Presentation at RPQG Meeting (Asmare Ayele, 17 March 2010, Kampala)

1. Presentation at RPQG Meeting (Asmare Ayele, 17 March 2010, Kampala) Pastoralist Girls Program, CARE Ethiopia

2. Why PG program? • Pastoralists are historically marginalized in Ethiopia, and under increasing stress • Girls are the most marginalized • Their inequality is deep rooted in social and cultural norms • Still subject to FGC, Cross Generational Marriage, inheritance marriage • Low education and low social status • Marriage: for social acceptance, economic security, • Women empowerment is at the center of the CE’s SP • CARE Ethiopia is currently operating in 2 of the 3 main pastoralist areas

3. Pastoral communities protect and enhance their livelihoods and asset base Girls - including the most mobile - access services Women and girls exercise their rights + x Accountable and influential pastoralist customary institutions, and fora. Strengthen land use policy and practice Effective girl’s empowerment support structures within communities and schools influencing customary and formal institutions • Availability and use of quality, girl friendly services: • education • health • water and sanitation • extension services • legal support Improved natural resource and livestock management through adaptation to drought, and preparedness and resilience to emergencies through key, strategic interventions Harmful traditional practices abandoned Economic security and mutual support through women and girl’s income and savings groups and through their diversified engagement in the pastoral economy and natural product based activities Harmonisation of customary, religious and formal constitutional and other laws to protect and enforce girls’ and women’s rights Goal: Pastoralist girls, particularly the most vulnerable, exercise their rights and have an improved sustained quality of life

4. Sample Breakthroughs • Over 50% of rangeland legally under joint management of traditional structures and government (10 yrs) • In all pastoral communities, customary law changed to allow women to inherit and have legal title to property • % pastoralist girls married or pregnant < 16 halved (10 yrs) • In all communities, cases reported of girls not being circumcised on marriage Challenge: Is it realistic to think about irreversible change in the pastoralist context of drought, conflict, climate change?

5. Sample Indicators • Amount of land under communal management of traditional institutions (%?) • Net enrolment ratio in primary education [gender disaggregated] • % of girls married in the community under 14 and 18 yrs of age • No. of known FGM cases in last qtr within community • Support structures in place in communities & schools NB: many will need operational definitions

6. Process and progress in analysis Overall process to date has included: • UCPV analysis in Afar and Borana, including partners (April 2009) • Preliminary feedback in both Afar and Borana, including SH and partners • Internal feedback – Delphine, Michael, PD, PDQS, SSM • Revisions, addressing gaps and fleshing out of framework (UF matrix) • Workshop in Borana for around 30 stakeholders (community, gov, other NGOs, staff in Oct. 2009) – with support from Helen P • Workshop in Afar for around 30 stakeholders (community, gov, other NGOs, staff in Jan. 2010) – with support from Helen P

7. Cont’d…process and progress in analysis • Gap filling in analysis through: additional field work (focus on case stories, stories of positive change); further review of literature; thematic meetings (with emergency team) and specific piece on DRR • Continuous sharing and reflection with wider staff: SSM, PQAT workshop, field visits • Shared analysis (social positions) for discussion at national workshop on gender and development at Institute of Pastoral and Agro-pastoral studies, Haromaya University • Analysis and Progress shared with CARE Advisory Board • High level reflection (CD, ACD, PDQS) • The design process has been feeding back to the analysis through the Program Design Team

8. External relations • Resource mobilization • M&E – Learning, Information and Documentation • Thematic Advisors (UCP Analysis/policy) • Audit/ compliance • Partnership/coordinator Program support units Finance IT HR Administration Impact Group 1 • Impact Group 2 • M&E Support • Subject matter specialist • Grant managers • Capacity building facilitators • Coordination/networking logistics Impact Group 3 Regional representatives 1-4 Thinking: The need for structural change + sense of responsibility in terms of measurement and evidence based change

9. Program Coordinator PDQS-C Livelihood Unit LDM Unit Team Leader Part. & Ext. Rel. Advisor PDQS-A Borana FO POM SG PO PM Accountability Advisor PG Program LDM Head CFIW Program LDM Head UY Program LDM Head LKM Advisor EDA/WEGA FO POM IA FO 1: LDM Head WRMA LKM Officer Note: 1) For clarity see a separate organogram for LDM unit, 2) the ones in red are new positions that required new JDs, 3) solid line more technical supervision while the dotted lines are more of coordination and teamwork, 4) those in blue required only JD modification

10. Challenges and questions • Original UCPV approach focused too much on analysis of problems – need to balance with analysis of trends, examples of +ve change • Lack of ‘basic’ facilitation & participatory skills needed for ongoing qualitative analysis - CE is now developing • Balancing need for final document with need for additional research and gap filling • Analysis can challenge ‘norms’ & provoke strong reactions from staff • UCPV analysis has led to broad TOC – how do we balance need to focus and prioritize with need for holistic approach and impact at broad scale? – high level discussions in CE re. org. direction • Though the situation analysis is shared, analysis is not static and there are and will continue to be additional research needs - how do we balance this with resources, staff capacity & time, workload (program vs. program initiatives?) • Continuous analysis and learning is core of program - when and how do we update our UCPV analyses (e.g. as part of evaluation/ baseline of program initiatives? As part of ongoing monitoring? )

11. OUTCOMES IMPACT EFFECT Program Goal: Pastoralist girls, particularly the most vulnerable, exercise their rights and have an improved sustained quality of life Domains of Change (Outcomes) Livelihood Assets Access Services Exercise Rights Projects and program initiatives Pathway PW 1:1 PW 2:1 PW 3:1 PW 3:2 PW 1:2 PW 2:2 PW 3:3 Conceptual framework for measurement