A. Majority respondents understood gender equity different 80% of men - - PDF document

SEMULIKI COOPERATIVE UNION LTD EXTENSION AND TRAINING DEPARTMRNT 18/3/2019 ACTIVITY REPORT Sustainable family farming project evaluation and report presentation SEMCU was represented by Baguma Hassan and Muhereza Owen OUTCOME 3A: Viable farmer-owned agri-business initiatives Presented by Hassan When measuring the level of institutional development of the groups that we were working with. In general, the performance in terms of business achievements is above targets, the groups have developed to higher levels. One of the main challenges is that the cooperatives lack money/capital to develop further and its limiting the performance of the coops. How can we help the cooperatives to mobilize resources? According to the research done on cooperatives for BD alliance in 2016 – it shows that one of the main problems is that farmers lack trust in the organizations and cooperatives. It is important to rebuild the trust that was lost in the past. The more precise data shows also that the cooperatives are performing low on governance and financial management – but high on a lot of other indicators. In terms of compliance to legal standards, the performance is very well. Most cooperatives are now strong and the average score is higher than the targets that were set. GBV KEY FINDINGS:

• A. Majority respondents understood gender equity different 80% of men says it was giving

women power.

GBV was understood as domestic violence, not so much violence between different powers.

• B. Overwhelming evidence showed that intimate partner economic violence was the most

common violence against women among communities. (80%) So economic warfare between spouses –

• C. Social norms that recreate gender imbalances and maintain cycles of violence: A man is a
• man. A woman is not supposed to hold money. It is very strong in the villages.

Majority of male respondents (50%) revealed experiences psychological violence (verbal violence,

denial of sex) from their wives and verbal violence from their children.

WHY IS GBV increasing?   activities

• Males are not integrated in most of the groups.

 e group is left

• ut – so you should add other people. We have done good work, but our work has been done by
• us. We wish you could see the CDO. In some places, your interventions have been the only on

the ground: too thin to have impact.  Awareness vs power. One aspect of the violence – is that the interventions of the BD alliance

creates awareness, but there is no action plan connected – so those in power don’t change their

practices. 

• resources. Man or women. Who

makes decisions on where to plan beans, when you harvest, who decides on what to do with the money? Men used the family pool for their extended family.  Tolerance of Violence in the society: somehow the perception is: it is ok to beat my wife. If she is beaten it is a sign of love. Physical violence has gone down very much, but there is some level of

• tolerance. A slap is not so bad. Violence is a form of discipline. You have to discipline the child, and you

have to discipline the wife when she comes from the market. There is a norm that increases it.

People who you control. Partner Participation/partner Appreciation: Methodology-participatory. We saw that the groups felt your work, and were very happy.

• Also we appreciated the awareness.
• But is this awareness helping them?
• Presence and engagement evidenced by change agents. But their efforts are still minimum.
• Presence of champions in GBV especially couples – they attend the trainings together and help other

couples to sensitize other couples who have GBV.

• Partnership with other stakeholders: the awareness created was followed by other NGOs,

government and police.

Partner weaknesses: Limited engagements with males outside groups. You find you are working with a homogeneous group, in the group the violence is reduced, but the surrounding is not at all influenced.

• Much of the work has focused on awareness, shift now to action
• Approach and methodology only limited to groups
• In some communities there was minimal awareness especially in Butunduzu in Kenjojo.
• Rollover is not taking place. They don’t have impact on the surroundings.
• Minimal follow ups and monitoring. Some partners should work harder to do the follow up and
• monitoring. Partners are doing it, but how do you measure awareness? In terms of GBV it is not clear

how progress can be tracked. One example a community was that the turnover of trainees was very high, in the next session another group comes. The problem was that the cooperative is so big, and they want to give opportunity to other members each time - so you don’t have impact and you don’t have impact. Recommendations from respondents:

Spousal inclusivity in GBV intervention

• Male youth should be included in GBV awareness
• Collaboration with other stakeholders
• Availing tools for household planning
• Increased sessions
• Mentoring voluntary GBV champions of change. They say they understand their problems very well

and want to be part of the fight to address these problems. They want to be trained to be used. Recommendations to partners:

Effective multi sectorial coordination and Lobby

• Promote an integrated approach to GBV: Primary prevention, address when it has happened:

prevention to be repeated, service delivery to those who need it, also to the perpetrators,

• Engaging men and boys.
• Promote methodologies that challenge norms
• Use action learning and peer up calling approaches. Give the communities the support they need to

follow up BD:

• Mainstreaming GBV in planning and practices
• More research gaps still exist in GBV

• Support new innovative approaches to respond to GBV. There are also inborn innovations in the

partners (KRC, Cosil) and also a lot of innovative approaches.

• Support continuous action learning

On program evaluation The program evaluation will be done by 5 consultants from ulinzi consultants which will take 12 days and each partner will be for 2 days in Bundibugyo it will be on 25th and 26, groups 2, coop 1, hhs 48, partner staff 2, local minded ngos 1, district, sc officials/ leaders 2, case study/home visits 2. Under house hold survey they selected 6 groups from the list of 65 cmcs that were submitted to BD HOUSE HOLD SURVEY; BUHUNDU, HUMIYA NSUKA TEDIMA, BUMATE WOMEN, NJANJA, KANSILI, KWESIGA MUKAMA needs updated membership lists to be ready by the date allocated for Bundibugyo. On FGDs they selected two groups; where we need to select 6 -12 members per group FGDs; KANSILI, HUMYA select 6 to 12 members On coops they selected Kisubba mpei as strong and Bubukwanga as weak. COOPERATIVES; KISUBBA MPEI, BUBUKWANGA select leadership and some members Research assistants, Baguma sulaiti, Baligasaki Christopher, kabahanda Elizabeth will be trained on 25th /3/2019. Union staff will be interviewed but mostly 2 project staff, 1 civil servant and 1 leader, 1 like-minded ngo as indicated above in the summarys. Charles welinzi 0772552437 Fredric 0772434190/ 0704 Yours Baguma Hassan