAMWA, JOCDO and PESACA volunteer Community Resource Persons planned and carried out mobilization meetings in all Shehias. WEZA encouraged community members including existing women’s social and development groups (e.g. agricultural, beekeeping, seaweed or other groups) to join the project to learn Village Savings and Loan methodologies as well as extend the methodology to brand new groups, formed during project start-up/inception. For all new Village Savings and Loan groups identified (174 in Year 1 and 126 in Year 2), WEZA purchased and distributed 300 start-up kits which include accounting materials and lock-boxes to hold member savings. By June 2009 a total of 280 groups were formed for Unguja and Pemba with 6,922 members for all Village Savings and Loan groups with a total share values amounting to Tshs. 159,169,500 (Euros 90,249). By December 2009 WEZA had reached 60.2 % of its end target for savings. This means that a total of 7,242 VS&L members had accumulated savings of € 133,276 equal to Tshs. 222,126,500 (see Annex 4 Summary of the output Expected Results in the Log frame). The default rate is 0%, but delay in repayment does occur. Also 60% of the beneficiary women cite social benefits of participating in the scheme e.g. increased confidence, sense of social cohesion or empowerment (see Annex 2).

Activity 1.3: Train and support 6,000 women in 300 groups in Village Savings and Loan methodology and selection, planning, and management of income generating activities

After the initial introduction to the Village Savings and Loan program, JOCDO and PESACA Community Resource Persons (CRPs), conducted weekly visits to all groups and trained all group members in Village Savings and Loan methodology. During these trainings, groups with support from staff, set up their management committee, elaborated their internal regulations, defined objectives and began savings and credit activities. WEZA staff and volunteers (CRPs) during this period also assisted the groups to develop social insurance funds on themes of their choice (e.g. a fund to support members in terms of emergency). Following this process, the JOCDO and PESACA volunteer Community Resource Persons trained all groups on Selection, Planning and Management (SPM) of income generating activities to enable them to make informed decisions about taking loans and investing in productive activities.

Activity 1.4: Provide monthly support visits to 6,000 women in 300 groups on Village Savings and Loan methodology

Once new Village Savings and Loan groups have been trained, JOCDO and PESACA Community Resource Persons, with periodic support from CARE staff provided follow-up support visits to all groups on a monthly basis, especially during loan disbursements or

12

repayments. In January-June 2009 monitoring visits were conducted to 249 VS&L groups on Unguja and Pemba.

Activities for Expected Result 2: 250 matured / well established women’s Village Savings and Loan groups undertake actions for social change towards women’s empowerment

Activity 2.1 Facilitate social analysis processes for 5,000 women in 250 Village Savings and Loan groups

TAMWA Social Change Officers, managed by TAMWA´s Capacity Building Coordinator for Gender and Social Change, and working in close collaboration with Shehia Coordinators, facilitated social analysis processes in 250 groups (starting with 125 already mature Village Savings and Loan groups from previous CARE programs in the first year of the project). The intention was to support women to:

− define “women’s empowerment”; − identify social/cultural/political barriers to women’s empowerment; − question their attributed role in society; and − develop action plans to address these barriers and associated poverty issues

TAMWA led this process in collaboration with Shehia Coordinators and local, relevant civil society organizations’ representatives. They subsequently assisted women to identify barriers to women’s empowerment through discussions and analysis in all groups using the “Reflect” methodology adapted from ActionAid. TAMWA continues working with groups to orient them to social change methods, empowerment concepts, raise awareness about existing women’s civil society groups in Zanzibar (e.g. Forum for African Women Educationalists, the Zanzibar Gender Network, Zanzibar Media Women’s Forum, Zanzibar Association for Children’s Advancement, Zanzibar Female Lawyer’s Association, etc.) and their functions, and create action plans for addressing social cultural barriers and underlying causes of poverty.

Shehia Coordinators for Women and Children are women in each Shehia (Village) who have been selected by the Ministry of Labour, Youth, Women and Children Development to compile data and follow-up on women’s and children’s issues, reporting to MLYWCD. WEZA works closely with these coordinators and assistant coordinators to build their capacity and understanding of gender issues and thus support the existing decentralized structure in place for gender under the Ministry.

In the period January-June 2009, the social empowerment component paid more attention to addressing social cultural barriers facing women and information access to women legal rights, issues of illiteracy, gender knowledge, early marriages and rape cases. Networks and linkages were established aiming at providing a forum for collective efforts in changing the course of the situation. Press releases were regularly made and covered by many media outlets.

One issue which also needed to be addressed as it was slowing down the project in the first year was that there were less qualified Shehia coordinators serving in different Shehias or them being too busy. In addressing the challenge, the project staff selected assistant Shehia coordinators and trained them on their respective roles, WEZA project

13

objectives, expected results, gender concepts and fund raising skills and techniques. This enabled them to acquire the necessary skills for delivering services in their areas.

WEZA aimed to undertake 250 initiatives related to women’s empowerment (e.g. women’s literacy, land tenure issues, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, migration) by the end of year 3 (see Annex 2). As for July – December 2009, WEZA has undertaken 149 initiatives or 59.6% of its target.

Activity 2.2: Provide technical support to 5,000 women in 250 groups for action plan implementation

Under this activity, CARE identified existing training curricula and resources on issues identified by groups, through other CARE projects in Tanzania (i.e. Women and Girls’ Empowerment (WAGE) and LEADER projects both addressing girls education and empowerment in Kahama district), ActionAid, the Ministry of Labour, Youth, Women and Children Development, UNDP and UNFPA. Following the development of women’s action plans, TAMWA Social Change Officers managed by TAMWA´s Capacity Building Coordinator for Gender and Social Change conducted training for all groups in areas related to action plan implementation (e.g. advocacy, leadership skills, etc.). Additionally, where action plans involve income generation, TAMWA liaised closely with CARE’s Capacity Building Officer for Savings and Income (who facilitates development of new viable products under ER3) during this process, to link interested individuals or groups of women with technical assistance and training in undertaking economic activities as discussed under ER3. All training, and follow-up was carried out in close collaboration with Shehia Coordinators, and other local level civil society organizations staff/volunteers, to facilitate capacity strengthening as well as to continue supporting women’s ‘action for social change’ processes after the project ends. In addition to providing training, WEZA linked groups with relevant women’s civil society organizations (described in more detail under ER 4); as well as other organizations conducting related work (e.g. Zanzibar Association for Fishers’ and Farmers’ Development, Action Aid, etc.).

From January-June 2009, trainings were conducted in advocacy, leadership skills and other areas as per action plans. This included 49 adult classes, gender training to 60 VS&L groups and training in human rights and laws to 60 Shehia coordinators and 60 VS&L group members at grass root network on Pemba and Unguja.

Activity 2.3: Support 3,000 women in 150 Village Savings and Loan groups in project design, fundraising and implementation

During the design of this project, CARE and partner staff visited several government and non-governmental agencies to learn about funding opportunities for women’s groups at grassroots level in Zanzibar. Examples of programmes that have funds earmarked specifically for community and grassroots projects in Zanzibar in areas of economic and social development include: the World Bank funded Marine and Coastal Environment Management Programme (MACEMP)--$3.2 million, delivered through the Tanzanian Social Action Fund (TASAF) for community economic development; World Bank--$2.5 million for water, education, and health projects, and $21 million (available for all of Tanzania, including Zanzibar) for vulnerable groups; Zanzibar AIDS Commission ($1.5 million) for HIV/AIDS related projects; and UNDP’s Small Grants Program (€770,000 per year). Experience from all of these programs indicates that funds disbursement and/or effectiveness is hampered by inadequate managerial and technical capacity at village

14

level to develop sound proposals and implement programs effectively. Therefore, WEZA works with its beneficiary groups of women to raise awareness about the existence and mechanisms for application to these funds; design proposals; and implement the projects effectively. Efforts were made to link VS&L groups with the Zanzibar Aids Commission and with other relevant organizations. Assistant Shehia coordinators were trained on fundraising and project development. Also follow-up visits were paid by social change officers to discuss gender issues and girls rights.

As can be seen from Annex 3, 6 groups or 10% managed to get external support, whereas WEZA target is to get external support to 45 groups by the end of year 3.

It was also targeted to have 2000 women (80%) with increased confidence to speak to others by year 3. Annex 2 shows that during the mid-term evaluation 463 women in Pemba and 223 women in Unguja (i.e. 34.3%) gained confidence to speak in public.

Activity 2.4: Disseminate broad-scale awareness about gender issues across Zanzibar

The WEZA design recognizes that women’s empowerment can be greatly facilitated if women gain support from family and community members, who must see the change as beneficial for all, rather than as a threat. The concept of “women’s empowerment”, if not presented carefully, can be threatening to men, especially in Zanzibar where husbands and male relatives currently have significant authority over women. Therefore, CARE and TAMWA identified specific media and public relations interventions to disseminate information about the project and encourage a favorable attitude towards the women’s economic and social empowerment activities. Methods included press releases, newspaper articles, and sound-byte, radio advertisements and programmes (e.g. mini soap operas, interview programmes) for dissemination by radio and television. Advertisements occur with messages conveyed relevant to project interventions, new developments and programs occurring at the time. Through all messages disseminated, the project highlighted how women’s empowerment is in the best interest of all members of society, with special emphasis on benefits to husbands, brothers, fathers and sons of women involved. Media campaigns also highlight the roles of local institutions (e.g. school committees, health committees, civil society bodies, local government authorities in all sectors) in supporting women’s issues, to facilitate support for achievement of Expected Result 4.

All media related activities were facilitated by TAMWA, through its extensive network of journalists, reporters and television and radio stations. TAMWA conducted two-day training on gender issues for 30 journalists on each island in the first year, with a follow-up in year 3 of the project. This ensures that the media understands the issues they are reporting on, and the objectives of the project. In addition, TAMWA involved journalists in covering specific project events such as Village Savings and Loan, engagement of local women’s groups with national/island-wide civil society organizations (under ER4), economic activities, etc.

In the period January-June 2009, two press releases, 10 articles, 15 stories were distributed and 30 electronic programmes were aired in order to disseminate broad-scale awareness about gender issues across Zanzibar e.g. addressing early pregnancies.

Activities for Expected Result 3: At least 2,500 women producing and profiting from 4 new or improved market-driven products.

15

Activity 3.1: Facilitate sub-sector analysis on new potential products

CARE facilitated sub-sector analyses on new potential products. The process included scoping of opportunities leading to a shortlist of promising options, in depth market analysis for short-listed options, reviewing of local regulations, availability of raw material and technology, inputs supply, production capacity, processing and value addition, transportation, and analysis of business viability. As a part of this analysis, research on the potential interest of fair trade buyers in Zanzibar products was also explored.

The process of final selection of Income Generating Activities (IGAs) by individual VS&L group members was done for the purpose of establishing production groups by product categories after identifying the market driven products.

Activity 3.2: Train 2,500 women on developing and adding value to 4 new products

CARE facilitated training for 2,500 women on developing and adding value to the products identified by the sub-sector analyses. Vegetable and fruits, poultry, tailoring and handicrafts were selected as sub-sectors in participatory way and based on market research. While project beneficiaries engaged in Village Savings and Loan activities, they were also encouraged to get involved in production activities under ER3. Women who are engaged in Village Savings and Loan groups may have diverse interests in terms of which products they are interested in producing, and therefore it was not anticipated that the same groupings of women in the Village Savings and Loan program become production groups. The project facilitated the development of production groups based on demand. Producer groups have started receiving training in accordance to their needs and linked with the markets especially those embarking on vegetables. As training incentive nine producer groups were provided with vegetable seeds and farm yard manure to be used at their field schools during training for husbandry practices.

Between January-June 2009, training and technical assistance was provided to 492 VS&L group members on value addition and product development. Training took place on fruits and vegetable farming (270), poultry (195) and tailoring (27), but not yet on handicrafts. A total of 786 producers (54.7%) of the 1,438 trained are now fully engaged to the above listed IGAs by December, 09.

Activity 3.3: Facilitate development of effective and sustainable marketing strategies for products developed

The WEZA design recognizes that there is big potential, in economic terms, at the base of the economic pyramid where the majority of women’s informal small businesses, including agribusinesses operate. Due to their fragmented nature, these small businesses have so far not been recognized as potential in contributing to the mainstream economy. In addition to promoting new products, and improving the quality and marketability of existing products (including agricultural products), WEZA thus also supports the establishment of new business entities for aggregating products and marketing; and maintaining linkages between buyers, producers and input suppliers. CARE, and in some cases, the business entity itself fulfills such roles as disseminating information on agricultural and trade policies, assisting producers to access and circulate market information using varieties of Information, Education and Communication materials.

16

Recently, twelve producer groups have been linked with input suppliers, service providers and private enterprises such as tourist hotels in Zanzibar.

Activity 3.4: Assist 2,500 women in producer groups to manage sustainable access of necessary raw materials.

During training and promotion of new/improved products, product development training entities or consultants, work with women to identify necessary raw materials, sources for raw materials and how to gain access to them. In cases where raw materials are forest or other natural resources, women may need to negotiate with local authorities, village conservation committees, or even the Jozani National Park or Ngezi Forest Reserve authorities to allow and develop sustainable mechanisms for harvesting. In these instances, WEZA’s ‘action for social change’ activities identified under ERs 2 and networking and advocacy activities under ER4 helps women to gain the skills they need for organizing themselves and negotiating on such issues. TAMWA Social Change Officers assist women to make links with relevant civil society bodies where relevant.

Activities for Expected Result 4: 60 local and national institutions, including at least 20 civil society organizations offer improved technical, advocacy, and networking support to grassroots women’s economic and social empowerment efforts.

Activity 4.1: Conduct gender training for project partners and associates

CARE and TAMWA organized gender training for project staff, including partners and associates, conducted by Tanzania Gender Network (TGNP). CARE took the lead on coordinating the training, and TAMWA discussed the training content with the TGNP to ensure relevance to the Zanzibar context, and ensure Training of Trainer components are included. The training aimed at building awareness and capacity among key implementers in addressing gender issues, within the context of promoting women’s empowerment.

Coordination training was conducted for the Zanzibar Gender Network secretariat, which led to division of roles and responsibilities and agreements on organizing regular meetings to members and make contact with other relevant stakeholders.

Activity 4.2: Provide training and technical support to 20 civil society organizations and networks

TAMWA conducted a participatory capacity assessment of the nascent Zanzibar Gender Network, whose secretariat is the Forum for African Women Educationalists. Capacity assessments of the Zanzibar Gender Network and civil society organizations were used to develop capacity strengthening plans, and conduct training and follow-up technical assistance in key areas by CARE and TAMWA. TAMWA helped women’s groups connect with these agencies through providing transport funds for women’s representatives to attend civil society organizations’ meetings, advocacy campaigns, and other functions. Likewise, WEZA supported transport costs of civil society organizations to travel to the field to meet with women’s groups, while simultaneously advocating to civil society organizations to include such costs in their budgeting processes in the future in order to better link with and represent rural women. To augment support for the Zanzibar Gender Network, as well as relationships between rural women and national/island-wide civil society organizations, TAMWA also educates and informs journalists and editors

17

about these activities and the conceptual framework and rationale for them, in the context of women’s empowerment and strengthening civil society’s role, and representation of the poor and marginalized in Zanzibar.

Activity 4.3: Conduct capacity building to 40 local and national institutions

Capacity building of local institutions is directed by women’s issues identified during social analyses under ER2. For example, women identified girls’ dropping out of school as a barrier to women’s empowerment and economic development. Thus, the group decided that school committees needed to be strengthened with regard to understanding the rights of women and girls to education, responding to girls’ issues, and advocacy to school administration to make changes in favor of girls. Domestic violence issues also resulted in WEZA building capacity of local police or Shehia leaders to take such reports seriously and follow up on cases.

In March 2009 an in-depth assessment for 20 identified CSOs was done aiming at understanding the CSO’s capacity as a way towards addressing gender issues in the project area and Zanzibar community as a whole. One challenge is that CSOs often lack both financial resources and competent personnel.

In the period January-June 2009 a network for rural women has been established to work as a forum for exchange of information, experience and ideas. Here 100 women were selected from VS&L groups by the women themselves to form the network. They attended a meeting sharing WEZA project proposal, women barriers and information sharing mechanisms.

3.0 KEY QUESTIONS USED FOR PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION

3.1 Elements of the project cycle for evaluation The evaluation covered several key aspects at different stages of the project cycle emphasizing the following key questions:

At implementation level: assessment of the effectiveness of the implementation approaches and strategies including those outlined in the project document, how efficiently was the document followed; is the implementation consistent with the project activities/interventions as outlined in the project document? Is the implementation status/stage in line with the project time frame? Are the intended impact groups reached?

Monitoring of the project implementation: Does the project have a functioning monitoring and evaluation plan? How the assessment, collection, analysis and presentation of the important data and information are as per project monitoring plan? Project results: Providing assessment of the project outcomes and the impacts or expected outcomes and impacts with associated sustainability. Is the project achieving the required results? What is the trend of the results? How can the results be compared with the baseline status?

18

Main emphasis is placed on:

• Participation of impact groups and key stakeholders in project implementation, • Effectiveness and efficiency of the project on the project initiatives i.e. the existence of

the sustainability strategies and multiple effect of the project intervention to project untargeted areas.

3.2 Type and depth of the review and composition of the sample The evaluation was designed to hit a balance between office and field study, however more emphasis placed on field study to involve all impact and targeted groups and the key institutions involved. The study revealed the acceptance of the project interventions, participation of different actors and the status of implementation as per the pre-designed indicators and helped predict the future direction and absorption of the project interventions.

In order to implement the evaluation, WEZA project staff were involved in developing a questionnaire and trained on executing the questionnaire in the different project districts at Shehia level to get the opinion of the different target groups. A total of 697 questionnaires were administered in the islands of Unguja (296) and Pemba (401). The selection criteria of the respondents used for sampling was based on the period of formation of the groups namely the old groups formed between January and June 2008 (old 1), groups formed between June and December 2008 (old 2) and village saving and loans groups formed in 2009 as well as none members. The sample was characterised by 60% old VS&L, 20% new VS&L and 20% None VS&L of which 42.47% drawn from Pemba and 57.53% from Unguja. Another criteria used to differentiate the target groups was a division between male headed households (MHH), female headed households(FHH) or men being interviewed. MHH, FHH and Men set at 76%, 16% and 8% for both Pemba and Unguja (see Annex 6). Collection of data took place from the 9th to 14th December 2009 in Unguja and Pemba, covering a total 32 Shehia’s out of the 60 shehias under the WEZA project. The data collected was then worked out in Excel and thereafter transformed in table format. (A list of analysis tables 1 – 28 are in Annex 4)

The qualitative information from the focus group discussions was derived from 696 respondents (528MHH, 112FHH and 56Men) covering 32 focus groups of which 16 were from Unguja and 16 from Pemba from 7th to 8th December, 2009.

Multiple choice questions of three to four levels were used to measure the project performance in two years of the project implementation. The interviews involved dialoguing with the respondents to ensure clear understanding of the question by the respondents so that the interviewers tick the correct answer and keep the respondents interesting to the questions that follow in the questionnaire. Discussion was also necessary as some questions were found to be some how difficult to understand if asked directly without providing additional explanation.

3.3 Whom are the recommendations addressing? As the evaluation is mostly focusing on assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation approaches and strategies, recommendations are addressed to all key stakeholders with particular emphasis to project implementers. The recommendations also address parties that have been involved in project designing and monitoring as well as the impact groups who are expected to take actions on implementation of the interventions.

19

4.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

In order to achieve the evaluation objectives the study was concentrated on the seven criteria (relevance, compliance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, sustainability and participation) as described below:

4.1 Relevance: The relevance of the project interventions to local and national needs and priorities (i.e. comparison of results with immediate and longer-term objectives). Relevance assesses the rationale and context of the project at its inception, establishes any changes made in project context during implementation and whether the project was well conceived. Therefore it assesses the appropriateness of the project objectives to the problems that it was supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated.

Relevance of the Action to the Objectives and Priorities of the Programme: The WEZA project has high relevance to the Co-financing with European Development NGO’s Programme’s poverty reduction and capacity strengthening agenda. WEZA aims to reduce poverty in Zanzibar through assisting women to increase income and overcome social, cultural and political barriers to women’s empowerment. The project achieved this through direct training and facilitation in savings, income generation and social change processes with women in groups; as well as through strengthening the capacity of women’s civil society to improve support for women’s empowerment through improved analytical, governance, advocacy and networking capacity. Additionally, WEZA developed technical and organizational capacity of two village savings and loan organizations (JOCDO and PESACA) to support women’s economic and social empowerment efforts. WEZA builds upon and supports existing institutions and structures, such as building capacity of nascent women’s networks in Zanzibar, and strengthening the role and skills of Shehia Coordinators, responsible for follow-up on gender issues within the decentralized system. WEZA directly supports the first and third Millenium Development Goals (i.e. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; and Promote gender equality and empower women). WEZA aims to increase women’s income through skills building and development of new or improved economically viable products and sustainable marketing mechanisms; and unite women to address underlying causes of poverty, rooted in economic, social, and political barriers to women’s empowerment. The target group selection was geared to include 6,000 women aged 16 and above in Micheweni and Wete Districts of Pemba; and Central and South Districts of Unguja. In the selection attention was paid to include: - 1,800 (30%) female heads of households given that the latter are particularly

vulnerable to economic shocks and marginalization. - 3,000 women who are illiterate as well as 3,000 women who are literate to encourage

mutual support and learning. Hereby emphasis is to include poor women based on the wealth ranking in target Shehias, rural women and beneficiaries of previous CARE programs. Final beneficiaries include an estimated 120,000 community members in the 60 Shehias (Villages) where the project works, as well as thousands of additional citizens across both islands

20

through increased capacity of national level civil society organizations and institutions, awareness raising through media campaigns and multiplier effects. Key barriers to women’s empowerment and equitable participation in social, economic and political domains include insufficient business skills and technical know-how; socially ascribed gender roles and norms in Zanzibar; low awareness of laws protecting women’s rights and confidence; insufficiency of credit services and weak representation and governance. WEZA also seeks a vital role for civil society to play in building women’s capacity, demanding better responsiveness to women’s issues by local and national institutions; and overcoming barriers to women’s empowerment. First questions in the questionnaire were asked to get a clearer picture on the general characteristics of the target groups.

Age group: In Unguja 47 respondents are under 25; 222 are between 25 and 50; and 22 respondents are over 50. In Pemba 71 respondents are under 25; 289 are between 25 and 50 and 37 are over 50 years old. This confirms the observation in the baseline study that the majority of the women participating in the project are between 25-50 years old.

Level of education: In Unguja 237 know how to read and write, but 46 don’t know how to read and write and 4 respondents learned how to read and write through WEZA. In Pemba 266 know how to read and write, 151 don’t know how to read and write and 26 learned to read and write through WEZA. The outcomes reflect the education levels prevailing among women in rural Unguja and Pemba are in line with WEZA efforts to include illiterate and literate women in the project .This again agrees with baseline findings on the difference in illiteracy between Unguja and Pemba.

Shares in JOCDO or PESACA: In Unguja 15 respondents have one share in JOCDO, 281 respondents have more than one share in JOCDO. They often have three shares. In Pemba 112 respondents have one share in PESACA; 209 respondents have more than one share in PESACA. 75 respondents in Pemba did not have any shares in PESACA and were not a member of the organisation. Within the group of correspondents more respondents in Pemba have only one share or even none at all. This might indicate that women find more possibilities in Unguja than Pemba to pay for their shares, indicating the same reflection from the baseline on difficulties of getting VS&L shares in Pemba. Spending of the payout or loan: In Unguja 74 respondents mention they use it socially, 100 respondents use the payout for business ventures and 55 respondents use the payout for a combination of both. In Pemba 112 respondents use the payout socially, 209 respondents use it for their business. Women are encouraged to invest in commercial activities, but still a large percentage uses the payout in a non-productive way, i.e. have not started investing on four identified products by the project, and instead they buy items such as beds, mattresses, sewing machines etc. for their brides, and buy household basic needs to support their families as there is no other reliable source of income from other community members apart from the VS&L scheme that can serve those purposes. Borrowing even a small amount of money from community members outside the VS&L groups is a difficult task due to lack of source of income that compares with that of the VS&L scheme. These findings also indicate that the respondents see it as one of the

21

advantages of the project that it gives easy access to loans and that they can themselves decide how they spend the money from the payouts.

Some of the guiding questions to assess the relevance of projects interventions used during the interviews with the targets groups are:

• How important are the interventions for the impact and target groups and subgroups?

Showing in table 1 is that in Unguja 65% of the different target groups find the interventions very relevant, whereas 29% find the interventions reasonably relevant. In Pemba 68% of the interviewed target groups find the interventions very relevant, whereas 29% sees it as reasonably relevant. Only few respondents find the interventions of little or no relevance. The majority of the respondents found the interventions are important because they address their needs such as income stability, social welfare, production skills, policy awareness and capacity to hold duty bearers accountable. However, those few who said the interventions have little relevance is because their expectations such as matching loans, material support were not met and some of them were non-VS&L members who have no knowledge of the project interventions. • To what extent have the interventions addressed their needs and interests? In table 2, in Unguja 24% of the respondents find that WEZA addresses their needs and interests to a large extent. 55% of the respondents find that WEZA addresses their needs and interests reasonably extent and 13% find that it addresses their needs to a small extent. For Pemba about the same picture emerges. Totally, 28% find that WEZA addresses their needs to a large extent, 49% to a reasonable extent and 19% to small extent. The extent in which interventions address the beneficiaries needs and interest does not vary much according to the length of involvement of WEZA project (between old1, old2, new groups). This is an indication that the project keeps their beneficiaries interest and needs. The project seems to have enough flexibility, competency and linkages to do so. Needs are increased income, business skills, linkage with market for their products and financial institutions for credit facilities. On social aspects needs were found to be ownership of properties and decision making, understanding their rights and solutions for Gender Based Violence. The respondents liked to see that the institutions are held accountable on evolved issues in their areas. • How are the interventions complied with the Zanzibar development policy and

planning.

In Unguja 82% of the respondents found that WEZA project interventions comply with Zanzibar development policy and planning. In Pemba 90% of the respondents found that project interventions comply with development and policy planning. The project interventions like Zanzibar development policy (Mkuza) addresses the poverty reduction on issues of growth and reduction of income poverty (income inequality, employment, availability and access to food), Social services and well being (education, health, water and sanitation, gender and social protection) and Good governance and National unity. WEZA has been working in collaboration with local

22

government authorities and community based organizations to address underlying causes of poverty, rooted in economic, social, and political barriers to women’s empowerment including cross cutting issues like HIV/AIDS and gender related issues.

• How appropriate are the project objectives to the problems that they were supposed

to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it is operating. Table 3 shows that 39% (114) of the respondents in Unguja find the project objectives very appropriate, 51% (151) find them reasonable appropriate and 7% (20) of the respondents find them to a lesser extent appropriate. In Pemba 35% (141) of the respondents find the project objectives very appropriate, 52% (209) find the reasonably appropriate, while 18% find the objectives to a lesser extent appropriate to the problems that they were supposed to address. This indicates/suggests that the project objectives are well conceived by the target groups and found to be appropriate for the project targeted areas based on barriers that are worked on. Key barriers to women’s empowerment and equitable participation in social, economic and political domains include insufficient business skills and technical know-how; socially ascribed gender roles and norms in Zanzibar; low awareness of laws protecting women’s rights and confidence; insufficiency of credit services and weak representation and governance. To the physical and policy environment WEZA also seeks a vital role for civil society to play in building women’s capacity, demanding better responsiveness to women’s issues by local and national institutions; and overcoming barriers to women’s empowerment.

• Review the inter-relationship of the project team, community organizations and

networks and funding agencies in terms of complementarities and coherence in activities undertaken.

Table 4 indicates that In Unguja 13% (39) out of the 293 respondents find that this inter-relationship is very good; 52% find it good and 27% find the inter-relationship average. On the other hand in Pemba, 44% (141) find the inter-relationship very good, 52% (209) find it good and 9% (37) find it average. This illustrates that the collaboration among the project team CARE, TAMWA, JOCDO, PESACA and FAWE are working and aiming for similar objectives in planning and implementation, joint review of project progress and challenges. There is a good relationship with CSOs and networks especially in the areas of supporting community capacity building, advocacy and material support such as water pipes, vegetable seeds, exercise books for adult classes. CSOs and networks are anxious to support community initiatives but they have limited resources. However, to some extent the funding agents such as Banks, Microfinance institutions respond positively to community funding requests but due to high interest rate and collateral pledging discourage the community to accept funds from them. Other development partners like MACEMP and TASAF contributed some amount of fund for capacity building and strengthening financial stability. • Does the overall design reflect the situation on the ground, over which an overall

assessment could be conducted?

Referring to table 5, 40% (118) of the respondents in Unguja found that the overall design of WEZA project reflects the situation on the ground in a very good way, 50%

23

(147) respondents found it reflects the situation on average and 6% (25) of the respondents found that the project reflects the situation to a small extent.

For Pemba 60% (243) of the respondents that found the overall design of WEZA reflects the situation on the ground in a very good way; 29% (119) respondents found it reflect the situation on average and 3% (13) respondents found that the overall design reflects the situation to a small extent. This result indicates that the overall design of the project reflects the situation on the ground which was characterized by high illiteracy, low income generating activities, limited access to market and or lack of market information, lack of business skills, low capital for investment, lack of power for decision making at household, community and national level. Thus respondents appreciate that the project is addressing many of these problems.

• Are the project interventions relevant or appropriate to the needs of the women and

men beneficiaries?

Table 6 illustrates that In Unguja 88% (262) of the respondents find the project interventions relevant to the needs of women and men beneficiaries; 7% (21) respondents find the project interventions not relevant to the needs of the beneficiaries, whereas 5% (16) respondents don’t know the answer. In Pemba 95% (383) respondents find the project interventions relevant to the needs of women and men beneficiaries; 2 % (7) find them not relevant and 3% (12) don’t know the answer to the question. The community needs for both men and women are equally the same for the economic and social categories. These are: Economic - control over own income, productive assets and properties, access to market and access to microfinance services. Social - equal influence between men and women in household economic decision making, equal control over all household economic resources and equal rights to self determination in economic roles outside household, and elimination of gender discrimination and woman exclusion from the market. Therefore, the project interventions are appropriate to its beneficiaries as majority of the community are aware of their needs and rights, able to identify their problems at community and household level and advocating for the same. • Is the overall approach and strategy consistent with the problems and the intended

effects? According to table 7 in Unguja 25% (72) of the respondents finds the consistency of the overall approach and strategy very high, 48% (142) find the consistency high, 19% (55) find it medium, 5% (15) find it low and to 4% (11) of the respondents it is unknown. In Pemba 31% (123) of the respondents find the consistency very high, 50% (201) find it high, 14% (58) respondents find it medium and 2% (7) of the respondents find the consistency low. It is unknown to 3% (14) of the respondents. Some of the intended effects of the project include the following:-Increase women’s available cash savings, improve gender equity, Improve responsiveness of institutions to women’s issues, at least 300 women’s groups, mobilized and successfully implementing village savings and loan scheme, 5000 women undertaking action for social change towards women’s empowerment, 2500 women profiting from 4 new or improved market-driven products,

24

grassroots women’s empowerment efforts effectively supported by 60 local and national institutions. This implies that the participatory methodologies used in project implementation were understood by the community thus making easy acceptance of the project and reaching the target members within a very short time. • Is the project demand-driven?

According to table 8 attached, 84% (246) of the respondents in Unguja the project is demand driven. 10% (28) of the correspondents find the project not demand driven. 5% of the respondents don’t know the answer to the question. In Pemba 93% (372) of the respondents find the project demand driven. 4% (16) respondents don’t find the project demand driven and 3% (13) of the respondents don’t know the answer to this question. Overall the project is found to be demand driven by a vast majority of the respondents as the project is taking into consideration the needs of its beneficiaries. Experiences have shown that the primary needs of the targeted community as already explained above are reliable sources of income, respect and dignity and that is what the project is exploring. However, the rate of meeting the economic demand is fairly higher compared to social demand because social change is a process which normally needs longer time and requires a combination of approaches. The remaining period of the project may not be enough in reaching the intended and real social change in communities we work with, bearing in mind that WEZA is the first project in Zanzibar dealing with the social change following VS&L scheme approach and advocacy strategies that are in place. 4.2 Compliance: The compliance of the project with regard to principles of poverty reduction, promotion of good governance among the stakeholders, the respect for the cultural and natural environment. The questions asked here were:

• Are the interventions relevant to sector policy and country program? Table 9 shows that 21% (61) of the respondent in Unguja the compliance of the project to principles of poverty reduction is very good; 47% (138) of the respondents find the compliance good; 26% (78) find the compliance average and 4% (11) find it small. In Pemba 29% (117) of the respondents find the compliance of the project to principles of poverty reduction very good; 47% (188) find it good; 13% (52) find it average and 7% (27) find the compliance to a small extent relevant with principles of poverty reduction. From these results it is true that the project is in line with the principles of poverty reduction and promotion of good governance in terms of improving income poverty among the poorest community members in the project areas at the same time creating community cohesion through VS&L groups. In a way, the VS&L groups enhance women’s ability to make decisions on issues related to their development. WEZA is supporting the Zanzibar Strategy for Growth and Reduction of Poverty (ZSGRP) which combine several Zanzibar sector policies and that are also in line with Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and is well aligned with MKUKUTA and the Joint Assistance Strategy for Tanzania. ZSGRP like WEZA project focuses on the reduction of both, income and non-income poverty to ensure the attainment of sustainable growth.

25

• Have the objectives taken into account the cross-cutting issues relating to gender balance and equity?

According to 66% (194) respondents in Unguja the objectives of the project have taken cross-cutting issues relating to gender balance and equity into account; 22% of the respondent don’t find that gender balance and equity are taken into account; 12% (34) don’t know the answer to the question. In Pemba 82% of the respondents find that gender balance and gender equity have been taken into account; 13% (52) find that they have not been taken into account and 7% (29) of the respondents don’t know the answer to the question especially non-VS&L members (Table 10). The question relates closely with the social change component in WEZA project and its efforts for women empowerment touching both economically, social, cultural and political aspects. Some of the cross-cutting issues related to gender balance and equity include justice in the distribution of resources, benefits and responsibilities, prevention of gender based violence, discrimination, sexual exploitation and abuse and access to productive assets. Through this policy it is clear that the project implementation matches up with CARE gender policy which seeks to promote equal realization of dignity and human rights for girls, women, and men, and the elimination of poverty and injustice. Specifically, this policy is intended to improve the explicit incorporation of gender in programmatic and organizational practices. With the above findings it is no doubt that the project does consider gender cross-cutting issues as it addresses issues such as illiteracy, leadership, ownership of assets and resources, and human rights for the improvement of the gender balance and equity. However, this is the area the project should put more effort to ensure that more members of the community outside VS&L groups benefit from the outcome of the project. 4.3 Effectiveness: The effectiveness of the project in terms of its objectives and strategies. Effectiveness assesses how effective the organization has been in achieving project purpose/results. This is done by comparing expected achievements of objectives at inception and that stated in the log frames against actual achievements of objectives at time of evaluation. Thus factors and processes affecting achievements of objectives were investigated.

The possible key questions for examining the degree of effectiveness are:

• To what extent will the intervention’s objectives (probably) be met? Table 11 shows that 36% (107) of the respondents in Unguja agree that the intervention objectives have been met to a very good extent; 49% (146) agree that the intervention objectives have been met to a reasonable extent. 9% (26) of the respondents find that the intervention objectives are only met to a small extent. In Pemba 49% (199) of the respondents agree that the interventions objectives have been met to very good extent; 44% (178) of the 401 respondents agree that the intervention objectives have been met to a reasonable extent. The results indicate that there is a good hope that the intervention objectives will be met given that the VS&L scheme is well accepted and operating in all targeted areas through which group members engage themselves in income generating activities and in promoting their social welfares. Despite the fact that community has limited sources of income especially in Pemba, individual savings are steadily increasing. However, there is a problem of low investment on profitable income generating activities.

26

The majority of VS&L members keep their savings in the box without taking loan for investment. On the social aspects there are ongoing discussion forums with established advocacy strategy for the emerging issues at Shehia and district levels where community based organizations have started to support community initiatives especially in the area of advocacy though result have not been very much encouraging. The project team should take serious measures to resolve issues of low investment and organizational support to community initiatives. • To what extent does the intervention reach the impact/target groups? In Unguja 28% (84) from the respondents finds that the interventions reach the target group to a large extent; 53% (157) find that the interventions reach the target group to a reasonable extent; 13% (40) find that the interventions reach the target group to a small extent. In Pemba 39% (158) of the respondents find that the interventions reaches the target group to a large extent; 48% (194) of the respondents find that the interventions reaches the target groups to a reasonable extent; 10 % (39) of the respondents find that the interventions reach the target group to a small extent (Table 12). Based on the above findings it is genuine to say that the interventions have been well received by both target and impact groups. The way to which the interventions reach the target group is closely linked with the set-up of the project which is working through Shehia coordinators and the Community Resource Persons. These are technically supported by CARE, TAMWA, JOCDO and PESACA staff which also shows that they work as a team at the community level. Also, the VS&L group leaders are trained with the expectation that they pass on the intervention information to other community members. However, there are some complaints that the formation of the VS&L groups is gender imbalanced due to limited inclusion of men in VS&L groups; meaning that the project was purposely designed to reach more women than men. During the remaining period of the project implementation, the project team should explore better ways of working with men so that to promote gender balance and equity. • How far has the project achieved its expected results? Table 13 shows that 9% (28) of the respondents find that the project has achieved its expected results to a very high extent; 45% (133) of the respondents find that project has achieved its expected results to a high extent; 52% (156) of the respondents find that the project has achieved its expected results to a medium extent. In Pemba 14% (57) of the respondents find that the projects has achieved its expected results to a very high extent; 43% (171) find it achieved its result to ai high extent; 33% (133) find that the project achieved its result to a medium extent. 6% (25) respondents find that the project achieved its results to a low extent. This can be a reflection of the progress made especially with VS&L schemes. The achievements includes over 100% of the 6000 expected women joined and successfully implementing the VS&L scheme and reached 60.2% (€133,276 equivalent to Tsh 222,126,500 ) of the expected saving of €221,538 by end of Year 2. Currently, 786 of 2500 women have started to profit from 4 improved products and have access to market. Of the 5000 women 2650 are undertaking actions for social change towards women’s empowerment in the area of eradicating illiteracy, gender violence, seeking equity to employment opportunities and decision making. Twelve out of 60 local and national institutions have started to support empowerment

27

processes to grass root women by providing trainings on gender and legal rights. As the project is half way it is expected that the existing gaps on the expected results could to a large extent be bridged in the course of the project implementation. • Are there alternative implementation strategies that would have been more effective

in achieving project outcomes?

In Unguja 38% (113) of the respondents think that there are alternative implementation strategies which would be more effective in reaching the project outcomes, whereas 52% (155) don’t think that there are alternative implementation strategies which would be more effective. In Pemba 36% (43) of the respondents think that there are alternative implementation strategies which would be more effective, whereas 51% (204) of the respondents don’t find more effective alternative implementation strategies (Table 14). A slight majority of respondents seems to agree with implementation strategies followed by the project i.e. use of community resource persons for economic issues and Shehia coordinators for social change issues. These are responsible for training the community on business skills, linking community products to market, create understanding of women’s right, policies related to ownership of properties and assets and empower them to be able to participate in decision making at household and community level. For those who think of alternative strategies want more men involved in project implementation for the purpose of bringing quick social change in the VS&L groups, they prefer mixed groups rather than women only groups. The potential alternative implementation strategies suggested by many respondents is the inclusion of men in the project intervention as target groups so that they can influence intended changes to community rural women. Matching loan/ material support was again frequently mentioned but was seen not to be a sustainable package as it will not be available when the project is phased out. 4.4 Efficiency: This particularly reflects the utilization of the resources in relation to results during the project implementation. It assesses efficiency ratios of performance in terms of cost, quality, and timing using records kept by the project. The level of detail in record keeping is a major factor in the accuracy of efficiency ratios. It therefore assesses the cost, speed and management efficiency with which inputs and activities were converted into results, and the quality of the results achieved. The questions that were raised are: • Do the resources involved correspond with the results achieved? In Unguja 56% (165) of the respondents think that resources involved corresponds with the results achieved; 24% (71) do not think that the resources involved corresponds with the results achieved; 19% (55) do not know the answer to this question, especially under none members. In Pemba 69% (277) of the respondents think that resources involved corresponds with the results achieved; 11% (43) do not think that the resources involved corresponds with the results achieved; 20% (79) do not know the answer to this question, especially under none members (Table 15). It seems respondents have a quite positive impression on how inputs are converted into results, but it is also noted the questions concerning efficiency are more difficult to assess for the respondents. Secondary data from the office was used

28

to complement the results. Some community members had expectations that the project shall provide cash and material support to individual VS&L group members; that were not possible for the project and instead the project concentrated on providing knowledge and skills for increasing community capacities in managing their livelihoods and social affairs. • Are there alternative approaches, which would involve lower costs / fewer resources

but achieve the same or higher results?

Table 16 indicates that in Unguja 60% (173) respondents don’t think that there are alternative approaches which would involve lower costs and fewer resources to achieve the same or higher results. In Pemba 56% (225) of the respondents don’t think that there are alternative approaches which would involve lower costs and fewer resources to achieve the same or higher results. The use of the VS&L groups as an entry point is the most effective and cost effective approach (low coast and achieve higher results with higher impact). The use of the project Advisory committee is another effective approach for experience sharing, follow-up and assessment of the project progress. This therefore implies that the approaches chosen by WEZA are appropriate for the beneficiaries. 4.5 Impact The impact or consequences of the intervention in terms of the overall situation of the target group/persons affected. For this project the impact can be technical, economic, social and political that reflects to gender or other relevant social categories. It assesses impact of the project on target beneficiaries both desired, and unplanned. It assesses the effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider sectoral objectives summarized in the project’s Overall Objectives. Nevertheless, some of the important key questions that could reveal the project impact after two years of implementation are as follows: • What are the positive and negative consequences (intended and unforeseen

consequences) to date? According to table 17, in Unguja 58% (169) of the respondents indicated that the project has positive consequences for them; 16% (47) mention negative consequences; 15% (45) don’t know the answer to the question. In Pemba 82% (330) of the respondents mention positive consequences; 4% (18) mention negative consequences and 13% (51) don’t know the answer to the question. Examples given of positive consequences are: easy access to loans that reduce income inequalities and at the same time taking care for uncertainties, training on vegetable growing and poultry, togetherness and mutual support in the group, helps the women to support their children better in education without being dependent of their husbands, gaining knowledge and skills and building confidence for self reliance. Beside the positive gains there are some unforeseen negative consequences bound to rise: high family break up to women being independent, become multi-borrowers due to accessibility of loans causing fraud, and ignore their traditional norms. • Is the actual decision making at household level real making social change? Referring to table 18, 70% (204) of the respondents from Unguja find that the actual decision making at household level is real making social change. 25% (74) of the respondents find that actual decision making at household level is not making social

29

change. In Pemba 76% (305) of the respondents find that actual decision making at household level is real making social change. 17% (67) of the respondents find that actual decision making at household level is not making social change. Examples of kinds of decisions taking place at household level are on: children support (school fees and health), control of their money, reporting cases of gender based violence, attending adult classes, family planning, advocacy against early marriage and kind of viable income generating activities to engage in. The decision making at household level has slowly created social changes. Men are allowing their wives to go for adult classes and take loans to improve on the welfare of their families. Women participate now in community development programs without shying off, able to make decisions and fight for their rights. Regarding who is making what kind of decisions at HH level; both men and women are making decisions in different roles or at least men are considering women decisions. However, many women would prefer to make joint decisions. Some decisions in the household are still strongly decided by men including family planning – how many children should they have even if such decisions affect women’s health. Women make strong decisions on their earnings/income, joining adult education and acquiring knowledge about their rights. Usually participatory or joint decisions are more effective than individual decision. For example in reporting cases of gender based violence. If men support the cases, it will boost the women’s morale and moreover enhance credibility, compared to cases reported by women only which tend to be easily neglected by assuming a lack of evidence. Nevertheless, decisions that contribute and rescue household situation at times of financial crisis and indignity are taken as equally important by both men and women and thus are decided jointly. To realize more effective decision making by women, more trainings are required to bring up the issues and reasoning for changes. Above all, it also needs to be considered that social change is a process and hard to reach within a short time span of only two years. • How is gender-mixed and women-only groups’ impact on perceived social change in

those groups and communities? Which form of group is more effective in terms of social change?

Table 19 illustrates that, in Unguja 17% (50) of the respondents assess that gender-mixed and women-only groups have a very high impact on social change. 28% (83) of the respondents mention that gender-mixed and women only groups have a high impact. 32% (96) of the respondents mention that gender-mixed and women only groups have a medium impact. 12% (37) of the respondent think gender mixed and women only groups have a low impact. In Pemba 20% (82) of the respondents assess that gender-mixed and women-only groups have a very high impact on social change. 27% (108) of the respondents mention that gender-mixed and women only groups have a high impact. 24% (98) of the respondents mention that gender-mixed and women only groups have a medium impact. 8% (33) respondents find it has a low impact. Some mention the advantage of support of men in mixed groups, e.g. in groups’ IGAs that involve construction, while others find that women only groups help them to be open in discussions about different issues. When it comes to discussing women issues that will lead to actual decision making as those mentioned above (Table 18), women groups are more appropriate. The women-only groups have fairly social change because they can make decisions on various factors on their own and feel free for self expression

30

than in mixed groups. They are then able to do the advocacy work at the household and at community level. With regard to development issues for the community, mixed groups are preferred due to the fact that men still hold more power than women to negotiate and carry the matter forward. In this course involved women do learn from their men colleagues. • What are the effects the project is having at the household level? In Unguja 81% (237) of the respondents find that the project is having effects at household level; only 3% (8) of the respondents find there is no effect on household level, but 16% (46) respondents made known that they don’t know the answer to this question. In Pemba also 81% (327) of the respondents find that the project is having effects on household level; 3% (11) of the respondents find that the project is not having an effect on household level. Over 15% (61) of the respondents don’t know the answer to this question, especially in the category of none members (Table 20). These findings suggest that the project is helpful to the household level. Women contribute towards the education of their children and basic needs and enhance mutual support at household level and within the group. Some of the beneficiaries have used the loan from the VS&L for construction or rehabilitation of their houses and improving their business entities. There is a cost sharing at household level which could be one of the factors that reduce money that could be set aside by women for investment on business. Women need to change their behavior of spending the money from the savings and loan scheme in order to reduce women’s’ burden on household spending that is supposed to be done by men and slightly supported by women. For the Male Household, religiously, husbands are obliged to provide all the basic needs of the family all over the period when are physically fit, but some husbands neglect this responsibility indirectly forcing their wives to support their families to over expected limit causing them not to be in a position to invest on income generating activities. This again calls for the inclusion of men in project interventions to remind them of their position in the community in the process of supporting women empowerment efforts. • Are there other external influences having an effect on project outcomes? As shown in table 21, in Unguja 16% (48) of the respondents find that there are external influences having an effect on the project; 78% (230) of the respondents don’t find that there are external influences on the project.

In Pemba 25% (103) of the respondents find that there are external influences having an effect on the project; 63% (251) of the respondents don’t find that there are external influences on the project. In the project areas there are few external influences which have come through project facilitation e.g. UWAMWIMA that linked production groups to the market, ASSP and PADEP provided inputs for livestock production and Department of Adult education is paying teaching allowances to WEZA project Adult classes. Other influences came through community facilitation e.g. TASAF for advocacy on HIV/AIDS, WEDTF issued loans in different VS&L groups to support income generating activities, MACEMP provided financial support to VS&L groups and Action Aid through their own initiatives provided agricultural inputs and advocacy support to WEZA VS&L groups. Despite all that achievements the community seems to be less competent enough in areas of fund raising practices, lobbying and advocacy and WEZA project should put

31

more effort in raising the required competencies in these areas. Media on the other hand should continue to play an important role in influencing development partners to give more support to community initiatives. 4.6 Sustainability The idea here is to see the long-term effectiveness of the intervention and its consequences. That is the project interventions result last longer with continuous improvements in the lives of the poor and marginalized targeted population. It assesses sustainability issues relating to continued flow of improvements made by the project. This will be possible with candid input of the organization, beneficiaries and relevant professionals involved in the project/program. It assesses the likelihood of a continuation in the stream of benefits provided by the project, particularly continuation of the project’s activities and achievement of results, and with the particular reference to development factors of policy support, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, and institutional capacity. The following key questions may lead to understanding of the degree and nature of sustainability during the course of the project implementation and after the phasing out of the donor support: • To what extent do the interventions take an account of those factors which

experience has shown to be of key importance in sustainability?

In Unguja 24% (71) of the respondents find that factors of key importance in sustainability are taken into account to a high extent; 65% (193) of the respondents of the respondents find they have been taken into account to a medium extent, and 6% (18) thinks they have been taken into account in a low level. In Pemba 30% (119) of the respondents find that factors of key importance in sustainability are taken into account to a high extent; 58% (232) of the respondents of the respondents find they have been taken into account to a medium extent, and 8% (32) find they have been taken into account in a low level (Table 22). It therefore can be concluded that WEZA paid attention towards factors of sustainability in the project design and during the implementation of the project. Key factors for economic part include business skills, knowledge of market and capital. The community has a reasonable amount of business skills, market information and capital from their own savings, if well practiced with good monitoring by the project staff the community will have improved sustainable sources of income, the situation that will give rise to attainment of project goal and impact. Key factors in social aspects include advocacy, lobbying, networks, fundraising, discussion forums and sharing experiences through cross visits and all have been well initiated and operating. However, for the remaining project period more efforts are needed in areas of strengthening capacity of Shehia coordinators and Community Resource Persons in the areas of weakness such as fund raising, business skills and leadership to ensure sustainability of the project interventions.

• How sustainable are the local institutions receiving support? As can be seen from table 23 below 40% (119) of the respondents in Unguja find the local institutions receiving support are sustainable; 50% (146) of the respondents find it less sustainable and 4% (10) of the respondents find it not sustainable.

In Pemba 36% (143) of the respondents find that the local institutions receiving support are sustainable. 45% (181) of the respondents find these institutions less sustainable

32

and 9% (35) find them not sustainable. In Pemba 11% (43) of the respondents don’t know the answer to the question. The majority of the local institutions have well structured organizations and staffing but staff lack competencies in areas of project designing, fund raising and leadership with limited reliable funding sources. They mostly depend on external fund sources mainly from international organizations. To enhance their sustainability, the project should put more efforts to improve the missing competencies. The sustainability of these institutions will largely depend on their capacity to raise funds and ability to retain their competent staff. • Are actors/partners financially, socially, and institutionally sustainable?

Table 24 shows that in Unguja 65% (192) of the respondents think that WEZA partners are sustainable financially, socially and institutionally. 25% (72) of the respondents do not think WEZA partners are sustainable. 10% (30) of the respondents don’t know the answer to the question.

In Pemba 62% (250) of the respondents find WEZA partners financially, socially and institutional sustainable; 25% (99) of the respondent don’t find the partners sustainable, and 13% (52) especially non-members don’t know the answer on this question.

The main actors to WEZA project include JOCDO and PESACA which are credit institutions supporting the VS&L groups that have longer experience working independently with the communities and thus socially they are well accepted within and beyond the project areas. However, like other local institutions, JOCDO and PESACA have no reliable fund sources due to lack of fund raising skills. TAMWA as main actor and partner seems to be fairly sustainable because it is structurally well established with sufficient competent staffs who have gained more managerial skills in the course of implementing WEZA project. Other actors include ZAFELA, CORPS and ZAMEO which are institutionally and socially sustainable because they have well defined structures, offices and sufficient competent staff but are financially unsustainable. All the actors and partners should use this opportunity of working with CARE to improve their competencies in fund raising so that to make their institutions financially sustainable.

• Are interventions providing for local project/programme management and/or building the corresponding local capacities and institutions?

As shown in table 25 in Unguja 86% (253) of the respondents find that interventions are building local capacities and institutions, whereas 9% (27) of the respondents don’t find so. 4% (13) respondents do not know the answer to this question.

In Pemba 62% (248) find that interventions are building local capacities and institutions, 17% (69) do not find the partner sustainable. 20% (84) respondents don’t know the answer to the question. The project interventions reach the communities through already empowered community based contact persons i.e. community resource persons for economic interventions and Shehia coordinators for the social change interventions. Additionally, VS&L group leaders and members of the grass root network who are closely working with JOCDO and PESACA as umbrella organizations for the VS&L scheme together with other CSOs for gender and advocacy are playing an important role in the management of VS&L groups and exchange of information among different VS&L groups in each Shehia. With this strategic approach community and members of the local

33

institutions are always exposed to various trainings such as leadership, gender equity, financial management, life skills development and computer skills for the purpose of building their capacities for future sustainability of the interventions.

4.7 Participation and shared responsibility This is the degree to which the impact/target groups, beneficiaries, or affected persons are involved in decision-making processes, leadership and capacity building in general. The criterion can be further analyzed through the following key questions:

• Are the objectives and expected results promoting the participation of the targeted beneficiaries?

According to table 26 the objectives and expected results promote participation of the target group to a large extent, i.e. 86% (253) in Unguja and 92% (372) in Pemba respectively. Discussion with the stakeholders revealed that right from the start of the project local government leaders have been participating in community awareness campaigns and groups formation; while some CSOs and CBOs participate in awareness and trainings of the VS&L groups on saving and loan procedures and gender issues. Similarly service providers are participating in supplying production inputs such as seed, organic manure to project production groups; whereas consumers including hoteliers, are the customers and market sources for the women producers. Considering the number of the VS&L groups with more than 7000 members engaged in various enterprises and social change operations such as literacy classes and fund raising, is a clear indication that the project objectives and expected results promote participation in project implementation and management. Moreover, involvement of other institutions such as ZAFELA, CORPs and ZAMEO which support the VS&L groups in addressing issues of gender is another show that WEZA project clearly puts a high priority on participation and sharing responsibility • How far does the project design address the issue of project ownership; i.e. are

targeted beneficiaries having the feeling of ownership of the project? According to table 27 attached, 37% (109) of the respondents in Unguja have a high feeling of project ownership; 53% (155) have a medium feeling with regard to project ownership. In Pemba 54% (218) of the respondents have a high feeling of project ownership and 38% (152) respondents have a medium feeling about ownership of the project. The above results show that communities have shown a good impression of ownership in areas of participation in VS&L scheme (by setting their own by-laws which group dependent) where they manage their own savings, involved in project planning, reviewing and assessing the project achievements during stakeholders meetings. Decision making on approaches and strategies for addressing identified barriers in Shehias, participants to attend different events and in the use of their savings are done by the VS&L members themselves. The use of the VS&L scheme as an entry point seems to promote the sense of ownership among the beneficiaries. • What influences do the stakeholders and beneficiaries have on the project

implementation, monitoring and evaluation exercises? In table 28 in Unguja, 25% (73) find that stakeholders and beneficiaries have a high say in project implementation, monitoring and evaluation. 68% (200) of the respondents

34

indicate that they are involved in this at a medium level. 21% (62) of respondents find that their influence is low. In Pemba 33% have (131) finds that they are involved at a high level and 43% (171) find that they are involved to a medium level. 12% (48) finds that their involvement is low. Project Advisory Committee (PAC) and other stakeholders’ meetings which involve members from government institutions, CSOs/CBOs and grassroots networks have opportunities to participate in project discussions where they provide advises and share experiences with the project management team and communities through meetings and field visits organized by the project annually or semi annually. Therefore through meetings stakeholders and beneficiaries provide useful guidance especial on derived challenges or problems related to project implementation such as issues of involving men in the project implementation, choice of appropriate collaborators and advise on potential credit service providers etc.

5.0 SWOT Analysis

The SWOT analysis below gives an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges for WEZA project. This SWOT analysis was conducted in June 2009.

Inte

rnal

Strengths Weaknesses

� Capable staff � Facilities � Good relationships � Acceptability and access both

community and government � Openness � Stability � Issues touch communities

interest � High level of participation � Powerful organisations � Involvement of partners and

associates in the process

� Meeting expectations (loans/matching funds)

� Goal ‘social change’ is hard to reach

� Demand on material support � Different perspectives among staff

and priorities � Other projects with different

approaches (material)

Exte

rnal

Opportunities Challenges

� Cooperation with other NGOs � Complex systems � Low education level of target

group � Different policies within partner

organisations � Shortage of equipment/added

value

� Cooperation with other NGOs � Added value: strong consortium

and institutional arrangements � Diverse staff (academic

background) and mixed sexes � Strong external relations including

government and communities � Fits with MDGs and government

strategies and policies � Guiding systems and rules � Gender sensitive staff � Stability

35

6.0 Conclusion

The mid-term evaluation shows that WEZA is well underway in contributing towards its expected results and objectives. Most progress has been made in implementing strategies of skills building of women groups in savings, income generation and social change processes. WEZA has contributed substantially towards strengthening of the technical and organizational capacity of JOCDO and PESACA (Village Savings and Loan organizations) to enable them to support women’s economic and social empowerment efforts.

WEZA has supported grassroots women’s empowerment efforts by capacitating and enhancing efforts of national and local institutions that include women’s civil society organizations to improve their support to women’s empowerment. However, these organizations see themselves confronted with lack of transport, financial constraints and low capacity of their staff to implement programmes. The weaknesses in civil society raise the importance of strengthening individual civil society organizations with regard to organizational development and advocacy; as well as strengthening coordination of women’s civil society organizations for more effective advocacy and support to women’s empowerment.

Many media houses were attracted to WEZA project and this has put women issues into the positive public attention. The stories by different media houses have also attracted the attention of the international media. TAMWA through WEZA project is now used as a reference point for issues about women in Zanzibar by the media.

Referring to the identified evaluation criteria, it can be concluded that WEZA project has high relevance to poverty reduction and capacity strengthening agenda as it aims to reduce poverty in Zanzibar through assisting women to increase income and overcome their social, cultural and political barriers to women’s empowerment. The project to a large extent complies with the policies in regard to principles of poverty reduction, promotion of good governance among the stakeholders and respect for the cultural and natural environment. WEZA has been reasonably effective in achieving project purpose/results, though more results have been achieved in supporting VS&L scheme as opposed to development of marketing strategies and value chain development on identified products and capacity building of CSOs. This is partly because these activities were started later and require longer time to be implemented and results to be seen. Efficiency ratios of performance in terms of cost, quality, and timing using records kept by the project are reasonable. WEZA has put high emphasis on ensuring sustainability of the project and on the use of participatory approaches in the project design and implementation.

7.0 Lessons learnt

• Different factors played a role in enhancing the acceptability of the project by beneficiaries and communities. WEZA found that acceptability of the project to the community is the most important thing for the project development. Secondly, collaboration with the local governments and adherence to the government policies and regulations enhance the awareness processes and adoption of the project. Also careful introduction of the project and its objectives and participatory selection of Shehias as the project areas brought solidarity between the project and key

36

stakeholders. In order to enhance and sustain acceptability of the project it is also important to conduct gender sensitization meetings for some husbands, influential people and religious leaders. Involvement of men and husbands in project implementation especially at the inception phase was necessary to improve men’s understanding to avoid husbands restrain their wives from participating in WEZA as well as other social economic activities in the Shehias. Involvement of men is also necessary to promote social change in the community in terms of overcoming cultural barriers to women’s empowerment.

• Close monitoring of VS&L groups ensure groups stability and compatibility of the project initiatives. Close monitoring is necessary not only in co-existing the VS&L groups but also clearing misconceptions and distortions of facts.

• About 6000 women have joined the project and there are still much more particularly

in Pemba who are interested. During the evaluation, it was observed both in Unguja and Pemba that women-only groups are working better given that women are more committed for development issues than men and often women become less active when mixed up with men in the meetings. However, this area of women-only groups and mixed groups needs to be investigated further because each of these groups has its factors to depend on in order to operate effectively.

• For a sustainable contribution to poverty reduction to rural poor women, training as well as refresher training on SPM to CRPs and gender and advocacy to Shehia Coordinators are needed to ensure competency in execution of their work and sustainability of the VS&L groups.

• Technical support to these organizations is crucial to improve services to the target

community. It involved individuals and groups’ capacity building, in matters concerning developing business plans, fund raising skills, savings and loan Scheme, Selection and implementation of viable income generating activities (IGAs), monitoring and report writing. WEZA collected information for the preparation of the business plan guidelines that will be used for trainings in business plan and fundraising skills.

• Communities have basic knowledge on viable income generating activities related to

their situations though they lack marketing strategies and technicalities of initiating and running business projects. Therefore, WEZA focuses on development of new or improved economically viable products and sustainable marketing mechanisms especially Fruits and vegetables; Poultry rearing; Tailoring; and Handicraft (includes baskets, door mats, weaver and embroidery).

• Multi institutional interventions are very effective in increasing awareness to the

women in the rural areas. It is important for WEZA to work closely with other likeminded organizations in order to guarantee bigger impact to the project's initiatives.

• Media is a powerful tool in communicating the project issues and seeking for redress.

Media has significantly contributed in creating project awareness to the public and local and international institutions that resulted into more women joining the project.

37

8.0 Recommendations

• Continued collaboration with different stakeholders at community level including the

local governments and local leadership, Shehia Coordinators and Assistant Coordinators, CRPs as well as community groups using participatory processes will enhance acceptability of the project and ease project implementation. It helps to bring solidarity between the project and key stakeholders. The aspects of raising awareness in the community including involvement of men/husbands should not be overlooked as some men and husbands still restrict their wives in participating in VS&L groups and other project activities.

• Continue monitoring and mentoring support to VS&L groups as long as needed

instead of reducing it after 6 months to ensure groups stability and compatibility of the project initiatives. Monitoring of VSL group performance has proven to be effective in clearing misconceptions and distortions of facts, and improves communication between CRPs, Shehia coordinators and JOCDO and PESACA district coordinators.

• Though it has been proven that women groups can run on their own, raising

awareness among community leaders and men on different gender issues and women empowerment is crucial to the project as it ensures support to the different VS&L and/or production groups. It might slowly lead to changes within the community and even at household level. It is crucial in addressing e.g. some issues already identified such as school drop-out of girls and gender based violence.

• WEZA has to identify further training needs for CRPs, Shehia Coordinators and VSL

group leaders to ensure that they are well capacitated as they have a key role to play in supporting economic and social change activities in the community.

• WEZA is to identify areas of technical support to these organizations and further

capacitate JOCDO and PESACA e.g. strategic planning in order to further improve services to the target community. JOCDO and PESACA should also be supported to document their experiences in savings and credit systems including best practices and to explore ways to improve upon them by sharing with other organizations working in the same field. Therefore, attention could be paid to ways in which more advanced groups to evolve in more structured systems such as community banking.

• Given that marketing and value chain development is relatively new field for WEZA

project, great emphasis need to be placed in regular and continuous monitoring and technical assistance with regards to product design, development and value addition to sustain production of quality produces as well as proper documentation of experiences. It needs also development of sustainable marketing mechanisms, linkages, networking and collaboration with other pertinent stakeholders in the four product areas to ensure market linkages for producer groups and buyers. Island cross visits of producer groups could be used for continued learning and exposure for individual and group producers

• Multi institutional interventions are very effective in increasing awareness to the

women in the rural areas. WEZA could provide technical assistance in strategic planning, proposal writing and fundraising to other likeminded organizations to

38

enable them to support their own rural interventions. Thus, it is important to further capacitate the Zanzibar Gender Coalition, the Network for grassroots women and the Group 25 in their respective roles of women empowerment and in the social change agents. This also requires building their capacity needs in the fields of lobbying, advocacy and networking on different issues.

• WEZA project is to disseminate broad scale awareness on project interventions

through publications, TV and radio with special emphasis to rural areas. Multiple communication strategies are important in transforming negative attitudes of the community towards women empowerment. WEZA staff should prepare press releases and press conferences more often updating journalists on the women situation in the rural areas. Some aspect need special attention such as illiteracy among women, school drop-outs as well as gender based violence. Experiences in social change gained by WEZA, Zanzibar Gender Coalition, and the Network of grassroots women and Group 25 should be well documented and feed into the media, so raise the voice of rural women heard.

• There is a growing habit among the members of the VS&L groups of accumulating

savings in the cash box without taking loan. More than 85 % of the women take loan but more than 80% of those who take loans from the group savings do not use the loan for investment, instead they use the loan for other household or individual uses such wedding ceremonies, purchase of household furniture, rehabilitation of their houses or purchase or jewels. Special efforts should be taken to ensure that WEZA women use their loans for investments so that to improve their capital and net cash income.

39

List of documents for reference:

WEZA 1st Interim Report, Narrative report January-June 2008 WEZA Annual Narrative Report (second interim report), Jan – Dec 2008 WEZA Quarterly Report January – March 2008 WEZA Quarterly Report January – March 2009 WEZA Quarterly Report July – September 2008 WEZA 3rd semester report, Jan-June 2009 WEZA Quarterly Report July – September 2009 WEZA project, Advocacy strategy against social political barriers facing women,

October 2008. WEZA Social Analysis Report, November 2008 WEZA Baseline, Final report, October 2008, Kristien de Boodt WEZA Wealth Ranking Report, July 2008 WEZA Women issues per Shehias WEZA 2008 press releases WEZA newsletter, no1, December 2008 WEZA Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, October 2008 WEZA Market Survey Draft Report, December 2008 WEZA Grant Application Form WEZA Annual Narrative Report, May 2009

40

Annexes

Annex 1: Work plan Task No of Days Travel, Preparation, Introduction to WEZA Review of project documentation, literature review

1

Preparation of study plan and data collection tools and In-depth interview with project staff and key-stakeholders

2

Review of study plan and tools 1 Organise a workshop for training enumerators on data collection tools

2

Visits to project area - in-depth interviews - focus group discussions - data collection by enumerators

Preparation of the SWOT 1 Data analysis and Writing draft report 3 Sharing the draft report, presentation of main findings to key-stakeholders and feedback workshop

1

Incorporation of comments and writing final report

1

Submission of the final report 12 days

41

Annex 2: Summary achievements of the Project ERs to Dec 09 in the log frame for Field work Implementation

Intervention Logic

Monitoring Indicators

Baseline status

During Mid-term Evaluation (Dec 2009)

Status at the end of the project

ER1. At least 300 women’s groups mobilized and successfully implementing village savings and loan scheme

6,000 women saving at least €221,538 by end of Year 2

30.6% (Amount saved is € 68,000 equal to Tsh 119,929,595

(Existing VS&L groups)

60.2% of €221,538 (€ 133,276 equal to Tsh 222,126,500)

7242 VS&L members i.e. 120.7%. june,08-Dec,09

95.0 %

Amount of share per person and/ or group tends to go up from year 2 onwards.

Loan default rate less than 10% by end of Year 3

10.0%

Now default is 0%. However there is a delay in repaying the loan.

Less to 1%

70% of beneficiary women cite social benefits of participating in the scheme such as increased confidence, sense of social cohesion, or empowerment by end of Year 3.

50.0%

60% (Without the influence of social change)

70.0%

Increased financial strength due to group’s social cohesion and engagement in IGAs

% of women in MHH/FHH with increased savings

32.8% (MHH)

37.1% (FHH)

70.0% (MHH)

70.0% (FHH)

Full and active participation in VS&L scheme

ER2. 5,000 women undertaking action for social change towards women’s

At least 250 initiatives have been launched with tangible, planned actions already taken related to women’s

0.0%

59.6 %

(149 initiatives with ......women undertaking action – July,08 Dec, 09

80.0% (200 initiatives)

42

empowerment empowerment (e.g. women’s literacy, land tenure issues, domestic violence, HIV/AIDS, migration issues etc.) by end of Year 3.

% of women in MHH/FHH with increase confidence to speak to others

28.2% (MHH)

30.1% (FHH)

34.3 % (MHH)

80.0% (MHH)

80.0% (FHH)

High degree of capacity building as part of project interventions

% of women in MHH/FHH with increase confidence to report frequent domestic violence to authorities

22.9% (MHH)

22.4% (FHH)

27% (MHH)

26.6 (FHH)

70.0% (MHH)

70.0% (FHH)

Facilitating link with CSOs identifying and advocating to authority

At least 50 groups receiving external (MACEMP, UNDP, etc.) funds to support projects/initiatives by end of project

0.0%

10% (6 groups July – Dec, 09)

90.0% (45 groups)

43

ER3. 2,500 women profiting from four new or improved market driven products

80% of participating women state that the income they receive from new / improved products exceeds their income from pre-existing (seaweed, grass/straw handicrafts, honey, petty trade etc.) enterprises

0.0%

31.4 (786 women profiting from Fruits & vegetables, poultry, tailoring, handcraft) April – Dec,09

80% (2000 women)

% of women in MHH/FHH in Unguja and Pemba without commercial activity has decreased

17.1% (MHH)

17.5% (FHH)

12.6% (MHH)

17% (FHH)

5.0%

Fewer VS&L members will use the scheme solely as their bank

ER4. Grassroots women’s empowerment efforts effectively supported by 60 local and national institutions

20 women’s CSOs and networks operating at national or island-wide levels have active constituencies in project areas with mechanisms for participation of rural women in training, advocacy or other empowerment related work

0%

60 % (12 CSOs within the coalition in place from July, 08 – Dec,09)

100% (20 CSOs)

Possible number for active participation for the intended results

% of government institutions and Community Based Organizations supporting women’s empowerment efforts

0.0%

18% (11 Government institutions Jan, 08 – Dec, 09

70.0% (42 institutions)

Use of developed rigorous Advocacy strategy

44

Annex 3: Questionnaire for Mid-term Evaluation

Date

Place District

Type of VSL - New or Old VSL

Household situation – MHH or FHH

Relevance of project interventions

• How important are the interventions for the impact and target groups?

• To what extent have they addressed their needs and interests? • Are the interventions comply with the Zanzibar development policy and planning?

� Yes � No � If yes, how? � If no, why?

• How appropriate are the project objectives to the problems that were supposed to be

addressed, and to what extent have they been achieved?

• How is the inter-relationship between the project team, community organizations and networks and funding agencies in terms of complementarities and coherence in activities undertaken?

� Very good � Good � Average � bad

If bad, how can it be improved? • Does the overall WEZA project design reflect the real situation of the community, over

which an overall assessment could be made?

• Are the project interventions relevant or appropriate to the needs of the women and men beneficiaries? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

• Is the overall approach and strategy consistent with the problems and the intended

effects? - Very high - High - Medium

45

- Low

• Is the project demand-driven? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

Compliance

• To what extent are the interventions relevant to sector policy and country program? - Very high - High - Medium - Low

• Have the project objectives taken into account the cross-cutting issues relating to

gender balance and equity? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

Effectiveness

• To what extent will the intervention’s objectives be met? - Very high - High - Medium - Low

• To what extent does the intervention reach the impact/target groups? - Very high - High - Medium - Low

• How far has the project achieved its expected results? - Very high - High - Medium - Low

• Are there alternative implementation strategies that would have been more effective

in achieving project outcomes? - Yes - No

46

- If yes, how? - If no, why?

Efficiency

• Do the resources involved correspond with the results achieved? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

• Are there alternative approaches, which would involve lower costs / fewer resources

but achieve the same or higher results? - Yes - No - If yes, mention

Impact

• What are the positive and negative consequences (intended and unforeseen consequences) to date? Positive Negative, mention

• Is the actual decision making at household level real making social change? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

• How is gender-mixed and women-only groups impact on perceived social change in

those groups and communities? Gender-mixed - Very high - High - Medium - Low

Women only groups - Very high - High - Medium - Low

Why is it more effective?

47

• What are the effects the project is having at the household level? List

• Are there other external influences having an effect on project outcomes? - Yes - No - If yes, which

Sustainability

• To what extent do the interventions take an account of those factors which experience has shown to be of key importance in sustainability? - High - Medium - Low

• How sustainable is the local institutions receiving support? - Sustainable - Less sustainable - None sustainable

• Are actors/partners/associates (JOCDO/PASACA) financially, socially, and institutionally sustainable? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

• Are the interventions providing for local project/programme management and/or

building the corresponding local capacities and institutions? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

Participation and shared responsibility • Are the objectives and expected results promoting the participation of the targeted

beneficiaries? - Yes - No - If yes, how? - If no, why?

• How far does the project design address the issue of project ownership; i.e. are targeted beneficiaries have the feeling of ownership of the project? - High - Medium

48

- Low Explain

• What were the levels of participation by the beneficiaries and the key stakeholders?

How effective was their participation at different levels? - High - Medium - Low

• What influences do the stakeholders and beneficiaries have on project implementation, monitoring, and evaluation processes - High - Medium - Low - No influence

49

Annex 4: List of analysis tables

Table 1: Importance of the interventions to impact and target groups

Unguja Question 1

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very 59 68%

45 64%

13 72%

35 64%

13 76%

16 50%

11 69%

Reasonably 25 29%

23 33%

4 22%

17 31%

4 24%

12 38%

5 31%

Small 1 1%

2 3%

1 6 %

2 4%

3 9%

Not 1 1%

1 1%

Unknown 1 2%

N =295 86 70 18 55 17 32 16 Pemba Q 1

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very 86 75%

14 88%

12 75%

54 68%

12 75%

41 64%

10 63%

27 56%

8 50%

11 73%

Reasonably 27 23%

1 6%

4 25% 25

31%

3 19%

22 34%

5 31%

17 35%

7 47%

4 27%

Small 1 1%

1 6%

1 1%

1 6%

1 2%

1 6%

3 6%

1 6%

Not 1 1%

1 2%

Unknown N- 402 115 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 2: Extent to which the interventions have addressed their needs and interests.

Unguja Q 2

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very 24 28%

15 22%

3 16%

16 35%

6 33%

7 22%

2 13%

Reasonably 47 55%

41 59%

12 63%

26 57%

9 50%

19 60%

10 63%

Small 13 15%

10 14%

3 16%

4 9%

3 17%

4 13%

1 6%

Not 2 2%

1 1%

1 3%

1 6%

Unknown 4 4

50

6% 9% N =296 86 69 19 46 18 32 16 Pemba Q 2

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very 36 31%

4 25%

5 31%

24 30%

5 31%

13 20%

7 44%

14 29%

1 6%

4 27%

Reasonably 59 51%

7 44%

8 50% 42

53%

10 63%

35 55%

5 31%

22 46%

3 19%

6 40%

Small 19 17%

4 25%

3 19%

14 17%

1 6%

12 19%

4 25%

9 19%

5 31%

5 33%

Not 1 1%

1 6%

4 6%

2 4%

7 44%

Unknown 1 2%

N- 402 115 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 3: Appropriateness of the project objectives Unguja Q 3

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very 47 55%

19 27%

8 44%

19 35%

6 35%

10 31%

5 33%

Reasonably 32 38%

44 62%

10 56%

32 58%

10 59%

16 50%

7 47%

Small 5 6%

7 10%

2 4%

1 6%

2 6 %

3 20%

Not 1 3%

Unknown N =293 85 70 18 55 17 32 15 Pemba Q3

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very 44 39%

4 25%

6 38%

31 39%

6 38%

26 41%

8 50%

9 19%

1 6%

6 40%

Reasonably 58 51%

11 69%

8 50% 41

51%

9 56%

33 52%

8 50%

26 54%

10 66%

5 33%

Small 8 7%

1 6%

2 12%

8 10%

1 6%

5 8%

8 17%

2 13%

2 13%

Not

2 4%

Unknown 2 13%

2 13%

N- 401 113 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 15 15

51

Table 4: Relevance of inter-relationship of project team, CBOs, networks and funding agents

Unguja Q4

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very good

15 18%

4 6%

2 11%

9 16%

3 18%

4 13%

2 13%

Good 35 42%

43 61%

12 67%

31 55%

10 59%

15 47%

7 47%

Average 28 34%

21 30%

3 17%

15 27%

4 24%

4 13%

3 20%

Bad 4 5%

1 5%

Unknown 3 4%

1 2%

9 28%

3 20%

N =293 83 71 18 56 17 32 15 Pemba Q4

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very good 44 39%

4 25%

6 38%

31 39%

6 38%

26 41%

8 50%

9 19%

1 6%

6

40% Good 58

51% 11 69%

8 50% 41

51%

9 56%

33 52%

8 50%

26 54%

10 66%

5

33%

Average 8 7%

1 6%

2 12% 8

10% 1 6%

5 8%

8 17%

2 13%

2

13% Bad

2

4%

Unknown 2 13%

2

13% N- 401 113 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 15 15 Table 5: Overall design of the project

Unguja Q5

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very good

35 40%

36 52%

7 39%

15 27%

6 37%

13 41%

6 40%

Average 51 57%

26 38%

8 44%

35 65%

7 44%

13 41%

7 47%

Small 3 3%

5 7%

3 17%

4 8%

3 19%

5 15%

2 13%

None 1 1%

52

Unknown 1 1%

1 6%

1 3%

N =293 89 69 18 54 16 32 15 Pemba Q 5

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very good

68 60%

9 56%

10 63%

61 75%

11 69%

33 52%

14 88%

24 50%

9 56%

4 27%

Average 58 51%

5 31%

5 31% 18

22%

5 31%

3 5%

14 29%

4 25%

7 46%

Small 2 2%

1 6%

2 3%

1 2%

1 6%

6 13%

None

2 13%

1 2%

Unknown 1 6%

1 6%

3 19%

4 27%

N= 402 114 16 16 81 16 64 16 48 16 15

Table 6: Relevance of the project interventions

Unguja Q 6

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 83 96%

65 89%

15 83%

44 81%

16 100%

26 79%

13 87%

No 1 1%

6 8%

2 11%

6 11%

4 12%

2 13%

Unknown 2 3%

6 8%

1 6%

4 8%

3 9%

N=296 86 73 18 54 16 33 15 Pemba Q 6

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 111 97%

16 100%

16 100%

79 99%

14 88%

63 99%

16 100%

43 88%

12 75%

13 87%

No 1 1%

1 1%

2 12%

1 1%

1 2%

1 6%

Unknown 2 2%

5 10%

3 19%

2 13%

N=403 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 49 16 15

53

Table 7: Consistence of the overall approach and strategy with intended effects

Unguja Q 7

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very high 16 19%

22 31%

6 33%

13 30%

5 29%

7 22%

3 20%

High 50 58%

35 49%

7 39%

26 48%

6 35%

12 37%

6 40%

Medium 16 19%

10 14%

4 22%

12 22%

6 35%

4 13%

3 20%

Low 4 5%

1 2%

1 5%

9 28%

Unknown 3 4%

3 5%

2 6%

3 20%

N=293 86 71 18 54 17 32 15 Pemba Q 7

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very high 37 32%

5 31%

2 12%

26 33%

7 44%

16 25%

8 50%

16 33%

3 19%

3 20%

High 61 53%

6 37%

9 56% 45

56%

7 44%

35 56%

7 44%

18 38%

5 31%

8 53%

Medium 17 15%

4 25%

4 25%

7 9%

1 6%

12 19%

1 6%

7 15%

4 25%

1 7%

Low 1 6%

1 6%

1 1%

1 2%

2 4%

1 7%

Unknown 1 1%

1 1%

1 6%

5 10%

4 25%

2 13%

N=401 115 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15

Table 8: Is the project demand-driven?

Unguja Q 8

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 86 99%

56 81%

15 83%

39 74%

14 87%

24 73%

12 80%

No 7 10%

3 17%

10 19%

2 13%

4 12%

2 13%

Unknown 1 %

6 9%

4 8%

4 12%

1 7%

N=292 87 69 18 53 16 33 15

54

Pemba Q 8

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 111 96%

14 88%

15 94%

80 100%

16 100%

59 94%

14 88%

39 81%

11 69%

13 87%

No 2 2%

2 12%

4 6%

1 6%

4 8%

2 13%

1 6%

Unknown 2 2%

1 6%

1 6%

5 10%

3 19%

1 6%

N=401 115 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15 Table 9: Are the interventions relevant to the sector policy and country program?

Unguja Q 9

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very good

19 22%

5 7%

7 39%

15 27%

1 6%

7 22%

7 47%

Good 45 52%

39 57%

5 28%

22 40%

7 39%

14 44%

6 40%

average 19 22%

20 29%

6 33%

15 27%

9 50%

8 25%

1 7%

Small 3 3%

2 3%

2 4%

1 6%

2 6%

1 7%

Unknown 3 4%

N=293 86 69 18 55 18 32 15 Pemba Q 9

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very good

37 32%

3 19%

6 37%

24 30%

5 31%

16 25%

6 37%

15 30%

2 13%

3 20%

Good 59 51%

9 56%

6 37% 38

48%

8 50%

36 57%

6 37%

15 30%

6 38%

5 33%

average 12 10%

2 12%

2 12%

15 19%

2 6%

8 30%

3 19%

6 12%

1 6%

1 7%

Small 3 3%

1 6%

1 6%

2 2%

4 6%

4 8%

2 12%

2 13%

Unknown 3 3%

1 6%

1 6%

1 1%

1 6%

1 6%

10 20%

5 31%

4 27%

N=401 115 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15

55

Table 10: Have the objectives taken in account the crosscutting issues relating to gender balance and equity Unguja Q 10

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 65 75%

42 61%

37 69%

39 74%

13 87%

17 51%

8 53%

No 11 14%

21 30%

14 26%

10 19%

3 %

8 26%

5 5%

Unknown 10 %11

7 10%

2 3%

4 8%

1 1%

7 21%

2 33%

N=292 87 69 53 53 16 33 15 Table 11: Extent to which intervention objectives are met Unguja Q 11

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very 33 38%

24 34%

9 50%

19 35%

5 28%

9 35%

8 50%

Reasonably 47 55%

39 56%

7 39%

29 54%

6 33%

14 44%

4 25%

Small 5 6%

2 3%

2 11%

5 9%

5 27%

5 16%

1 6%

Not 1 1%

3 4%

4 7%

6 33%

1 3%

1 6%

Unknown 1 1%

4 6%

1 6%

N=298 86 70 18 54 17 32 15 Pemba Q 11

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very 52 45%

9 56%

8 50%

51 6o%

10 62%

29 46%

8 50%

22 46%

5 31%

5 33%

Reasonably 59 51%

6 37%

7 43% 27

31%

5 31%

36 57%

8 50%

17 35%

8 50%

5 33%

average 5 4%

1 6%

7 8%

1 6%

2 3%

5 10%

1 6%

4 26%

small

1 4%

1 17%

Unknown 1 6%

3 6%

2 12

N=401 116 16 16 85 16 63 16 48 16 15

56

Table 12: Extent to which the intervention reaches the impact/target groups Unguja Q 12

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very 34 40%

17 24%

6 33%

9 16%

3 33%

7 22%

8 50%

Reasonably 42 49%

41 58%

7 38%

35 65%

11 64%

17 69%

4 25%

Small 8 9%

9 13%

5 28%

8 15%

2 11%

7 22%

1 6%

Not 1 1%

2 3%

1 6%

Unknown 1 1%

2 3%

1 6%

1 3%

1 6%

N=298 86 70 18 54 17 32 15 Pemba Q 12

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very 53 60%

5 31%

8 50%

27 32%

7 44%

27 43%

9 56%

18 38%

2 12%

2 13%

Reasonably 52 45%

8 50%

5 31% 48

56%

9 56%

32 51%

5 31%

18 38%

10 62%

7 47%

small 7 6%

2 13%

2 12%

8 9%

9 14%

2 13%

7 15%

2 13%

Not 2 2%

1 6%

1 2%

2 4%

2 12%

1 6%

Unknown 1 1%

1 6%

1 1%

3 4%

2 12%

3 20%

N=401 116 16 16 85 16 63 16 48 16 15 Table 13: Extent to which the project has achieved its expected results Unguja Q 13

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very high 7 8%

10 14%

1 1%

7 13%

2 6%

1 7%

high 34 40%

32 46%

5 28%

25 46%

10 59%

16 48%

11 73%

medium 40 46%

25 36%

10 56%

22 41%

6 35%

10 30%

3 20%

low 3 3%

1 1%

1 6%

2 6%

Unknown 2 3%

1 1%

3 9%

N=298 86 69 18 54 17 33 15

57

Pemba Q 13

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very high 20 30%

1 6%

3 19%

8 10%

2 12%

12 16%

4 25%

5 10%

2 13%

High 57 49%

9 56%

5 31% 38

47%

9 56%

25 40%

4 25%

15 31%

6 38%

3 20%

Medium 34 29%

5 31%

7 44% 29

36%

5 31%

21 33%

8 50%

16 33%

4 25%

4 7%

Low 5 4%

1 6%

5 6%

5 8%

5 10%

3 19%

1 6%

Unknown 1 6%

7 15%

3 19%

5 33%

N=401 116 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15 Table 14: More effective alternative implementation strategies Unguja Q 14

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 37 44%

29 43%

9 56%

21 38%

5 31%

9 27%

3 20%

No 45 54%

32 48%

7 44%

33 59%

11 69%

16 48%

11 73%

Unknown 2 2%

4 6%

1 2%

1 6%

6 18%

1 7%

N=295 84 67 16 56 16 33 15 Pemba Q 14

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 52 46%

4 25%

12 75%

24 30%

7 44%

24 38%

2 12%

13 27%

5 33%

No 56 49%

9 56%

2 12%

45 56%

7 44%

36 56%

13 81%

22 46%

11 69%

3 20%

Unknown 6 5%

3 18%

2 12%

11 14%

2 12%

4 6%

1 6%

13 27%

5 31%

7 47%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15

58

Table 15: Do the resources involved correspond with the results achieved? Unguja Q 15

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 56 65%

34 49%

11 61%

33 59%

8 50%

14 44%

9 60%

No 20 23%

20 29%

5 28%

13 23%

2 12%

8 25%

3 20%

Unknown 10 12%

16 23%

2 11%

8 14%

6 38%

10 31%

3 20%

N=293 86 07 18 56 16 32 15 Pemba Q 15

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 94 82%

10 63%

10 63%

56 70%

14 87%

46 73%

12 75%

23 48%

6 38%

8 53%

No 8 7%

5 31%

2 12%

11 14%

2 13%

5 8%

2 12%

6 12%

2 13%

Unknown 12 10%

1 6%

4 25%

13 16%

13 20

2 12%

19 40%

8 50%

7 47%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15 Table 16: Are there alternative approaches, which would involve lower costs / fewer resources but achieve the same or higher results? Unguja Q 16

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 36 60%

24 35%

5 28%

17 30%

5 31%

8 25%

3 20%

No 48 56%

40 58%

11 61%

34 61%

11 69%

18 56%

11 73%

Unknown 2 2%

5 7%

2 11%

3 5%

5 16%

1 7%

N=290 86 69 18 56 16 32 15 Pemba Q 16

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

yes 43 38%

6 38%

11 69%

28 35%

2 12%

24 38%

3 19%

12 25%

4 25%

5 33%

No 62 54%

9 56%

4 25%

50 63%

12 75%

37 59%

12 75%

25 52%

8 50%

6 40%

Unknown 9 8%

1 6%

1 6%

2 2%

2 12%

3 4%

1 6%

11 23%

4 25%

4 27%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15

59

Table 17: Positive and negative consequences Unguja Q 17

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Positive 68 79%

44 63%

14 78%

38 70%

12 75%

15 47%

8 %

Negative 15 17%

9 13%

3 17%

8 15%

3 19%

7 22%

2 %

Unknown 3 3%

16 24%

8 44%

2 4%

1 6%

10 31%

5 33%

N=293 86 70 18 54 16 32 15 Pemba Q 17

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

positive 97 85%

14 88%

13 81%

71 89%

15 94%

59 94%

13 81%

32 67%

10 63%

6 40%

negative 7 6%

2 12%

4 5%

1 6%

1 2%

1 6%

2 4%

Unknown 7 6%

2 12%

1 6%

5 6%

3 5%

2 13%

16 33%

6 37%

9 60%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15 Table 18: Is the actual decision making at household level real making social change

Unguja Q 18

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 63 73%

45 65%

17 94%

36 67%

13 76%

19 59%

11 74%

No 20 23%

23 33%

1 6%

17 31%

2 12%

9 28%

2 13%

Unknown 3 3%

1 1%

1 2%

2 12%

4 13%

2 13%

N=293 86 69 18 54 17 32 15 Pemba Q 18

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 102 89%

14 88%

14 88%

63 79%

14 88%

50 79%

11 69%

23 48%

9 56%

5 33%

No 8 7%

2 12%

1 6%

15 19%

2 12%

14 22%

3 19%

13 27%

3 19%

6 40%

Unknown 3 3%

1 6%

2 2%

2 12%

12 25%

4 25%

4 27%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15

60

Table 19: How is gender-mixed and women-only groups impact on perceived social change in those groups and communities? Which form of group is more effective in terms of social change? Unguja Q 19

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Very high 16 19%

11 16%

2 11%

12 22%

4 24%

3 9%

2 12%

High 29 34%

21 30%

7 39%

9 17%

4 24%

7 22%

6 37%

medium 25 29%

21 30%

5 28%

25 46%

6 33%

11 34%

3 19%

Low 9 10%

6 9%

4 22%

7 13%

3 16%

7 22%

1 6%

Unknown 7 8%

1 5%

1 2%

1 5%

4 12%

4 25%

N=298 86 69 18 54 18 32 16 Pemba Q 19

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Very high 25 21%

6 38%

4 2%

20 25%

4 25%

12 16%

4 25%

5 10%

2 13%

high 53 46%

4 25%

8 50% 31

39%

9 56%

25 40%

4 25%

15 31%

6 38%

3 20%

medium 13 11%

6 38%

21 26%

5 31%

21 33%

8 50%

16 33%

4 25%

4 7%

low 9 8%

3 19%

7 9%

5 8%

5 10%

3 19%

1 6%

Unknown 3 3%

1 6%

1 1%

1 6%

7 15%

3 19%

5 33%

N=401 116 16 16 80 16 63 16 48 16 15

Table 20: Effects the project is having at household level

Unguja Q 20

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 66 77%

59 86%

14 78%

49 91%

17 94%

22 69%

10 71%

No 3 3%

3 4%

1 6%

1 2%

Unknown 17 20%

7 10%

3 16%

4 7%

1 6%

10 31%

4 29%

N=293 86 69 18 54 18 32 14

61

Pemba Q 20

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 107 94%

16 100%

14 88%

69 86%

14 88%

52 81%

13 81%

26 54%

9 56%

7 47%

No 2 2%

1 6%

5 6%

2 3%

2 4%

1 6%

Unknown 5 4%

1 6%

6 8%

2 12%

10 16%

3 19%

20 42%

6 38%

8 53%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 21: External influences having an effect on project outcomes

Unguja Q 21

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 16 19%

12 17%

4 22%

9 16%

3 18%

3 9%

1 7%

No 69 80%

54 78%

14 78%

46 84%

13 76%

24 75%

10 67%

Unknown 1 1%

3 4%

1 6%

5 16%

4 26%

N=293 86 69 18 55 17 32 15 Pemba Q 21

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 35 31%

8 50%

7 44%

20 25%

5 31%

15 23%

3 19%

4 2%

2 12%

4 27%

No 76 67%

8 50%

7 44%

52 65%

11 69%

44 69%

12 75%

27 56%

6 38%

8 53%

Unknown 3 2%

2 12%

8 10%

5 8%

1 6%

17 35%

8 50%

3 20%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 22: To what extent do the interventions take an account of those factors which experience has shown to be of key importance in sustainability? Unguja Q 22

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

High 24 28%

19 28%

4 22%

9 16%

3 17%

7 22%

5 33%

Medium 59 69%

43 62%

12 67%

43 78%

12 71%

16 50%

8 53%

Low 2 2%

4 6%

1 5%

2 4%

2 12%

6 19%

1 7%

Unknown 1 1%

3 4%

1 5%

1 2%

3 9%

1 7%

N=293 86 69 18 55 17 32 15

62

Pemba Q 22

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

High 39 34%

5 31%

4 25%

27 34%

4 25%

13 20%

7 44%

13 27%

5 31%

2 13%

Medium 70 61%

9 56%

9 56%

49 61%

11 69%

44 69%

7 44%

21 44%

5 31%

7 47%

Low 3 3%

1 6%

3 19%

4 5%

3 19%

7 11%

2 12%

5 10%

1 6%

3 20%

Unknown 2 2%

1 6%

9 19%

5 31%

3 20%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 23: How sustainable are the local institutions receiving support

Unguja Q 23

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Sustainable 33 38%

30 43%

6 33%

31 56%

7 41%

10 31%

2 13%

Less Sustainable

50 58%

34 49%

12 67%

19 35%

9 53%

14 44%

8 53%

Not sustainable

1 1%

3 4%

3 5%

3 9%

Unknown 2 2%

2 3%

2 4%

1 6%

5 16%

5 33%

N=293 86 69 18 55 17 32 15 Pemba Q 23

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Sustainable 44 39%

4 25%

5 31%

37 46%

8 50%

23 36%

8 50%

10 21%

4 25%

Less Sustainable

57 50%

9 56%

6 38%

33 41%

7 44%

32 50%

4 25%

19 40%

6 38%

8 54%

Not sustainable

13 11%

2 13%

3 19%

7 9%

4 6%

1 6%

2 4%

1 6%

2 13%

Unknown 1 6%

2 12%

3 4%

1 6%

5 8%

3 19%

17 35%

6 38%

5 33%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15

63

Table 24: Are actors/partners financially, socially, and institutionally sustainable?

Unguja Q 24

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 58 67%

33 48%

13 72%

26 46%

8 44%

10 31%

5 33%

No 20 23%

30 43%

4 22%

18 32%

4 22%

14 44%

3 20%

Unknown 11 13%

6 9%

1 6%

6 11%

5 28%

9 28%

7 47%

N=293 86 69 18 56 18 32 15 Pemba Q 24

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 83 73%

10 63%

7 44%

52 65%

13 81%

53 82%

11 69%

15 31%

3 19%

3 20%

No 30 26%

6 37%

7 44%

20 25

2 13%

10 16%

3 19%

12 25%

4 25%

5 33%

Unknown 1 1%

2 12%

8 10%

1 6%

1 1%

2 12%

21 44%

9 56%

7 47%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 25: Are interventions providing for local project/programme management and/or building the corresponding local capacities and institutions?

Unguja Q 25

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 83 97%

58 84%

17 94%

45 82%

15 88%

23 72%

12 80%

No 3 5%

8 12%

1 6%

7 13%

2 11%

4 13%

2 13%

Unknown 3 4%

3 5%

1 6%

5 16%

1 7%

N=293 86 69 18 56 18 32 15 Pemba Q 25

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 90 79%

13 81%

14 88%

50 63%

10 62%

38 59%

8 50%

16 33%

4 25%

5 33%

No 16 14%

1 6%

19 24%

3 19%

12 19%

2 12%

11 23%

4 25%

1 7%

Unknown 8 7%

2 13%

2 12%

11 13%

3 19%

14 21%

6 38%

21 44%

8 50%

9 60%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15

64

Table 26: Are the objectives and expected results promoting the participation of the targeted beneficiaries? Unguja Q 26

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

Yes 83 97%

58 84%

17 94%

45 82%

15 88%

23 72%

12 80%

No 3 5%

8 12%

1 6%

7 13%

2 11%

4 13%

2 13%

Unknown 3 4%

3 5%

1 6%

5 16%

1 7%

N=293 86 69 18 56 18 32 15 Pemba Q 26

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

Yes 109 96%

15 93%

15 93%

78 98%

15 94%

60 94%

15 94%

41 85%

12 75%

12 80%

No 4 4%

1 6%

2 2%

1 6%

4 6%

1 6%

3 6%

2 12%

2 13%

Unknown 0 %

1 6%

4 8%

2 12%

1 7%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 27: Do targeted beneficiaries have the feeling of ownership of the project? Unguja Q 27

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

High 38 44%

23 33%

5 28%

21 38%

6 35%

7 22%

9 60%

Medium 40 47%

37 54%

12 67%

34 62%

9 53%

19 59%

4 27%

Low 4 5%

5 7%

1 6%

3 9%

1 7%

Unknown 4 5%

1 1%

1 5%

1 6%

2 6%

2 13%

N=293 86 69 18 55 17 32 15

65

Pemba Q 27

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

High 73 64%

9 56%

10 62%

46 58%

10 63%

27 42%

10 62%

18 38%

9 56%

6 40%

Medium 39 35%

5 31%

6 38%

31 39%

6 37%

34 53%

6 38%

21 44%

1 6%

3 20%

Low 2 2%

1 6%

3 3%

3 5%

2 4%

2 12%

1 6%

Unknown 7 15%

4 25%

5 33%

N=401 114 16 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15 Table 28: What influences do the stakeholders and beneficiaries have on the project implementation, monitoring and evaluation exercises.

Unguja Q 28

OLD 1 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Male Headed Household (MHH)

OLD 2 Female Headed Household (FHH)

New Male Headed Household

New Men

None members (MHH)

None members (FHH)

High 16 19%

10 14%

20 25%

12 22%

3 18%

8 25%

4 26%

Medium 52 60%

46 67%

45 56%

25 45%

12 71%

13 40%

7 46%

Low 12 14%

10 14%

15 19%

15 27%

1 6%

7 22%

2 13%

Unknown 4 4%

3 4%

1 1%

2 4%

4 13%

2 13%

N=293 86 69 80 55 17 32 15 Pemba Q 28

OLD 1 MHH

OLD 1 FHH

OLD 1 Men

OLD 2 MHH

OLD 2 FHH

New MHH

New FHH

None Members MHH

Non Members FHH

Non Members Men

High 48 42%

6 40%

3 19%

30 38%

7 44%

15 23%

6 38%

10 21%

4 25%

2 13%

Medium 48 42%

7 47%

9 56%

37 46%

7 44%

33 52%

5 31%

14 29%

3 19%

8 53%

Low 3 3%

2 13%

2 13%

13 16%

1 6%

11 17%

3 19%

8 17%

4 25%

1 7%

Unknown 2 2%

1 6%

1 6%

4 6%

1 6%

1 2%

5 31%

4 27%

N=401 114 15 16 80 16 64 16 48 16 15

66

Annex 5: Number of respondents per shehia in Unguja and Pemba

Pemba No of respondents per shehia Unguja Number of respondents per shehia

Total OLD 1 VS&L

OLD 2 VS&L

New VS&L

None Total OLD 1 VS&L

OLD 2 VS&L

New VS&L

None

MHH 304 7 5 4 3 MHH 224 4 5 3 2

FHH 64 1 1 1 1 FHH 48 0 1 0 2

MEN 32 1 0 0 1 MEN 24 0 0 1 0

Total 400 9 6 5 5 Total 296 5 5 4 4

OLD 1= Jan-June, 08 OLD 2= July-Dec,08 New VS&L= Jan- July,09 None= No VS&L

Number of respondents for focus group and individual questionnaire

Pemba MHH FHH MEN Total

Micheweni District 152 32 16 200

Wete District 152 32 16 200

Unguja

South District 112 24 12 148

Central District 112 24 12 148

Total 528 112 56 696