FARG

Fund for Support and Assistance to the Neediest Genocide Survivors

Impact Assessment of Income Generating

Activities (IGA)

by

Cope Consulting Ltd

May, 2016

2

ContentsEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................41. GENERAL INTRODUCTION.............................................................................7

1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................71.2 Background and context of the study......................................................81.3 Objectives of the study............................................................................9

2. METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................112.1 Research Design....................................................................................112.2 Target Population and Sampling Procedures.........................................11

2.2.1 Sample size.....................................................................................112.2.2 Distribution of respondents.............................................................13

2.3 Methods of data collection.....................................................................162.4 Quality assurance mechanisms.............................................................152.5 Ethical Issues.........................................................................................15

3. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY............................................................................163.1 Demographic characteristics of the Respondents..................................163.2 Achievements made by FARG pertaining to IGA and Girinka during 2010-2015............................................................................................................173.3 Description of IGA and Girinka Projects.................................................203.4 Impact of IGA/Girinka on living conditions of the beneficiaries..............253.5 Psycho-social impact of Girinka and IGA programs................................293.6 Specific impact of Girinka program on the living conditions of recipients....................................................................................................................33

4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF IGA/GIRINKA IMPACT...............................................374.1 Relevance, Effectiveness and Sustainability of FARG IGA including Girinka.........................................................................................................374.2 Proposed strategies aimed at improving the implementation of IGA/Girinka programs..................................................................................40

4.2.1 Financial assistance........................................................................404.2.2 Capacity Building Strategy..............................................................434.2.3 Mentorship strategy........................................................................454.2.4 Monitoring & Evaluation guidelines of Income Generating Activities.................................................................................................................49

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................50

3

Conclusions.................................................................................................50Recommendations.......................................................................................52ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE..........................................................................54ANNEX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDE........................................................................62

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Fund for Neediest Survivors of Genocide (FARG) in Rwanda was established in 1998 to provide assistance to survivors of genocide. Since its inception, FARG has been supporting genocide survivors in different programmes including Shelter, Health, Education, Direct Support and Income Generating Activities. Education programme supports mainly tuition fees and school materials; Health programme mainly supports medical expenses for special treatment; Shelter programme supports construction and rehabilitation of shelters; and Social rehabilitation gives direct support to the neediest survivors. The income generating projects including Girinka1 are meant to enable beneficiaries improve on their standard of living and reduce poverty so that they graduate to a self-reliance level.

This study therefore aimed at assessing the impact of Income Generating Activities including Girinka from 20010 to 2015. During this period, FARG spent 5,344,776,000 FRW to support IGA of some genocide survivors and provide cows to its beneficiaries. Specifically, the survey assessed the achievements of FARG with regard to income generating activities including Girinka and the impact of IGA program on the living conditions of the beneficiaries. Also, the findings of the assessment were the basis for developing capacity building, mentorship as well as M & E strategies aimed at helping the IGA beneficiaries and recipients of cows improve on their management practices.

The survey was conducted in 70 sectors sampled in 21 districts in all the provinces and Kigali city. Initially, 732 IGA and Girinka beneficiaries were to be sampled but 721 (489 females and 232 males) were accessed. The IGA and Girinka respondents constituted 48% (346) and 52% (375) respectively. Data was collected using both quantitative and qualitative tools which were approved by FARG and NISR. Participants were informed about the purpose of

1 National policy aimed at providing a cow to a poor family

5

the study and assured that their names would not be mentioned in the findings.

The study shows that FARG achieved almost all the targets set during the period 2010-2015. IGA and Girinka programs contributed to improved nutrition among beneficiaries. Those who could at times fail to get food reduced from 20% to 5% after introducing the programs. Similarly, those who used to have the same meal every time dropped from 44.5% to 18.7%. Also, those who changed from eating one meal per day to two meals increased from 35.9% to 58.8%. A proportion of 65% of recipients of cows improved on their standard of living. They consume milk, use manure in their farms and sell the surplus (Milk and manure). Likewise, 61% of Girinka beneficiaries passed-on cows to their neighbours (kworoza), give neighbours manure and milk.

Furthermore, the Girinka and IGA programs enabled almost half of the sampled beneficiaries (48%) to acquire household properties. Others were able to invest in productive assets and/or activities such as buying cows, plot of land, bicycle, motorcycle, business, building houses as well as paying fees and medical insurance.

Concerning psychosocial wellbeing, there has been a remarkable improvement in the social consideration and relationship between the beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka programs and their neighbors. The programs contributed to the reinforcement of social relationships between the beneficiaries and their neighbours (77%), beneficiaries’ support of their neighbour’s events by contributing some little money as well as sharing with them in times of sorrow, and other social ceremonies (60%), consideration of the beneficiaries by their neighbours (61%), and others.

However, FARG encountered some challenges that militated against proper implementation of Girinka and IGA programs by the beneficiaries. The challenges included FARG faced the following: Non-compliance by some sector official to follow FARG guidelines; inadequate capacity building for IGA and Girinka beneficiaries; lack of data base for the needy genocide survivors

6

and lack of an updated Strategic plan among others. In this respect, the following are recommended:

Converting the existing Graduation strategy 2014 into strategic plan so that it provides a detailed and clear analysis of the current situation and future prospects,

Conducting a census of genocide survivors to identify those who have been supported or not which could help in implementation of exit strategy;

The grant given to genocide survivors by FARG has made some of them to develop a wrong mentality (mindset) that it is free money, gift or compensation. This kind of mentality makes them misuse the funds since they are not accountable thus, failing to bail out of poverty. for the IGA to yield better results so that more beneficiaries graduate to a sustainable self- reliance level, they should be categorized into three: a) The first category of university graduates: They can be supported to

develop projects which can be financed. b) The second category of TVET graduates:They need to be encouraged to

form associations depending on their areas of specialization and be provided with start-up kits or materials. They must also be facilitated to access financial services as well as Udukiriro.

c) Third category: Grant Beneficiaries: Semi illiterate men and women in villages can be encouraged to form associations and be helped to establish small income generating projects which can be financed. The third category include Girinka program

NB: However, those who are 65 years and above and cannot manage to look after a cow or who because of illness or disability cannot actively work with others in an association should be put in the category of direct support

FARG also needs to contract out private organizations or CSOs that would build capacity, mentor and monitor IGA beneficiaries at the field level on a regular basis.

7

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION1.1 IntroductionRwanda’s vision 2020 is geared towards a future that offers a life of dignity and happiness for Rwandans. Nonetheless, this can be realised when all citizens, regardless of age, gender, ability or circumstance, are empowered to contribute to the development process (MINECOFIN, 2000).

Ideally, people can contribute to development process only when they have overcome the problem of food insecurity. In this effect, the strategies of EDPRS II include strengthening existing initiatives that have increased productivity and have generated strong agricultural growth, both through agricultural and animal resource intensification and training of farmers; value chain development (including nutrition-sensitive value chains, e.g. milk); strengthening of markets for agricultural products; empowering small-holder farming systems as well as attracting increased private sector investment and reducing post-harvest losses. In addition, interventions have to be directed to the areas with lowest food consumption and highest rates of malnutrition particularly in the districts which have high levels of extreme poverty (MINECOFIN, 2013).

Similarly, the Social Protection Strategy (2011), emphasises a social protection floor for the most vulnerable households and individuals. Underpinning Rwanda’s vision for social protection system are three important principles; protection (providing essential support to those living in poverty), prevention (providing a safety-net to those in danger of falling into poverty) and promotion (supporting people to pull themselves out of poverty and graduate from the need for social protection). The integration of these aspects is critical to the success of the Strategy. The strategy emphasises provision of a minimum income and household security, and access to core essential services for poor and vulnerable households, in particular health, education, shelter and water and sanitation (MINALOC,2011).

1.2 Background and context of the studyThe 1994 genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi devastated Rwanda’s social, political and economic fabric as well as the population. As a result, the

8

Government of National Unity established after 1994 embarked on an emergency programme to on ambitious development programs to rebuild the country. Among the priorities of the government of National Unity in 1994 was to rehabilitate and support the Tutsi genocide survivors who had undergone tremendous suffering. Not only had their families and breadwinners been wiped out, but most of their properties had also been lost and destroyed, leaving survivors so vulnerable and in urgent need of assistance.

It is in this regard that The Fund for Neediest Survivors of Genocide in Rwanda commonly known as FARG was established by Law No 02/98 of 22/01/1998 to provide assistance to survivors of genocide. This Fund started its operations in the year 1998 and has expanded its scope of operation over the period. The law was amended and replaced by law No 69/2008 of 30/12/2008 which was also amended and replaced by law no 81/2013 of 11/9/2013.

Since its inception, FARG has been supporting genocide survivors in different aspects. Currently, FARG has five key programs which include education, health, shelter, social rehabilitation (direct support) and Income Generating Projects (IGA). Education programme supports mainly tuition fees and school materials; health programme supports contributions to mutual health insurance and medical expenses for special treatment; shelter programme supports construction and rehabilitation of shelters; and social rehabilitation gives direct support to the neediest survivors. The income generating projects including Girinka are meant to enable beneficiaries improve on their living conditions as well as reduce poverty.

It is against this background that FARG commissioned COPE Consulting Ltd to undertake a comprehensive impact assessment of Income Generating Activities including Girinka from 20010 to 2015. During this period, FARG spent a lot of funds to support IGA of genocide survivors as well as buying cows for them. The ensuing table presents details of the funds spent.

Table 1: FARG’S expenditure on IGA and Girinka from 2010 to 2015

Year Number of beneficiaries Total amount ( RWF)2010-2011 2,000 1,340,000,0002011-2012 2,342 1,449,556,0002012-2013 18,352 1,755,220,0002013-2014 - -2

9

2014-2015 13 8,000,000

Total 22,707 5,344,776,000

1.3 Objectives of the studyThe main objective of the study was to assess the impact of IGA program including Girinka on the living conditions of the beneficiaries.

The specific objectives were as follows:

To show the achievements of income generating activities including FARG GIRINKA PROJECTS according to the mandate of FARG;

To show clearly what has not been achieved in income generating activities including GIRINKA PROJECT and why;

To show the impact of IGA program on the living conditions of beneficiaries by measuring effects, influence and changes occurred as a result of being assisted under IGA program;

To show the challenges encountered in implementing the program and develop appropriate measures to overcome them in future;

To develop the capacity building strategy of beneficiaries of IGA program aimed to improve the management of their projects;

To develop mentorship strategy enabling FARG beneficiaries to continue to continue to run their project successfully;

To develop monitoring and evaluation guidelines of income generating activities;

To advice to FARG the best way of providing the financial assistance to its beneficiaries under IGA and how the projects financed should be profitable by owners;

2 No Project was funded. The focus was on the monitoring process of projects that had been funded the previous year (2012-2013)

10

2. METHODOLOGY

This section presents the methodological framework that was be used in the assessment. It describes the various phases of the study including but not limited to research design, sampling techniques, variables assessment, data collection and analysis techniques, and ethical issues.

2.1 Research DesignBasing on the objectives of this study, a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was employed in this research for purposes of methodological and information triangulation (Creswell, 2008). Quantitative approach was used to examine the impact of Income Generating Activities (IGA) and Girinka on the living conditions of the beneficiaries. Qualitative approach helped in eliciting detailed information especially on the achievements, challenges encountered in implementing the program, strategies of improving the management of the IGA projects and cows as well as viable ways of providing the financial assistance to the beneficiaries of IGA Girinka.

2.2 Target Population and Sampling ProceduresThis study targeted male and female beneficiaries of IGA program and GIRINKA in 63 sectors sampled from 21 districts. The respondents were selected using purposive and random sampling procedures. The sector officials in charge of social affairs and heads of associations of genocide survivors helped in identifying and locating the respondents.

2.2.1 Sample sizeAccording to the statistics from FARG (2010-2015), the total number of IGA and Girinka beneficiaries is 22,707. Based on this figure, the following formula on normal approximation for hyper geometric sampling for a known population was applied to determine the sample.

n=N Z2(1−p)

¿¿

11

Where:

n = the required sample size N = the population size p = the population proportion ( set to 0.5) z = the confidence coefficient for the desired confidence level e = the error of margin

The standard levels of confidence for surveys are 90%, 95%, and 99% and their corresponding confidence coefficients are 1.64, 1.96 and 2.58. Also, the standard acceptable errors of margin range from 1% to 10%. Therefore, the sample was obtained at 90% confidence level and 9% error of margin which lies within the acceptable range of 1%-10 %(Creswell, 2008).

N population size) 22,707z (confidence coefficient ) for 90 % confidence level 2.6896e ( 9% error of margin ) 0.09P (Population proportion) 0.5

The required sample size for the survey was 732 respondents, nevertheless, 721 were accessed.

Selection of respondents at the sector levelRespondents in each sampled sector were selected using the following procedures: Beneficiaries of different projects (IGA or Girinka) were identified at the

sector level Serial numbers (1to N) were assigned (N is the total number of individuals

of the programme beneficiaries). Computations were made i.e, I = N / n, the sampling interval (n being the

size of the sample of the programme in the sector) Random numbers between 0 and I were chosen and multiplied the by the

value of I to obtain the random starting point, expressed by R. After obtaining the starting point, I was added to determine the second

number in the series. The rest of the numbers were determined using the same procedures.

12

Thus, jth sample unit (Sj) of the IGA beneficiaries in the sampled sector i was selected as follows:

IjRS ji )1(

With j = 1, 2... it implies that Sij = selected number of jth individual in the population of the ith sampled

sector per programme

R = random starting point;I = drawing line (interval)n = sample size

After determining the sample, the selected people were contacted and requested to participate in the study.

2.2.2 Distribution of respondents The participants were distributed by District and Sector due to the fact that during the period under investigation (2010-2015), FARG provided support to a big number of the genocide survivors through districts and sectors. Also, the beneficiaries were selected at these levels and it is where monitoring and evaluation of the projects is done. So, there were no proper records of distribution of the beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka programs at cell and village levels. The ensuing table presents the selected districts and sectors. By principle the questionnaire was addressed to 10 to 11 FARG IGA (Including Girinka) beneficiaries per sector.

Table 2: Selected Districts & Sectors

District Sector

  Bugesera 

NyamataRuhuha

13

 Gashora

Gasabo  

KacyiruKimihururaBumbogo

NderaGikomero

Kirehe  

NyarubuyeGatoreKirehe

Gicumbi  

MuteteRutare

NyamiyagaByumba

Gisagara  

NdoraSave

Muganza

Huye  

NgomaTumbaMukura

Kamonyi  

GacurabwengeRugalika

MusambiraKaramaRukoma

Karongi  

BwishyuraRubengera

Gitesi

Kayonza  

MukarangeNyamirama

Rukara

Musanze  

BusogoMuhozaKinigi

Ngoma  

RukumberiKibungo

MugeseraNgororero Ngororero

14

  

GatumbaNyange

Nyamasheke  

KaganoNyabitekeri

Shangi

Nyanza   

BusasamanaNyagiosziKigoma

Nyarugenge  

NyarugengeMuhima

Mageragere

Nyaruguru  

KibehoRuramba

Mata

Rubavu  

GisenyiNyundo

Nyamyumba

Ruhango  

KabagariRuhangoByimana

Rulindo  

BushokiBase

Mbogo

Rusizi  

GihundweGashonga

Mururu

Rwamagana  

MwurireKigabiro

MunyiginyaGishari

Muyumbu

15

2.3 Methods of data collectionFor purposes of methodological triangulation, various techniques were used to collect data.

a) Documentary review: A desk review of the existing documentation on Girinka and IGA program was done. This involved the review of each program’s documents, policies, strategies, guidelines, studies, evaluation reports, baseline and mid- term reports, etc. Also, a review of relevant documents such as sustainable development goals, EICV4, 7 years government program, EDPRS II, Social protection policy strategy, MINALOC Annual work plans and reports, FARG reports, and FARG exit strategy) was made.

b) Interview: In order to gain deep understanding of the IGA impact, a number of resource persons were identified. These included local leaders; representatives of associations of genocide survivors such as IBUKA, AVEGA, DUHOZANYE and AERG; opinion leaders, veterinary officers, and others.

c) Questionnaire. Normally, a questionnaire is adminstered to a group of individuals in order to collect their opinions, perceptions, knowledge and testimonies on a given phenomenon ( Gay, Mills and Airsian , 2006). In this study, the questionnaire was administered to the female and male IGA and Girinka Beneficiaries who were were selected from 21 districts.

13

Table 3: Summary of Assessment Approach

Study objectives Theme Aspects assessedTo show the impact of IGA program on the living conditions of beneficiaries by measuring effects, influence and changes occurred as a result of being assisted under IGA program.

Income generating activities (IGA)

Improvement income Main use of income Nutrition Health insurance coverage Capacity to meet school costs, if any Change in household equipment Shelter

To show the achievements of FARG according to its mandate

GIRINKA Project Improvement income Main use of income Nutrition Milk consumption/production Milk selling Agriculture activity due to use of manure Capacity to meet school costs if any Health insurance coverage Change in household equipment

Psychosocial aspects Mental health situation. How the projected has impacted on the beneficiaries’ social consideration, happiness, relationiships, etc.

Beneficiaries Socio-welfare Nutrition Shelter Health Children education

To develop the capacity building strategy for beneficiaries of IGA program aimed at improving management of their projects.

Management of IGA Project management skillsManagement of cows Provision of enough pasture

Cowshed Access to water for the cow Access to veterinary drugs Ability to identify animal diseases Access to veterinary services

To develop monitoring and evaluation guidelines for IGA. M & E mechanisms Asses and suggest effective M & E mechanisms.

To show clearly what has not been achieved in income generating activities including GIRINKA project and why.

Gaps in IGA and GIRINKA Project.

Gaps in the GA vis-a-vis the intended targets.

14

To show the challenges encountered in implementing the program and develop appropriate measures to overcome them in future.

Challenges encountered in implementing IGA& Girinka Projects.

Challenges faced in implementing IGA& Girinka Projects.

To advice to FARG on the best ways of providing financial assistance to its beneficiaries of IGA and how the projects financed should be profitably sustained.

Provision of financial support Appropriate approaches of providing financial support to survivors with IGA.

How IGA projects can be sustained.

To develop a mentorship strategy that will enable FARG beneficiaries to continue running their project successfully.

Mentorship strategy Effective and sustainable ways of mentoring FARG beneficiaries so as to continue run their projects successfully.

15

2.4 Quality assurance mechanisms Pretesting of data collection tools. Prior to the data collection process, the data collection tools were tested in Muhanga Sector,Kicukiro District. This phase was very important as it enabled the rsearchers to ascertain the validity, reliability and relevance of the data collection tools. It revealed some lopholes in the tools which were corrected. It also enabled the enumerators to understand the concepts used and knowing the appropriate time for filling in a questionnaire.

During data, at every site, the the team leaders checked the quality of data collected after a certain amount of questionnaires was filled in. After collecting data, data entry, cleaning and validation were done. This helped in getting rid of any invalid data and identification of inconsistencies. Data was coded, edited and checked for errors using logical sequence analysis.

2.5 Ethical IssuesEthical consideration is important in ensuring that no harm can befall respondents as a result of their participation in the study. In this study, Informed consent or assent, Privacy, Anonymity and Confidentiality were considered. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study so as to freely decide in a conscious, deliberate way whether to participate or not. Also, the researchers were mindful of the human participant principles of respect for people. Respondents were assured that their names would not be mentioned in the findings.

16

3. FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

This section presents the findings of the study. Basically, it encompasses among others demographic characteristics of the respondents; the impact of IGA and Girinka programs of FARG on the living conditions of the beneficiaries; the achievements of FARG between 2010 and 2015; what was not achieved in IGA and Girinka; capacity building strategy for the beneficiaries of IGA program to improve management of their projects; and monitoring and evaluation guidelines for IGA and Girinka. It also involves the challenges encountered in implementing the IGA and Girinka; the viable approaches of providing financial assistance to beneficiaries of IGA and how the projects financed should be sustained; as well as mentorship strategy.

3.1 Demographic characteristics of the RespondentsDemographic characteristics of the respondents that were considered in this study included: gender, marital status, education level, age, occupation and District. Nonetheless, distribution of the respondents by District is indicated in table 2 in the methodology section.

Table 4: Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents (n =721)Characteristics Age Gender Total

Male FemaleAge 22-29 years 0.8% 3.2% 4.0%

30-39 years 6.7% 7.3% 14.0%40- 49 years 8.2% 18.3% 26.5%50-59 years 7.6% 19.6% 27.2%60- 69 years 5.7% 12.9% 18.6%70 and above 3.2% 6.5% 9.7%

Total 32.2% 67.8% 100%Marital status

Marital status Single 2.4% 5.4% 7.8%Married 21.8% 15.7% 37.5%Widowed 6.9% 43.1% 50.0%Separated .3% 2.2% 2.5%Divorced .8% 1.4% 2.2%

Total 32.2% 67.8% 100%Level of education

Level of education None 6.9% 19.0% 25.9%Primary level drop out 6.8% 14.1% 20.9%

17

Completed primary 12.6% 24.0% 36.6%Vocational .7% 2.9% 3.6%Ordinary level 2.9% 3.7% 6.6%Advanced level 1.7% 3.2% 4.9%Technical advanced level .4% .6% 1.0%Higher education .1% .3% 0.4%

Total 32.2% 67.8% 100%

OccupationOccupation Unemployed 4.9% 13.3% 18.2%

Farmer 14.7% 28.4% 43.1%Livestock rearing 3.5% 6.9% 10.4%Livestock rearing and farming 6.8% 13.3% 20.1%Worker 0.6% 0.6% 1.2%Business 0.1% 2.8% 2.9%Art and craft 0.5% 1.0% 1.5%Students - 0.1% 0.1%Other 1.1% 1.4% 2.5%

Total 32.2% 67.8% 100%

As can be seen from table 4, majority of the respondents (55.5%) were the elderly aged 50 years and above. The youth (22-39 years) constituted 18% while those in the age bracket of 40-49 years had a share of 26.5%. The proportion of females (67.8%) was two times that of males (32.2%). This implies that number of neediest female genocide survivors is more than that of males. With regard to marital status, the majority of the respondents (54.7%) were either widowed, separated or divorced. Proportions of 7.8% and 37.5% constituted the married and single respectively. Concerning level of education, a proportion of 25.9% never attended school while 57.5% attended primary level. Proportions of 3.6%, 6.6% and 4.9% constituted vocational, ordinary, and advanced levels correspondingly. Technical and higher education had insignificant proportions of respondents. Pertaining to occupation, 18.2% were unemployed. Farmers (43.1%) were comparatively greater than those who invested in livestock rearing (10.4%). Livestock rearing and farming had a share of 20.1% while salaried workers, business, art and craft and others each constituted less than 3%.

3.2 Achievements made by FARG pertaining to IGA and Girinka during 2010-2015Since the establishment of FARG in 1998, considerable progress has been made in implementing programmes for the support of genocide survivors in education, health, shelter construction as well as social assistance. Nevertheless, this study was limited to

18

achievements made during the period 2010-2015. The following achievements were made in the respective programmes.

19

Table 5: FARG Achievements during 2010-2015

Year Target Achievements

2010-2011

Give 2 000 cows 2 000 cows were provided

To construct 2 000 cows shed 200 cows shed were constructed

To assist with planting grass, buying medicine for 2 000 cows

All 2 000 beneficiaries of cows were assisted in planting grass and buying medicine

Follow up genocide survivors who got cows Follow up was made

To provide funds for associations of genocide survivors with IGA

40 Associations/Cooperatives received 117, 682,385 FRW

2011-2012

Give 2000 cows 2 000 cows were provided To construct 2000 cowsheds 300 000 000 for cowsheds were given to District level

To assist beneficiaries in planting grass 40 000 000 were given for planting grass

To collaborate with RAB to provide medicines for cows.

68,212 500 FRW was given to RAB to buy medicines for the cows that were given. RAB bought medicine and gave it to veterinary officers at Districts level.

To collaborate with RAB in Selecting cows.

31 722 000 FRW was given to RAB to facilitate selection of cows.

To provide support to Associations /cooperatives with IGA

42 Associations /cooperatives with IGA were supported

2012-2013

To collaborate with District officials to approve associations of genocide survivors in 29 districts with income generating projects to be funded.

1,031 associations of 17,352 survivors in 27 districts were approved.

To train representatives of the associations of genocide survivors in management of income generating projects.

Representatives of associations of genocide survivors in 28 districts were trained

To construct 1000 cowsheds 150 000 000 for cowsheds were given to District level

To assist beneficiaries in planting grass 20 000 000 were given for planting grass

2013-2014 To visit and advise associations of genocide survivors with IGA

All the associations (1,103) were visited

To visit genocide survivors who received cows

5 000 who got cows were visited

To provide support to Associations /cooperatives with IGA

11 Associations /cooperatives with IGA were supported with 2 630 000 Frws

2014-2015To visit and advise associations of genocide survivors with IGA

Associations of genocide survivors with IGA in all the 29 Districts were visited.

To fund small projects of genocide survivors with disabilities.

Small projects of 13 genocide survivors with disabilities were funded; 12 people each got 500,000 FRW and one got 2 million.

Source: FARG Annual Reports (2010-2015)

20

Observations

2010-2011- From the follow up of genocide survivors who got cows, it was revealed that in some

sectors, cowsheds were not constructed in time. Consequently, FARG held a meeting with District officials in charge of Social affairs and it was decided that the Districts were to help in construction of cowsheds.

2011-2012

- Although the target of cowsheds (2000) to be constructed was achieved, it was found that in Rubavu and Nyabihu, some cowshed did not meet the standards recommended by FARG. Some cowsheds did not have cement on the floor.

2012-2013

- In Ngoma district, associations of genocide survivors with income generating projects were approved but their representatives were not trained. This was to insufficient funds. Nonetheless, in Gasabo District, they were not approved because they not informed.

- With regard to Girinka program, in Huye District,Gishamvu sector money for cow’s pasture was not provided.

- Similarily in Muhanga District cows shades were constructed but cows were not given - In Rusizi district, a bid to supply cows to genocide survivors was approved based on

MINAGRI guidelines but not on the law concerning public tenders. .2013-2014

In this fiscal year, all associations of genocide survivors with income generating activities were visited FARG in collaboration with district officials. In general it was found that 80% of IGA were doing well. Also, beneficiaries were advised to manage their IGA properly.

On the whole, it can be inferred that the targets of FARG during 2010-2015 were to a great extent achieved. Nonetheless, FARG encountered some challenges in implementing the Grinka and IGA programs.

Challenges faced by FARG in implementing Girinka and IGA programs

FARG encountered some challenges in implementing IGA/Girinka Programs. The following table presents the challenges faced and ways of mitigation measures.

Table 6: Challenges faced by FARG in implementing Girinka and IGA programs

21

Challenges Mitigation measures

Non-compliance by some sector official to follow FARG guidelines: It was found that in some sectors, the guidelines provided by FARG in implementing the IGA and Girinka were not followed by some sector officials. For instance, some associations did not sign contracts with sector officials. This made some beneficiaries to feel unaccountable and therefore mismanaged the funds given.

FARG should work with the Ministry of local government to put stringent measures against district and sector officials’ non-compliance with its guidelines regarding disbursement of funds for IGA and Girinka and other operational issues.

Inadequate capacity building for IGA and Girinka beneficiaries. Most beneficiaries were not trained especially in project managerial skills. FARG commissioned some organizations for survivors such as DUHOZANYE and AVEGA to train heads of associations so that they also train their members but the funds were insufficient for the activity to be rolled out throughout the country.

FARG should allocate a portion of its budget to building the capacity of not only beneficiaries of IGA& Girinka Programs but also staff especially in monitoring and evaluation.

Lack of data base for the needy genocide survivors: FARG does not have a comprehensive data base of the needy genocide survivors who have got support especially in terms of shelter, education, IGA and Girinka programs and those who have not. This makes it difficult to implement the exit strategy.

There is need to carry out a census of the all the neediest genocide survivors to determine those who got support and who have not. This will ease implementation of the exit strategy.

Lack of an updated strategic Plan. FARG has been operating based on the 2009-2019 Strategic plan and the Graduation strategy 2014 which does not necessarily corroborate with some government policies such as EDPR II, National Social security and others.

FARG needs to revise and update the existing strategic plan so that it is in line with the current government programs and socioeconomic situation in the country and provides a detailed and clear analysis of the current situation and future prospects. .

3.3 Description of IGA and Girinka Projects In order to ascertain the impact of Girinka and IGA Projects on the living conditions of genocide survivors, information about was explored. This included among others, income generating activities/projects which the respondents had, when they started and how they were funded and whether or not they were operational.

22

Table 2: Descriptions Project description

Gender TotalMale Female

Type of Project IGA 17.6% 30.5% 48.1%

GIRINKA 14.6% 37.3% 51.9%

Total 32.2% 67.8%

100%

What activity/Project do you have that earns you income?

Crop growing of crops especially beans and cassava 3.5% 5.8% 9.3%Livestock rearing 25.7% 53.8% 79.6%Business 2.6% 5.8% 8.5%Art and Craft 0.5% 0.8% 1.3%

Other 0.1% 1.4% 1.5%

Total 32.4% 67.6% 100%

How was your project funded?

By FARG directly 6.1% 14.6% 20.7%

Supported by FARG through District & Sector 26% 53.3% 79.3%

Total32.2% 67.8% 100%

When did your project start?

2010 2.8% 6.4% 9.2%2011 3.1% 7.1% 10.2%2012 6.0% 14.6% 20.6%2013 10.3% 24.1% 34.4%2014 8.4% 13.2% 21.6%2015 1.7% 2.2% 3.9%

Total 32.2% 67.8% 100%

As depicted in table 6, about 52% of the respondents hand IGA while GIRINKA constituted 48%. Females were 68% and males were 32%. The IGA included livestock rearing which most of the respondents (80) were engaged in. Growing of crops (cassava and beans) and business each had a share of 9% while Art and craft and others constituted less 2% of the respondents.

When asked how the projects were funded, most of the respondents (79%) reported that they were funded by FARG through Districts and sectors while 21% were directly funded by FARG. However, it should be noted that irrespective of how the projects were funded, day to day monitoring and evaluation of the Girinka and IGA projects is supposed to be principally done by district and sector officials.

23

Relatedly, respondents were asked when their projects become operational. Slightly more than half of the respondents (55%) indicated 2013 and 2014. A proportion of 19.4 % revealed that their projects commenced in 2010 and 2011. Similarly, a small proportion of the respondents (3.9%) pointed out that their projects started in 2015. It should be noted project which commenced in 2014 and 2015 had not yet had a significant impact as far as living conditions of the beneficiaries is concerned. Some of the survivors who got cows from their counterparts affirmed that apart from manure, their cows had not yet provided tangible yields. For example of the respondents remarked that:

I was given a cow 6 months ago by Alphonsine, my neighbour (Yaranyoroje) but it is still young. So, I cannot tell you that it has had a big impact on my living conditions. However, I get manure from it and use it to fertilise soils where I grow some crops and vegetable garden. I also, sell some and get some little money to buy salt and sugar. (A 47 years old women in Kibungo sector, Ngoma District)

Besides, the time when their projects commenced, respondents were asked whether they were operational. Table 7 provides details of their responses.

Table 3: Status of Income Generating Activities Is the cow still alive or project still operational?

IGA GirinkaTotal

Yes 39.9% 45.9% 85.7%No 8.4% 5.9% 14.3%

Total48.3% 51.7% 100%

If no, how long did it last? IGA GirinkaLess than a year 15.8%

One year 15.8% 28.7% 44.5%2 years 11.9% 14.9% 26.8%3 years 3.0% 5.9% 8.9%4 years 1.0% 0.0% 1.0%5 years 1.0% 2.0% 3.0%

Total 41.6% 58.4%100%

As can be seen from table 7, a proportion of 39.9 % of the respondents intimated that their projects were still operational. Also, 45.9 % of those who received cows revealed that their cows were alive. On the other hand, 8.4% pointed out that their projects were operative and 5.9% revealed that they were still having their cows.

24

Relatedly, those whose projects were not functioning or having cows were asked the span that their projects or cows took. A proportion of 71.3% indicated between 1-2 years, 15.8% mentioned less than one year, 9.9% revealed 3-4 years, and 3 % specified 5 years.

Further probing was done to explore the reasons why the IGA projects were operating as well as why some of the respondents who received cows were not having them.

Reasons why some IGA projects were not functional and Girinka beneficiaries were not having cows. Many factors contributed to the non-functioning of IGA as well as disappearance of cows. Nevertheless, the key reasons were as follows:

Vagaries of weather Some survivors of genocide who received funds from FARG invested in growing of crops such as sorghum, maize, beans and cassava. Nonetheless, the crops were immensely affected by vagaries of nature such as drought and diseases. Consequently the harvest was very low, which in turn resulted into some projects stopping to operate. For example, in Musambira sector Kamonyi district one of the cooperatives of genocide survivors had invested growing cassava, but unfortunately it was affected by a disease called cassava mosaic and the yields were very low. This was equally experienced in other Districts. For instance in Muyumbo sector, Rwamagana district one of the respondents lamented that:

I thank FARG because they had tried to bail us out of poverty by giving us money to implement our project of maize growing but it was affected by a disease. We got little money from what we had planted and decided to resort to a voluntary saving and loan practice but it doesn’t also work well because there some members failed to reimburse the money they were given (45 years old lady in Muyumbo Sector, Rwamagana District)

Lack of managerial skills.

It was revealed that some beneficiaries were not having their cows because they failed to manage them properly and this resulted in death.

25

We have benefited a lot from the cows. For me I thank our president for establishing FARG because it has helped us so much but of course there are some people who have not benefited from their cows due to poor management. They lost their cows some survivors who received cows ended up losing them. They were not being given enough pasture, hygiene and treatment.(Girinka beneficiary Mukura Sector, Huye District)

Poverty coupled with famine: It was found that in some areas, some people decided to sell their cows due to poverty and famine. For example, in Ruhango sector, Ruhango District, 20 people sold their cows and went to other districts.

Also, some survivors especially the elderly who live alone pointed out that the cows they were given are a burden to them because they cannot manage to properly take care of them. One old women lamented that: My daughter, this cow is more of a burden than a solution to poverty. Most of the time I only eat supper because during the day I wonder around looking for pasture for my cow. It eats a lot of pasture, you need to bring a lot to satisfy it and as you see me I do not have enough. (An elderly woman in Kirehe Sector, Kirehe District)

Income earned per month

Among those who were earning monthly, it was found that considerable proportions earn between 1000 and 5000 Frw per month with Northern province (43.6%) and Southern (33.5%) having the biggest number of people in this category. Those who were earning 6000-10,000FRW per month were not more than 15% in each province. In fact, the Eastern province (15% and Kigali city (14%) had the highest proportions of respondents in the category of monthly income earners. Generally, the proportions of respondents who earn more than 10,000 frw were significantly small in all the provinces. This implies that the monthly income of most of the FARG beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka is generally little.

Table 4: Ownership of house lived in

Who owns the house you live in?

We own it 16.1% 33.6% 49.7%

FARG built it for us 14.9% 27.0% 41.9%We rent 0.6% 1.1% 1.7%Repossessed 1.5% 3.5% 5.0%It was freely acquired .6% 1.1% 1.7%

Total 33.7% 66.3% 100%

26

As depicted in table 9, it is evident that almost all the respondents (98.3%) live in their own houses. This is attributed to the relentless efforts made by FARG to ensure that genocide survivors get shelter. Nonetheless, because some of the houses were constructed nearly decades ago during emergency period, they need to be renovated.

3.4 Impact of IGA/Girinka on living conditions of the beneficiaries Investigation into the impact of the projects on the living conditions of the beneficiaries was done. Many aspects were considered but the key issues of concern among others were feeding, shelter, capacity to meet household needs, and effect on social relationships.

Use of the money got from the project

FARG funded many projects of genocide survivors throughout the country. These included among others growing of crops (maize, sorghum, cassava, beans and others), rearing of pigs, poultry keeping and others. In this effect, the beneficiaries were asked what they used the money from the projects for. Figure 1 presents details of the responses.

Figure 1: Use of the money got from project

Business

Bought a bicycle

Bought a motorcycle

Bought a plot of land

Built a house

Paid fees for children

Paid mutuelle

Bought a cow

Other specify (Household properties )

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

1

1

1

2

4

11

18

19

48

Respondents were asked what they used the money got from IGA for. Close to half of the respondents (48%) bought house hold properties; 19% bought cows; 18% paid medical insurance, while 11% paid fees for their children. Proportions of 4% and 2% built houses and bought plots of land respectively. Those who were engaged in business, bought bicycle and motorcycle were very few. These statistics imply that much as there were some

27

beneficiaries mismanaged their projects, all the IGA beneficiaries sampled were able to get tangible assets from their projects. In fact, some of them though few used the little money got from their projects to buy productive assets like cow, plot of land, house and others.

Table 5: Number of meals per day before and after the intervention by FARG

ResponseBefore FARG’s support After FARG’s support

IGA Girinka IGA Girinka

Could at times fail to get food 6.9% 13.5% 2.1% 2.5%

One meal per day 22.7% 19.6% 13.9% 16.5%

Two meals per day 17.5% 18.4% 29.1% 29.7%

Three meals per day 1.0% .4% 3.1% 3.2%

Total 32.2% 67.8% 48.1% 51.9%

As indicated in table 10, there was a considerable increase in the number of meals per day after the intervention by FARG. Before they were supported by FARG, about 20% of the respondents could at times fail to get what to eat and the Girinka beneficiaries were relatively more those with income generating activities. Similarly a proportion of 42.3% reported that they used to eat one meal per day while 35.9% could afford two meals a day. A small proportion (1.4%) pointed out that they used to have three meals.

However, after getting support from FARG, there was a considerable improvement in feeding. The percentage of those who could at times fail to get food sharply dropped from 20% to 5%. In the same way, respondents who used to eat one meal per day reduced from 42.3% to 30.4%. On the other hand, for two meals, the number tremendously increased from 35.9% to 58.8%. Likewise, the proportion of those who used to have three meals a day doubled. There was no significant difference between beneficiaries with IGA and Girinka. On further probing, respondents were asked the diet and details are presented in table 11.

28

Table 6: Respondents’ household diet before and after FARG’s support

ResponseBefore FARG’s support After FARG’s support

IGA Girinka IGA Girinka

Same meal every time 22.2% 22.3% 10.4% 8.3%

Poor meal but changing 20.0% 24.3% 26.9% 34.8%

Meal changing as we wish 5.9% 5.3% 10.8% 8.7%

Total 48.1% 51.9% 48.1% 51.9%

As can be seen from table 11, before receiving support from FARG, there was a sizeable proportion of both IGA and Girinka respondents (44.5%) who used to have the same every time. Nevertheless, after the support, it significantly dwindled to 18.7% leading to an increase of respondents who get poor meal but at least changing. Also, the percentage of those who used to change meals as they wished greatly increased from 11.2% to 19.5%. It should be noted that there was no significant difference in diet between beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka.

It can therefore be inferred that Girinka and IGA programmes of FARG have greatly contributed to the beneficiaries’ improvement in nutrition. In fact, one of the beneficiaries testified that;

Since I got this cow I have no problem of feeding, before I used to feed on potatoes and beans and at times I could one meal a day. But when my cow produced I started feeding very well. It produces 5 to 10 litres per day so I consume milk and sell the surplus. Every week I go to the market and buy every type of food I wish. Even these chairs you are seeing I bought them from the money that I got from the sale of milk. An old woman from Bushoki sector Rulindo district

Shelter is one of the areas where FARG has been focusing. In this study, in order to explore the impact of the projects on the living conditions of the beneficiaries, the respondents were asked about shelter before and after FARG support. Table 12 indicates the responses.

29

Table 7: Respondents’ shelter before and after FARG’s support

ResponseBefore FARG’s support After FARG’s support

Male Female Male Female

Live with relatives 4.6% 15.0% 2.5% 6.1%

Live in my own house 24.6% 48.3% 29.0% 60.3%

Rent 2.9% 4.5% 0.7% 1.4%

Total 32.1% 67.9% 32.1% 67.9%

As indicated in table 12, before FARG’s intervention, a proportion of 19.6% lived with relatives, 72.9 % were living in their own houses and most of them were females. Similarly, 7.4% were renting. Nonetheless, after the intervention, the situation changed positively. The number of those who were living with their relatives reduced to 8.6% while those who were living in their own houses increased to 89.3%. On the other hand, those who were renting reduced from 7.4% to 2. 1%.

Besides shelter, respondents were asked their capacity to meet health needs. Table 14 presents details of their responses.

Table 8: Respondents’ capacity to meet health needs of their household members

Before supportfrom FARG

After support from FARG

No capacity 45.9% 10.1%

Very limited capacity 8.5% 50.3%

limited capacity 45.5% 36.5%

Large capacity 0.1% 1.5%

Total 100 100

From table14, a proportion of about 46% genocide survivors sampled reported that before FARG’s support they had no capacity to meet the health needs of members of their families but after getting support from FARG, the number reduced to 10% and most of them (86.8%) got the capacity though limited.

Figure 2: Have you ever received training about project management practices

30

Yes 28%

No72%

Before being given funds, the beneficiaries were supposed to be trained in appropriate management practices. In this effect, recipients of IGA fund were asked whether they received training. A proportion of 72% responded in the negative while 28% affirmed. When asked reasons for not being trained, it was revealed that the funds to facilitate the trainers were not sufficient.

3.5 Psycho-social impact of Girinka and IGA programsBasically, social impact entailed determining the social consequences that followed the inclusion of the beneficiary households into Girinka and IGA programs. It was measured in terms of contribution to strengthening relationships with neighbours, consideration of the beneficiaries by their neighbours, support to neighbours and participation in social ceremonies among others.

Table 9: Contribution of GIRINKA program or IGA to the strengthening of beneficiaries’ relationships with their neighbours

Age It worsened No contribution

at all

A Moderate contribution

A very big contribution

Total

22-29 - 0.8% 2.8% 0.4% 4.0%30-39 0.8% 4.4% 6.8% 1.9% 14.0%40-49 0.5% 3.6% 13.2% 9.2% 26.5%50-59 0.6% 4.6% 13.2% 8.8% 27.2%60-69 1.5% 3.8% 11.2% 2.1% 18.6%

70 and above 0.6% 1.9% 5.9% 1.4% 9.7% Total 4.0% 19.2% 53.0% 23.8% 100%

31

Girinka and IGA programs have contributed to the strengthening of the beneficiaries’ social relationships with their neighbours. After benefiting from Girinka or IGA programs, about 77% of the respondents indicated that the programs contributed to the reinforcement of social relationships with their neighbours, against 19.2% and 4% who reported not having contributed and worsened the relationships respectively. The impact on social relationships was mostly experienced by survivors aged 40-59 years. Those whose situation worsened claimed that when they received support, some of their neighbours became jealousy and therefore their relationships slackened.

32

There are some people who felt unhappy when FARG gave us cows. So, we no longer relate well as we used before. I hear that in some sectors, some people bewitched cows of some genocide survivors to the extent that they do not produce. (A male Girinka recipient in Kibungo sector, Ngoma District)

Table 10: Contribution of GIRINKA program or IGA to the beneficiaries’ consideration by their neighbours

Age It worsened No contribution

at all

A Moderate

contribution

A very big

contribution

Total

22-29 - 1.1% 2.1% .8% 4.0%30-39 0.7% 4.6% 7.1% 1.7% 14.0%40-49 1.7% 8.5% 13.2% 3.2% 26.5%50-59 2.2% 8.9% 13.9% 2.2% 27.2%60-69 1.4% 6.4% 9.3% 1.5% 18.6%

70 and above 1.0% 3.2% 4.6% 1.0% 9.7%Total 6.9% 32.6% 50.1% 10.4% 100%

As can be seen from table 16, a substantial proportion of the respondents (60.5%) revealed that the Girinka and IGA programs were instrumental with regard to consideration of the beneficiaries by their neighbours. Nevertheless, to some (32.6%), there was no change and others the situation became worse especially those who were aged 40 and above.

Table 11: Contribution of GIRINKA program or IGA to the beneficiaries’ support of their neighboursAge No contribution at

allA Moderate contribution

A big contribution

Total

22-29 1.1% 2.1% .8% 4.0%30-39 4.9% 7.8% 1.4% 14.0%40-49 10.8% 12.5% 3.2% 26.5%50-59 10.8% 13.3% 3.1% 27.2%60-69 7.1% 9.3% 2.2% 18.6%

70 and above 4.0% 3.5% 2.2% 9.7%Total 38.7% 48.4% 12.9% 100%

With regard to support of their neighbours, a considerable percentage of the respondents (61.3%) indicated that they have been able to support their neighbours as a result Girinka and IGA FARG programs. On further probing, it was revealed that some of those who got cows were able to pass- on to their neighbours (genocide survivors), give them manure and

33

milk. On the other hand, 38.7% pointed out that they were not able to support their neighbours because their projects failed. Similarly, those who had cows could not support their neighbours simply because their cows were still young as they had also been supported by others.

Table 12: Contribution of GIRINKA program or IGA to the beneficiaries’ participation in social ceremoniesAge

It worsened No contribution at

all

A Moderate

contribution

A very big

contribution

Total

22-29 - 1.0% 2.2% .8% 4.0%30-39 0.1% 4.3% 8.2% 1.4% 14.0%40-49 0.3% 10.1% 13.3% 2.8% 26.5%50-59 0.6% 11.9% 12.9% 1.8% 27.2%60-69 0.4% 8.5% 8.6% 1.1% 18.6%

70 and above 0.6% 3.6% 4.9% .7% 9.7%Total 1.9% 39.4% 50.1% 8.6% 100.0%

The Girinka and IGA programs have particularly contributed to the beneficiaries’ involvement in social ceremonies in their community. A proportion of close to 60% said that they supported their neighbour’s events by contributing some little money as well as sharing with them in times of sorrow, and other social ceremonies.

Table 13: Contribution of GIRINKA program or IGA to the strengthening of local leaders’ support to beneficiariesAge It worsened No contribution at

allA Moderate contribution

A very big contribution

Total

22-29 .0% 1.2% 1.5% 1.2% 4.0%30-39 .1% 4.3% 6.9% 2.6% 14.0%40-49 .3% 11.0% 11.9% 3.3% 26.5%50-59 .6% 11.0% 13.2% 2.5% 27.2%60-69 .6% 7.5% 8.6% 1.9% 18.6%70 and above .3% 3.9% 4.3% 1.2% 9.7%Total 1.8% 38.8% 46.5% 12.9% 100%

As indicated in table 19, close to 60% of the respondents indicated Girinka and IGA programs increased local leaders’ support to them. It was revealed that before these programs, there was no special attention given by local leaders to the survivors. However, after getting support from FARG, the local leaders were obliged to follow up the beneficiaries and in so doing, the beneficiaries’ needs and problems are understood and

34

dealt with where possible or reported to FARG and associations of genocide survivors such as AVEGA.

On the other hand, some beneficiaries indicated they the programs had no impact on the local leaders’ support to them and a very small percentage close to 2% intimated that the situation instead worsened. The main reason given was that the leaders were crafty and uncaring.

Table 14: Challenges faced by IGA and Girinka beneficiaries Province Insufficie

nt means Limited

managerial skills

Less of technical support

RobbersOther

Total

Kigali city 5.1% 1.3% 0.4% 0.3% 1.4% 8.6%Southern 11.4% 9.9% 1.9% 1.2% 7.9% 32.5%Western 7.6% 8.9% 0.3% 0.3% 4.3% 21.4%Northern 6.5% 3.2% 0.6% 0.4% 3.5% 14.0%Eastern 12.1% 6.9% 0.1% 0.6% 3.9% 23.6%

Total 42.7% 30.3% 3.3% 2.8% 20.9% 100%

As shown in table 20, the main challenges faced by beneficiaries of Girinka and IGA include insufficient funds (42.7%) and this was mainly reported in the southern and Eastern provinces. For IGA, it was pointed out that the first instalment was small for some cooperatives which invested in costly projects. Similarly, for Girinka, some recipients did not get money for medicine and cowsheds. Another key challenge was limited managerial skills. It was revealed that most of the beneficiaries were not trained in project management or cow rearing practices which to some extent culminated into poor management of their projects and in some cases closure. Other challenges included death of cows because of lack of medicine, vagaries of weather such as drought, and crop diseases.

When asked the solutions to the challenges faced, the following were suggested: Increase of financial support; training in project management especially for those with IGA, easy access to veterinary services as well as support to construct cowsheds.

3.6 Specific impact of Girinka program on the living conditions of recipients In this study, Girinka was one of the key aspects of focus. Slightly more than half of the sampled respondents (52%) were recipients of cows from FARG. In assessing the impact of

35

Girinka program, issues such as cows possessed before, what manure from the cow is used for, challenges faced, amount milk the cow produces per day and others were considered.

Cow Possessed before Girinka program (n=376)

Before Girinka program, half of the cow recipients (51%) did not have cows and many of them were females. A proportion of 32% had one cow but mostly females while 19% had two cows. A very small percentage (2%) of respondents reported that they had more than two cows. It should be noted that even those who had cows got them from the government’s Girinka program of passing - on (kworoza). Those who had cows were asked what they use the manure for and figure 3 presents details of the findings.

Figure 3: Use of manure got from the cow (n=376)

Use it in our farm

Seel it

Give ot to neighbours

Others

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

85%

10%

3%

2%

Most of the respondents (85%) reported that they use manure in their farms, 10% sell it while 3% give out manure to their neighbours. A proportion of 2% said that they use it for other purposes such as production of biogas. This implies that the manure from the cows not only help the recipients to improve on agriculture production but also earn them some money hence improving on their standards of living.

Besides, manure, it was found that many respondents who had cows sell milk from their cows. Therefore, they were asked the mount of milk sold per day and figure 4 provides details of the responses.

36

Figure 4: Litres of milk sold per day (n=244)

1litre 2-5 litres 6-9 litres 10 litres and above

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16%

78%

5%1%

It was found that milk selling varies from one household to another. Most of the respondents (78%) indicated that they sell between 2-5 litters per day. A proportion of 16% sell 1 litre per day while 5% sell 6-9 litres. A very small percentage (1%) indicated 10 litres.

37

Figure 5: Money got from the sale of milk per month (n=244)

Less than 10,000 Frw

11,000- 20000Frw

21,000-30,000Frw

31,000- 40,000Frw

41,000- 50,000Frw

More than 100,000Frw

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

68%

22%

7%

2%

1%

0%

Besides, the amount of milk sold, respondents were asked the monthly income from selling milk. Most of them (68%) reported 10,000 frw. Proportions of 22% and 7% indicated 11,000-20,000frw and 21,000-30,000 frw correspondingly. Those who earn more than 30,000 frw constituted 3%. These statistics show that the recipients of cows can meet the most immediate needs of their households. It is worth to note that though the Girinka beneficiaries are not totally dependent upon the income from their cows, they contribute an important part of their source of earning.

Table 15: Litres of milk consumed per day (n = 244)

Province 1litre 2-5 litres TotalKigali city 1.6% 13.7% 5.3%

Southern Province 5% 17.2% 37.2%

Western Province 5.2% 11.6% 16.8%Eastern Province 7% 18.5% 25.5%

Northern Province 4.5% 15.7% 15.2%Total 23.3 % 76.7% 100%

As indicated in table 21, most of the respondents (77%) said that they consume 2-5 litres per day while 43.3% consume 1 litre. This indicates that cows help to improve on the nutrition of the recipients hence good health.

38

4. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF IGA/GIRINKA IMPACT4.1 Relevance, Effectiveness and Sustainability of FARG IGA including Girinka

RelevanceFollowing the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, the Government of National Unity established the Fund for Survivors of Genocide in Rwanda “FARG” in 1998 to provide assistance to the neediest survivors of genocide. Today FARG is governed by the law no 81/2013 of 11/9/2013. Also, the national social protection was entrenched with programs such as the VUP Financial Services, support for income generation programs among genocide survivors, and the continuation of the Ubudehe priority community interventions program. These programs are part of and contribute to broader national initiatives across government and the private sector, focused on strengthening cooperatives, Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) and increasing access to financial services and income generating opportunities3.

FARG IGA Program not only fits with the national social protection but also with the basic principles of Social protection. These include protecting the chronically poor, preventing the vulnerable from being decimated by uninsured shocks as well as the livelihoods of the entrepreneurial poor4. In the light of these, FARG is very relevant and survivors have applauded the support the institution provides to them. Programs particularly Girinka and IGA have transformed the lives of many genocide survivors in the sense that they have tremendously contributed to improvement in their psychosocial well-being, nutrition, and health among others.

Effectiveness The survey revealed that in many sectors, the income generating projects supported by FARG were generally effective and the living conditions of the beneficiaries has improved. Examples are found in the sectors of Ngororero (Ngororero), Kabagari (Ruhango), Munyiginya (Rwamagana), Mata (Nyaruguru), Musambira (Kamonyi), Mwurire and Muyumbu (Rwamagana), Nyarubuye (Kirehe), Busasamana (Nyanza), Nyamirama (Kayonza), and Tumba (Huye) among other. However, there are other areas where the implementation of IGA and Girinka programs was not effectively done. These include among others Sectors such as Nyamata (Bugesera), Rukumberi (Ngoma), Muteete (Gicumbi), Gashonga (Rusizi), Kagano (Nyamasheke), Muhima, Nyamirambo, and Mageraragere (Nyarugenge), Kacyiru and Bumbogo (Gasabo) and Kigabiro (Rwamagana). There are several reasons that militated against the effective implementation of Girinka and IGA programs. These include

3 National Social Protection Strategy, MINALOC, 20114 Stephen Devereux: Transformative Graduation

39

High level of poverty in some areas, for example in Ruhango sector (Ruhango), Mutete sector (Gicumbi), Kagano sector (Nyamasheke) and others, some recipients of cows decided to sell them due to poverty.

Insufficient capacity building especially of IGA beneficiaries Mismanagement of funds by beneficiaries as well as some local leaders especially at

sector levels in some districts and sectors Inadequate extension support services (agriculture & Livestock) Inadequate Monitoring and evaluation Irregularities in the reporting system from the beneficiary up to the district level

Limited support of local leaders in some areas

EfficiencyAs mentioned earlier, there were IGA that are properly managed but others not. Among the factors of poor management some are relate to the beneficiaries and others to FARG and/or collaborators. The factors that are related the beneficiaries include:

Mindset of some beneficiaries: Some of the beneficiaries consider the support they get is a charity and therefore do not feel accountable and use it way they like with hope that they will get more for free.

Limited skills in project management: Most of IGA beneficiaries have limited skills as far as project management is concerned. In fact, it was found that most of them had not been trained in project management.

Factors related FARG and/or collaborators

Inadequate planning: Ideally, beneficiaries are supposed to get funds after thorough scrutiny and planning of their project beneficiaries as well as planning made by sector and district officials in collaboration with FARG. However, in the 2012 the planning was not sufficiently done and this resulted in misappropriation of especially the earmarked funds.

Delays by sector officials to disburse funds to the beneficiaries: It was found that there were some IGA beneficiaries who had not yet got the second installment of the funds they were supposed to get. This is mainly attributed to bureaucracy.

Instruction not followed by Districts/Sectors: Some sectors disbursed the 2nd installment without any evaluation of projects or not following the guidelines provided by FARG. Implementation

Limited access to public extension services: Agricultural and livestock projects hardly benefit from district/sector technical support/supervision.

Sustainability

40

Mindset of some beneficiaries, inadequate capacity building, limited support services and inadequate monitoring do not only militate against the effective implementation of IGA but also affect their sustainability. Therefore, to ensure accountability and sustainability of IGA, the FARG grant can be converted into a credit facility.

Also, FARG needs to work in partnership with private organizations which can build capacity, mentor, and monitor IGA beneficiaries on a regular basis. FARG also needs to work with financial institutions that will provide and recover the loans.

41

4.2 Proposed strategies aimed at improving the implementation of IGA/Girinka programsIn order to improve the implementation of IGA/Girinka programs and sustain them, some strategies have been devised. These include financial assistance facility, mentoring of beneficiaries of IGA/Girinka program especially in managerial skills, capacilty building and monitoring and evaluation. For FARG, the major reform would be contracting out private organizations or CSOs that would build capacity, mentor and monitor IGA beneficiaries at the field level on a regular basis.

4.2.1 Financial assistance In order to inculcate in IGA beneficiaries the element of ownership, accountability and eradicate mismanagement of funds that FARG gives them, it is imperative that the financial assistance be reformed. To effectively apply this strategy, FARG needs to work in partnership with financial institutions, private organizations and civil society organizations (CSOs). Also, for the IGA to yield better results so that more beneficiaries graduate to a sustainable self- reliance level, they should be categorized into three.

First category: university graduates

There are some unemployed university graduates who were supported by FARG right from secondary school level. These only need start-up capital, they can be encouraged and support to access financial services provided by institutions such as BDF and others. They can be supported to develop projects which can be financed.

Second category: TVET graduates

FARG has been facilitating some genocide survivors in attaining technical and vocational education and training and some completed and need to be facilitated to create their own jobs. These should be provided with start-up kits or materials and some little money so that they can create their own sustainable employment. Also, they can be encouraged to form associations depending on their areas of specialization and be facilitated to access financial services as well as udukiriro. The criteria for selection of beneficiaries in this can category can include age of 18-45 years, having a TVET qualification and being an association among others.

Third category: Grant Beneficiaries

Semi illiterate or illiterate young men and women in villages can be encouraged to form associations and be helped to establish small income generating projects which can be

42

financed. The eligibility criteria for this category include age of 25-55 years and being a member of an operational association.

The third category include Girinka program .For Girinka program, it is recommended that the criteria stipulated the law be followed. However, those who are 65 years and above and cannot manage to look after a cow or who because of illness or disability cannot actively work with others in an association should be put in the category of direct support.

Partners’ roles

FARG

Planning, Budgeting and mobilizing required resources Signing contrats with private organisations in charge of supervising IGA on a regular

basis Coordinating the monitoring and evaluation system

Private organisations

Ensuring that eligible IGA beneficiaries access the credit facility; Providing guidance to both IGA beneficiaries and FARG about what can be done for

the success of the projects Providing the training on business skills to IGA/cooperatives’ members; Outsourcing technical assistance required by the cooperatives ; Evaluate the cooperatives’ performance Recommend appropriate actions;

FARG IGA Beneficiaries

Implement the IGA including Girinka Undergoing training in management skills and business skills; Participating actively in Projects/ cooperatives activities; Providing regularly reports on the project activities to FARG, and other stakeholders;

43

Table 16: Financial assistance framewok

Current situation

Specific objectives

Expected results

Priority strategic actions

Timeframe

Performance indicators

Sources of verification

Responsible

Stakeholders/Partners

FARG provides financial support to its beneficiaries as grant with no intention of being refunded

FARG grant has developed a mindset of dependence among its beneficiaries

The Monitoring and evaluation system of the IGA at all levels is relatively poor

To categorize FARG IGA beneficiaries into three categories.

There is no longer the mindset of dependence among FARG beneficiaries

FARG IGA beneficiaries are graduating from poverty

To cooperate with financial institutions (preferably those with experience of working with cooperatives at grassroots level5)

To contract out private organizations6 that would be in charge of work closely with FARG IGA beneficiaries. These organizations would build capacity, mentor and monitor FARG neediest beneficiaries in their IGAs

To build capacity of its beneficiaries especially in entrepreneurship

2016-2017Number of beneficiaries of the Financial assistance

Number of performing IGAs

Number of performing loans

Contracts between FARG with private organizations

Financial institutions reports

Director of Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation (FARG)

MINECOFINMINALOCFinancial InstitutionsPrivate OrganizationsFARG beneficiaries

5 Financial institutions like BPR, Duterimbere, UOB…have been reported to have such an experience6 Genocide survivors organisations can also compete for these contracts

44

4.2.2 Capacity Building Strategy

As people acquire knowledge and skills and work together over time this builds organizational capacity (DAC, 2006). Developing capacity of people in an association or an organization requires instigating change, a process that must be endogenous and fully owned by those undertaking it (Bolger, 2000; Baser, 2007). Capacity building is now recognized as involving much more than training and knowledge transfers. It involves people as well as the organization as a whole. It is also dependent on the surrounding environment that influences the extent to which individuals or organizations have the ability to acquire new skills and adapt to new ways.

In the context of FARG especially the IGA program, there is dire need for capacity building. It was found that 72% of IGA beneficiaries had never been trained in relationship with IGA. Even those who received training were representatives of associations who did not train their members. In fact, in some sectors, it was revealed that that some IGA were not doing well or stopped partly due to poor managerial or technical skills. Therefore, capacity building is intended to enable members of associations for IGA manage their projects. There is need for FARG to contract out private organizations that would build capacity. IGA beneficiaries. The capacity building will focus on the following areas:

Entrepreneurship Project Management Training in the specific areas (eg. Horticulture, Small stock, catering...) Marketing Financial management

45

Table 21: Capacity Building Framework

Current situation

Specific objectives

Expected results

Priority strategic actions

Timeframe

Performance indicators

Sources of verification

Responsible

Stakeholders/Partners

72% of IGA beneficiaries have never been trained in Project management.

Even those who received training were representatives of associations who did not train their members

To build the capacity of IGA beneficiaries in order to equip them with the right knowledge, attitudes and skills in relationship with IGA management

To regularly organize trainings on project management for most IGA beneficiaries on: Entrepreneurshi

p Project

Management Training in the

specific area s(eg. Horticulture, Small stock, catering...)

Marketing Financial

management

FARG Beneficiaries under IGA Program are equipped with an entrepreneurial spirit and skills

FARG Beneficiaries are equipped with technical skills in their respective areas

IGA are properly managed

To conduct a census of Genocide survivors eligible for the IGA Program

To contract out private organizations that would build capacity for its Beneficiaries under IGA Program

To monitor and evaluate the capacity building program

2016-2017 Level of trainees participation Number of trained peopleNumber of study tours

Training modules

Training calendar

Training reports

Director of Program (FARG)

Financial InstitutionsPrivate OrganizationsFARG beneficiaries

46

4.2.3 Mentorship strategy for enabling FARG beneficiaries to continue to run their project successfully

Mentoring is the support or help provided by one person to another in making significant transitions in knowledge or work (Megginson and Clutterbuck, 1995, p13). The traditional form of mentoring is one-to-one mentoring  but  there  are  other  models  of  mentoring  such  as  comentoring  or  peer  mentoring  and  group  mentoring. Mentoring can also be mentee-initiated and can happen informally when an individual seeks advice and support from another. Often people do not recognise that they have a mentor or have been mentoring.  The kind of mentoring may occur within or outside an organization. Mentoring is very complex; it varies from one situation to another. It is interpreted in different ways by different people. Therefore, it is important that the purpose and intentions of mentoring in a particular context are explicit. The organization has to decide what mentoring is to be in their context.

Stages of mentoring

According to Hay (1995), mentoring comprises the following four definable stages: Stage 1: Initiation, orientation or courtship stage Stage 2: Getting established Stage 3: Maturing or  developing independence  Stage 4: Ending, or  termination 

Stage 1: Initiation, orientation or courtship Stage

The first stage will be about creating an alliance and will involve of preparing for the relationship, forming a bond and agreeing a contract.  In other words, this stage will involve establishing rapport and trust (forming the bond), terms of reference and setting objectives. Preparation involves considering what both the mentors and mentees need to do before they meet.  Stage 2: Getting established

During stage 2, the mentees may be anxious and lacking  self-confidence. Therefore, they need friendly support, a safe and secure environment and help to identify and reflect on learning. This phase will be characterised by:

The development of honest, trusting, sincere relationship based on open communication.

Focus on learning and growth Getting to grips with business or project matters Moving from plans to real outcomes

47

This stage will involve helping the mentees to tell their story or narrative. In other words to review their situation, describe for themselves their current circumstances, how they got there and where they might consider going in the future. The emphasis here is on description with the mentee undertaking an audit or personal stocktaking of their strengths and weaknesses,  experiences,  knowledge and skills within which they work and any other aspects which may affect self -development.

Stage 3: Maturing or developing independence 

InStage3, mentors facilitate deeper learning by encouraging the mentees to reflect, to see things differently, to identify potential changes s/he might wish to make, possible goals she/he might wish to adopt and a wider range of alternative options that are available to him or her. Here, there is a shift in the mentor’s role.  The mentor will stimulate and challenge the mentees to take a different perspective, consider the merits of the various options and select the best option and devise a detailed plan for action.

Stage 4: Ending or termination stage

At this stage, the mentoring relationship will come to an end. Indicators will be identified to signify end results of the mentoring process. The ending of the relationship needs to be carefully planned so that the reliance and the habit of the relationship can be wound down gradually to try and avoid the relationship just ceasing. Partners will have to ensure that agreed tasks are completed and consider if there is any unfinished business to be dealt with and if so, how this will be tackled. 

Rationale for mentoring IGA and Girinka beneficiaries

The IGA and cows offer a major challenge to many beneficiaries especially in terms of management.  So, they need guidance and support to manage their projects. Although FARG and/or Sector officials have been visiting them, this is not enough and it is done once or twice a year. It was found out that FARG beneficiaries hardly access extension services from the District/Sector (Agricultural Officer, Veterinary and others).

Objectives of mentoring

To provide managerial and technical support to FARG Beneficiaries under IGA & Girinka Program

To advocate for IGA/Girinka beneficiaries to easily access extension services from the District/Sector (Agricultural Officers, Veterinary, etc )

Expected results

48

IGA& Girinka beneficiaries will regularly get managerial and technical support IGA& Girinka will get advisory and support services from the Sector Agricultural

Officers, Veterinary and in- charge of cooperatives on a regular basis.

Priority strategic action

In order for the mentoring program to be effectively implemented, the following strategic actions must be taken:

Contracting private organizations that would mentor IGA beneficiaries at the field level on a regular basis.

Strengthening the partnership with Sector officialsRole of FARG and partners in the mentoring program

Identifying IGA/Girinka Beneficiaries who will participate in the mentoring program. The partners especially the sector officials can collaborate to create a referral system that works for all parties and is sustainable.

Collaborate with partners to pursue funding opportunities, if any. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the mentoring program. Sharing the

monitoring and evaluation findings with stakeholders to know the challenges, if any, and propose ways of addressing.

49

Table 22: Mentorship framework

Current situation Specific objectives

Expected results

Priority strategic actions

Timeframe

Performance indicators

Sources of verification

Responsible

Stakeholders/Partners

There are no mentorship activities for beneficiaries of IGA & Girinka program.

Only visits are organized by FARG or Sector officials and is it is done once a year or in two years

It was found out that beneficiaries hardly access extension services from the District/Sector (Agricultural Officer, Veterinary…). When they need veterinary services, they are required to pay privately.

To provide managerial and technical support to FARG Beneficiaries under IGA & Girinka Program

To advocate for IGA/Girinka beneficiaries to easily access extension services from the District/Sector (Agricultural Officers, Veterinary, etc )

IGA& Girinka beneficiaries will regularly get managerial and technical support

IGA& Girinka will get advisory and support services from the Sector Agricultural Officers, Veterinary and in- charge of cooperatives on a regular basis.

Contracting private organizations that would mentor IGA beneficiaries at the field level on a regular basis.

Strengthening the partnership with Sector officials

2016-2017 Number of inquiries from FARG beneficiaries

Number of field visits from staff of the financial institutions and private organization

Number of issues tackled at the field level

Monthly, quarterly and annual reports from partners organizations

Field visits calendars

Director of Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation (FARG)

Private OrganizationsFinancial Institutions District/SectorFARG beneficiaries

50

4.2.4 Monitoring & Evaluation guidelines of Income Generating Activities

Current situation

Specific objectives

Expected results

Priority strategic actions

Timeframe

Performance indicators

Sources of verification

Responsible

Stakeholders/Partners

Each project of beneficiaries or association is required to submit quarterly reports. The Sector and the District are respectively are required to submit their reports on a quarter and annual basis

However, due to the lack of regular reporting on funded projects, FARG does not have full reports that show the funds used by the districts/sector and amount not used as well as the status of implementation of funded projects so far.

To share on regular basis information on the following information on the IGA: Status of the

project implementation

Amount of funds used

Performance of the project

Issues faced by the project

Every FARG IGA beneficiary shares with FARG, The Financial Institution and the partner organizationon a regular basis

An SMS based software aimed at sharing information on the projects status will be developed

2016-2017 Status of the project implementation

Amount of funds used

Performance of the project

Issues faced by the project

Online reportsMonthly, quarterly and annual reportsNumber of FARG beneficiaries’ enquiries

Director of Planning, Monitoring & Evaluation (FARG)

FARG beneficiaries Private OrganizationsFinancial Institutions

51

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSAfter analysing the results of the study, the following conclusions and recommendations have been derived.

Conclusions Most of the targets set by FARG during the period 2010-2015 were achieved. Specifically, in the fiscal years of 2010-2011, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015, all the targets that FARG set were achieved. In general, FARG IGA have contributed to a reasonable improvement in the standard of living of their beneficiaries. Some have been able to buy household properties, cows, pay fees and scholastic materials for their children, medical insurance and others. Those who have been either moderately or very successful are in the sectors of Ngororero (Ngororero), Kabagari (Ruhango), Munyiginya (Rwamagana), Mata (Nyaruguru), Musambira (Kamonyi), Mwurire and Muyumbu (Rwamagana), Nyarubuye (Kirehe), Busasamana (Nyanza) and Nyamirama (Kayonza) among others. Income generating projects such as rearing of pigs, goats and sale of agriculture produce were found to be cost effective and profitable.Concerning Girinka program, many recipients of cows (244 out of 376 sampled) improved on their standard of living. They consume milk, use manure in their farms and sell the surplus (Milk and manure). Nonetheless, some people have not had tangible benefits from their cows. A considerable proportion of Girinka beneficiaries (61%) were able to pass- on cows to their neighbours (kworoza), give them manure and milk. Most of the beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka Programs who were sampled improved on feeding. The percentage of those who could at times fail to get food dwindled from 20% to 5%. In the same way, those who changed from eating one meal per day to two meals increased from 35.9% to 58.8%. There was no significant difference between beneficiaries IGA and Girinka. Relatedly, there was an improvement in the diet. For both IGA and Girinka respondents, 44.5% used to have the same every time but after the support, the proportion reduced to 18.7%. Concerning psychosocial wellbeing, it was found that there has been a significant improvement in the social relationships between the beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka programs and their neighbors. The programs contributed to the reinforcement of social relationships between the beneficiaries and their neighbours (77%), beneficiaries’ support of their neighbour’s events by contributing some little money as well as sharing

52

with them in times of sorrow, and other social ceremonies (60%), consideration of the beneficiaries by their neighbours (61%), and others. A sizeable proportion of recipients of cows (65%) improved on their standard of living. They consume milk, use manure in their farms and sell the surplus (Milk and manure). Likewise, 61% of Girinka beneficiaries were able to pass-on cows to their neighbours (koroza), give neighbours manure and milk.

Nevertheless, irrespective of impressive achievements, FARG faced some challenges in in turn impinged on implementation of IGA and Girinka programs by beneficiaries. These included: non-compliance by some sector official to follow FARG guidelines; inadequate capacity building for IGA and Girinka beneficiaries due to lack of enough funds; lack of data base for the needy genocide survivors and lack of an updated strategic Plan among others

53

Recommendations1. In order to clearly describe its programs objectives, inputs, outputs, outcomes and

ease the monitoring system, FARG needs to revise and update the existing 2009-2019 strategic plan so that it is in line with the government policies such as EDPRS II, the National Social Protection Policy and others.

2. It emerged from the findings that funding of income generating projects in sectors was done without proper assessment and planning. Therefore, we recommend that FARG management should conduct a comprehensive needs assessment for the IGA Program and then plan and budget accordingly. One of the practical approaches would be conducting a census of genocide survivors who to identify those who received support or not.

3. The grant given to genocide survivors by FARG has made some of them to develop a wrong mentality (mindset) that it is free money, gift or compensation. This kind of mentality makes them misuse the funds since they are not accountable thus, failing to bail out of poverty. for the IGA to yield better results so that more beneficiaries graduate to a sustainable self- reliance level, they should be categorized into three: d) The first category of university graduates: They can be supported to develop projects

which can be financed. e) The second category of TVET graduates:They need to be encouraged to form

associations depending on their areas of specialization and be provided with start-up kits or materials. They must also be facilitated to access financial services as well as Udukiriro.

f) Third category: Grant Beneficiaries: Semi illiterate men and women in villages can be encouraged to form associations and be helped to establish small income generating projects which can be financed. The third category include Girinka program

4. FARG also needs to contract out private organizations or CSOs that would build capacity, mentor and monitor IGA beneficiaries at the field level on a regular basis.

5. In this study, it was found that some beneficiaries of IGA and Girinka programs are getting older and for those who live with severe handicap or diseases, it is becoming difficult for them to actively indulge in income generating activities or look after the cows they were given. Therefore, there is a need for FARG to identify these people and shift them from IGA/Girinka to direct support.

6. FARG should collaborate with the Ministry of local government to put stringent measures against district and sector officials’ non-compliance with its guidelines regarding disbursement of funds for IGA and Girinka and other operational issues.

54

55

ANNEX 1: QUESTIONNAIREREPUBULIKA Y’URWANDA

IKIGEGA CYA LETA KIGAMIJE GUFASHA ABACITSE KW’ICUMU RYA JENOSIDE BATISHOBOYE

URUTONDE RW’IBIBAZWA

ICYITONDERWA: Ibirimo ni ibanga Bireba abatewe inkunga y’imishinga ibyara inyungu hamwe n’aba Girinka guhera 2010 kugera 2015 Ubazwa agomba kuba afiteteniburaimyaka 22 y’amavuko

IGICE CYAMBERE : KIREBA ABATEWE INKUNGA Y’IMISHINGA IBYARA INYUNGU HAMWE N’ABA GIRINKA (BOSE)

IGIKA A : IBIRANGA UBAZWA N’AHO ATUYE

N° Ibibazwa Ibisubizo Ikirango

A1 INTARA 1. Umujyiwa Kigali 2. Amajyepfo 3. Iburengerazuba 4. Amajyaruguru 5. Iburasirazuba /__/

A2 AKARERE ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

A3 UMUJYI/ICYARO 1. Umujyi 2. Icyaro /__/

A4

Itarikiy’ibiganiro :

___ /___ / 2016

Amazina y’Umukaraniw’ibarura

:……..………………………………….

Ikirango

/__/__/

Umukono

………………………..

A5

Itarikiy’igenzura :___ /___ / 2016

Amazina y’Umugenzuzi :…………………………………………………. Ikirango/__/__/

Umukono………………………..

A6

Itarikiyokwinjiza mu mashini. :

___ /___ / 2016

Amazina y’Ubishyira mu mashini :

……………………………………….

Ikirango

/__/__/

Umukono

………………………..

56

IGIKA CYA B: IMITERERE Y’UBAZWA N’AHO ATUYE

N° y’Ubazwa

Igitsina Imyakay’amavuko Irangamimerere Amashuriyize Umurimoakora Amafarangayinjiza Icumbi

Igitsinacy’ubazwa

Gabo ...1Gore ...2

Ufiteimyakaingahey’amavuko?

()

Ese, urubatse?

Ingaragu ...1Arubatse ...2Yaratandukanye ..3 Yatandukanye burundu...4Yarapfakaye ....5

Ni ikihecyicirocy’amashuriwarangije?Sinize....1Sinarangijeabanza....2Abanza....3 Ayingoboka....4 Tronccommun....5 Ayisumbuyeasanzwe....6Ayisumbuyey’imyuga...7Amakuru....8

Ukoramurimoki?

Ntakazimfite…… ....1Umuhinzi …2Umworozi....3Umuhinzimworozi …4Umukoziuhembwa....5Umucuruzi....6Umunyabukorikori....7Umunyeshuri....8Ikindi (kivuge) ....9

MurirusangewabawinjizaamafarangaAngahekukwezi?Ntanamake….1Hagati ya 1.000 na 5.000F….2Hagati ya 6.000 na 10.000F….3Hagati ya 11.000 na 20.000F….4Hagati ya 21.000 na 30.000F….5Hagati ya 31.000 na 50.000F….6Hagati ya 51.000 na 100.000F….7Hagati ya 101.000 na 300.000F…8Hejuru ya 301.0000F …9

Iyinzumubamo ni iyande?

Ni iyacubwite......1 Twubakiwena FARG……2Ni inzuy’umwenda twishyurwabuhorobuhoro........3 Turakodesha……4 Ducumbikiwen’umukoresha…5 Icumbitwaboneyeubuntu.......6 Ubundiburyo (kubuvuga)...7

NUM B01 B02 B03 B04 B05 B06 B07

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

57

IGIKA CYA C: IMITERERE Y’UMUSHINGA

N° y’Ubazwa

Ubwokobw’umushiga

Imiterereyawo Izina Ibikorwa Inziraumushinga

wanyuzemo

Umwakawatangiye Kuba

Ugikora

Igihewamaze Icyawuteyeguhagarara

Wambwira ubwoko bw’umushinga watewemo inkunga na FARG?Ni Umshinga ubyara Inyungu ...1Ni Girinka...2

Ni umushinga w’umuntu Ku giti cye ...1CgUw’itsinda/Koperative...2

IGA na Girinka... 3

Niba ar’itsinda (koperative) vuga izina ry’iryo tsinda

Ni umushinga w’ubuhe bwoko:Ubuhinzi..1Ubworozi..2Ubukorikori...3Ubucuruzi...4Ikindi (kivuge)...5

Ni FARG yateye inkunga umushinga wanyu kubwayo..1CgFARG yabicishi ku Karere /umurenge...2

Umushinga wanyu watanjyiye mu wuhe mwaka2010...12011...22012...32013...42014...52015...6

Umushinga wanyu uracyakora Yego...1Oya...2

Niba ari oya wamaze igihe kingana iki ?Umwaka 1..1Imyaka 2...2Imyaka 3...3Imyaka 4....4Imyaka 5....5Munsi y’umwaka...6

Niba ari oya niki cyawuteye guhagararaUbumenyi buke...1Amafaranga make...2Ubufasha bwa tekinike buke...3Ubujura...4Gupfa kw’amatungo...5Uburwayi bwacu...6Ikindi(kivuge)...7

NUM C01 C02 C03 C04 C05 C06 C07 C08 C09

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

58

IGIKA CYA D 1: ICYO UMUSHINGA WAGEJEJE KU BAGENERWABIKORWA BAWO

N°

y’Ubazwa

Icyo umushinga wabyaye Umubarew’amafunguro Imitererey’ifunguro

Niki wakoresheje amafaranga wakuye mu mushinga ?Naguze ubutaka...1Nubatse inzu...2Naguze igare...3Naguze moto...4Nayashoye mu bucuruzi...5Naguze Itungo rigufi ..6Naguze Inka...7Nishyuye Mutuelle...8Nishyura amashuri y’abana....9Ikindi(kivuge)...10

Mbere yo guterwa inkunga wafataga amafunguro inshuro zingahe ku munsi?Har‘igihe bwiraga ntafunguye...1Rimwe ku munsi...2Kabiri ku munsi ...3Gatatu ku munsi...4

Nyuma yo guterwa inkunga:

Har‘igihe bwira ntafunguye ...1Rimwe ku munsi...2Kabiri ku munsi ...3Gatatu ku munsi...4

Mbere yo guterwa inkunga wahinduranyaga ibigize igaburo?

Indyo imwe buri gihe ...1Indyo ikennye ariko ihinduka...2Indyo yahindukaga uko tubyifuza...3Ikindi (Kivuge)...4

Nyuma yo guterwa inkunga:

Indyo imwe buri gihe ...1Indyo ikennye ariko ihinduka...2Indyo ihinduka uko tubyifuza...3

NUM D01 D02 D03 D04 D05|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

IGIKA CYA D2: ICYO UMUSHINGA WAGEJEJE KU BAGENERWABIKORWA BAWO (SUITE)

59

N° y’Ubazwa

Ahomubarizwa Ubwishingiziukoresha Ubushobozi bwo kwivuza Umubarew’abiga mu rugorwanyu,

Mbere yo guterwa inkunga wabaga he?Nabanaga n’abavandimwe...1Nabaga mu nzu yanjye..2Narakodeshaga...3Nubatse inzu irimo abapangayi...4

Nyuma yo guterwa inkunga:Nabanaga n’abavandimwe...1Nabaga mu nzu yanjye..2Narakodeshaga...3Nubatse inzu ifite abapangayi...4

Mbere yo guterwa inkunga wagiraga ubwishingizi:Ntabwo nagiraga ...1Mutuelle...2Rama...3Radiant...4MMI...5FARG...6Iyindi...7

Ubwishingizi nkoresha nyuma yo guterwa inkungaNtabwo ngira...1Mutuelle...2Rama...3Radiant...4MMI...5FARG...6Iyindi...7

Ubushobozi narimfite mbere yo guterwa inkunga:Bucye cyane...1Bucye...2Buringaniye...3Bwinshi ...4

Bwinshi cyane ...5

Ubushobozi mfite nyuma yo guterwa inkunga:Bucye cyane...1Bucye...2Buringaniye...3Bwinshi...4

Bwinshi cyane ...5

Mbere yo guterwa inkunga: warufite ubushobozi bo k’wishura ikiye cy‘ ishiro cya mashuri y‘abanaNta numwe wigeze yiga ...1: Abanza...2: Ayisumbuye...3:Imyuga...4:Kaminuza...5:

Nyuma yo guterwa inkunga, warufite ubushobozi bo k’wishura ikiye cy‘ ishiro cya mashuri y‘abana:Nta numwe wigeze yiga ...1: Abanza...2: Ayisumbuye...3:Imyuga...4:Kaminuza...5:

NUM D06 D07 D08 D09 D10 D11 D12 D13

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

|__|__|

|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__||__| |__||__||__||__||__|

60

IGIKA CYA D3: ICYO UMUSHINGA WAGEJEJE KU BAGENERWABIKORWA BAWO (SUITE)

N° y’Ubazwa

Uko ubona imibereho yawe mu ngeri zitandukanye zikurikira, biturutse ku mushinga ubyara inyugu cg Girinka biterw’inkunga na FARG

Ibibazo n‘icyakorwa

Ugereranije nyuma yo guterwa inkunga imibanire n’abandi (Abaturanyi, Umuryango, Inshuti) imeze ite?Yasubiye inyuma...1Ntacyahindutse...2Yatey’imbere buhoro...3Yatey’ibere cyane...4

Ugereranije nyuma yo guterwa inkunga uburyo abandi bagufata bate?Bwasubiye inyuma...1Ntacyahindutse...2Bwatey’imbere buhoro...3Bwatey’imbere cyane...4

Ugereranije nyuma yo guterwa inkunga; inkunga utera abandi: Ingana iki?1Ntacyahindutse...1Yatey’imbere buhoro...2Yatey’ibere cyane...3

Ugereranije nyuma yo guterwa inkungawitabira ibikorwa rusange (Amakwe, Inama rusange, Umuganda, Inama z’ababyeyi..) ku ruhe rugero?Byasubiye inyuma...1Ntacyahindutse...2byatey’imbere buhoro...3Byatey’ibere cyane...4

Ugereranije nyuma yo guterwa inkunga wifafashiswa n’inzego z’ibanze z’ubuyoboz i(Izego z’ubuyobozi, Njyanama..) ku ruhe rugero?Byasubiye inyuma...1Ntacyahindutse...2byatey’imbere buhoro...3Byatey’ibere cyane...4

Ni ibihe bibazo by’ingenzi muhura nabyo mu bijyanye n’umishiga cg Girinka watewemo inkunga?Inkunga idahagije...1Ubumenyi bucye mu micungire yayo...2Amahugurw make...3Inkunga nke ya tekinike ...4Abajura...5Ikindi (Kivuge)....6

Usanga ari iki cyakorwa mu bijyanye no guteza imbere umishiga cg Girinka watewemo inkunga?Kwogera inkunga...1Amahugurwa mu micungire y‘imishinga...2Ubufasha bw’inzego z’ibanze..3Ubujyanama bw‘impuguke...4Ingendo shuri ...5Ikindi (Kivuge)....6

NUM D14 D15 D16 D17 D18 D19 D20

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|__|

61

Igice cyakabiri  : IbibazobirebaabateweinkungayaGirinkana FARG (bonyine)

N°

y’Ubazwa

Inkayaratunze Ifumbireikomokakunkamuyikoreshaiki?

(Wasubiza No irenzeimwe)

Amataabonekaakoreshwa ate?(Wasubiza No irenzeimwe)

Iyo muyagurishijemugurishaangana ate kumunsi?

Amafarangayaturutsemw’igurisharya’amata mu kwezigushize

Uyu munsi utunze inka zingahe Imwe…….1Ebyiri……2Eshatu…..3Enye…….4Eshanu….5Izindi……6

Dufumbira imirima yacu...1Turayigurisha................. .2Tuyibyaza Biogaz.............3Tuyiha abaturanyi.............4Ibindi.................................5

Turayagurisha...1Turayanywa.......2Tuyaha abaturanyi...3Tuyakoresha ibindi...4

Litiro 1..................1Litiro 2 – 5 ....................2Litiro 6 – 9.....................3Hejuru ya 10.............4

Munsi ya 10000.....111,000 - 20,000......221,000 – 30,000.....331,000 – 40,000.....441,000 – 50,000....551,000 -100,000...6Hejuru ya 100,000....7

NUM E01 E02 E03 E04 E05|__|__| |__| |__| |__||__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__|__||__||__| |__|__||__||__| |__|

62

N°

y’Ubazwa

Nibamuyanywa mu kwezigushizehanyobwagaangan’ ikikumunsi?

Mwigezemuhugurwakubworozibw’inka?

WigezeUgabainkayakomotsekuyowahawena FARG?

Harikindiwigezeuhabwana FARG giherekezainka?

VeterineriyabaakugerahoiyoInkayaweyarwaye?

Nibaariyegoaturukahe ?

Ingoranewabawarahuyenazonyumayoguhabwainkaniizihe?

Nubuhebufashawifuzanyumayokubonaiyonka

Litiro 1…..1Litiro 2 – 5…….2Litiro 6 – 9 ……3Hejuruya 10….4

Yego...1Oya....2

Yego...1Oya....2

Yego...1Oya.....2Ikindi ukivuge....3

Yego...1 Oya....2

Mu buyobozi bwa leta...1Mu bikorera....2Abandi (havuge)....3

1)Kubona ubwatsi...12)Kwita kuriyo nka 23)Ubuvuzi bwizo nka 34)Kugaburira izo nka 45)Kuzibonera amazi 56) Ntacyo 6Ikindi 7

1)Kwubakirwa ikiraro ..12) Ubuvuzi bwizo nka...2 Kworoherezwa mu kubona imiti 34) Gufashwa mu kugaburira izo nka 45)Kwegerezwa amazi 5Amahugurwa mu bworozi ..66) Ikindi (Kivuge).....7

NUM E06 E07 E08 E09 E10 E11 E12|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

|__|__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__|

63

ANNEX 2: INTERVIEW GUIDEGuide for Interview with Key Informants

Name Title

District Sector

Tel

Date

Item Strong point Week point Recommendation

Impact of IGA Girinka program

Capacity building system

Mentorship strategy

Monitoring and evaluation mechanism

64

Financial assistance system

Additional comments