Skip to main content

Table 6 Case example: measuring change in GBV-related outcomes-assessment of cookstove and fuel projects and GBV risk

From: Promising practices for the monitoring and evaluation of gender-based violence risk mitigation interventions in humanitarian response: a multi-methods study

Countries: Global, Kenya, Sudan, DRC

Sector: Food security, Livelihoods

A systematic review conducted in 2016 [35] of the evidence on cookstove and fuel programs in humanitarian settings found that 15 out of the 126 projects reviewed (12%) included at least one objective related to GBV. The review emphasized that further evidence is needed to demonstrate the impact of cookstove and fuel interventions on GBV outcomes

Impact on indicators related to exposure to GBV risk: Of the 15 projects reviewed that had at least one GBV objective, four measured baseline factors related to risk of GBV during firewood collection, but only two of the projects measured the same outcomes at endline (the Berkeley Darfur Stove Project in Darfur, Sudan [36], and a cookstove project in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) implemented by the Women’s Refugee Commission [37]). Both of the projects assessed proxy measures related to GBV risk exposure including: number of firewood collection trips, number of hours spent during one round trip to collect firewood, and number of kilometers traveled during one round trip to collect firewood. Both projects reported changes in these indicators with implementation of the cookstove intervention. For example, in DRC, the average number of hours women spent per firewood collection trip dropped from 6 to 4 h, and the number of trips dropped by half

Key take away: It can be strategic for humanitarian agencies and practitioners to begin to measure GBV-related indicators at baseline and endline in order to assess the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation activities and any potential unintended consequences. Non-GBV practitioners should NOT assess incidence of GBV. It can be helpful to include proxy indicators that—through other data points, such as distance traveled—indirectly measure exposure to GBV risk. However, the design and use of such indicators should always be done in collaboration with a GBV specialist and enumerators must be trained in how to provide referrals to GBV response services. More robust evaluations of GBV risk mitigation activities should be undertaken together with GBV specialists when other necessary conditions required to ensure safety of participants are in place. These more rigorous evaluations are critically needed to build the evidence base on the effectiveness of GBV risk mitigation activities