Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification for Small Holder Farmers

Gillo Consult

Final Evaluation Report

On

Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification for smallholder farmers in Kewet woreda of Amhara

Region.

Emmanuel Development Association (EDA)

Submitted

To

Self Help Africa (SHA)

Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

Submitted

by

Gillo consult, Addis Ababa

January 2012

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Page 2

Table of Contents

Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................... 3

Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... 4

Executive summery ............................................................................................................ 5

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 7

1.1. Description of the Project ............................................................................................ 7

1.2. Objective of the evaluation .......................................................................................... 9

1.2.1. Overall objectives ....................................................................................... 9

1.2.2. Specific objectives ...................................................................................... 9

2. Methodology of the evaluation ..................................................................................... 10

2.1. Data collection ........................................................................................................... 10

2.2. Composition of evaluation team ................................................................................ 11

2.3. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................. 12

2.4. Organization of the review/evaluation ....................................................................... 12

3. Overview of the project under evaluation ..................................................................... 12

3.1 Goal Statement ........................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Program purpose ......................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Program Outputs ......................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Program beneficiaries ................................................................................................ 12

4. Program performance analysis ..................................................................................... 13

4.1. Overall program design ............................................................................................. 13

4.2. Relevance of the project ............................................................................................ 14

4.3. Efficiency of the project ............................................................................................ 14

4.3.1. Timeliness of the intervention .................................................................. 14

4.3.2. Working relationship and collaboration ................................................... 14

4.3.3. Integration/Synergy with other on-going initiatives ................................. 15

4.3.4. Resource allocation and utilization (Nov 2010 to Dec, 2011) .................. 15

4.4. Effectiveness of the project ....................................................................................... 16

5. Impact/Impact-trend of the project .............................................................................. 27

6. Sustainability of the project .......................................................................................... 29

7. Concerns/problem identification .................................................................................. 29

8. Lesson learned/strength ................................................................................................ 30

9. Opportunities for future program design ...................................................................... 31

10. Conclusion and recommendation ................................................................................ 32

Annex 1. Evaluation TOR ....................................................................................... 37

Annex 2. People contacted during the evaluation .................................................... 40

Annex 3. Schedule of the evaluation ....................................................................... 40

Annex 4: Check List for the project terminal evaluation ......................................... 41


Page 3

Acknowledgment

Gillo consultancy firm would like to thank SHA, Evaluation team members, EDA, implementing partners of the

project in Kewet woredas and the community interviewed; without their contributions in the preparation of this

final evaluation report would not be possible.

Gillo also appreciates the contribution of SHA and EDA management staff and experts namely Dr Wubshet

Berhanu, Mr. Alemayehu Kuma Mr Mesfin Kassa, and Mr. Mulugeta Sefenew, and Mr Abegasze Fekie for their

assistance for the fieldwork logistics, data collection and substantial inputs in reviewing and developing this

report.

Special thanks also extended to all members of the review team: Solomon Alemu agriculturalist and food

security specialist; Tegegn Aklilu statestician, Zaid G/meskel economist.

Finally, sincere thanks go to MR Abegaz Fekie, EDA focal person in Kewet who provided information and

facilitated the review process in the target area.

Kayo Shankulie

Manager

Gillo Consultancy firm


Page 4

Acronyms

CBOs Community Based Organizations

Coop Cooperative

Coops Cooperatives

DAs Development Agents

ETB Ethiopian Birr

EDA Emmanuel Development Association

FTC Farmers Training Centers (FTC)

Ha Hectare

HHs Households

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

NMA National Metrological Agency

PRA Participatory Rapid Assessment

Qt. Quintals

SHA Self Help Africa

Shoat Sheep and Goat


Page 5

Executive summery

Self Help Africa and EDA have made agreement to undertake a one year project (January 2012 to December

2012) entitled “Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification for smallholder farmers in Kewet Wereda of

Amhara Region”. The overall purpose of the project was to improve food security and enhance livelihoods of

the poor rural households through Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification and integrated service provision

activities for smallholder farmers, targeting a total of 391 household living in six Kebeles of the Woreda.

The project was evaluated with the purpose of assess and learn from the achievements of project interventions

during the last one year of program implementation (2011) period. The evaluation was conducted by Gillo

consultancy firm (GILO) with the support of SHA and EDA staffs in January 2012. During the evaluation, the

team has employed the key process of evaluation: secondary information review, focus group discussion, key

informant discussion, household interview, field observation and meeting with stakeholders.

The program design was highly participatory and the interventions included in the program were relevant and

based on the priority need of the community. Evaluation results also indicated that the project design was logical

and coherent to show the logical link between the designed outputs, purposes and direct contribution to the

achievement of the program goal.

Resources (funds, human resources, time, etc.) been allocated strategically to achieve outcomes. From the total

allocated project budget of ET Birr 1,492,816.00, about 74.22% (1,107,983.00 birr) was invested directly for

program activities and the rest on management of the project. This shows efficient resource allocation in line

with the government guidelines.

Increasing production and income of 391 HHs through provision of agricultural inputs was one key purpose to

improve food security and enhance livelihoods. Provision of 10 water pumps, 36.87 kg seeds of mung bean and

vegetables and 30 modern bee hives were the major interventions in this component and accomplishments from

the plan were 120%, 95%, and 100% respectively. In these interventions, the number of beneficiaries supported

by the project also increased by 12% (to 439 HHsfrom the proposed 391 HHs).

The team learnt that beneficiaries were successful on vegetable production; the water pump support helped them

to produce two to three times in a year. Area planted and production of mung bean (even though rain fed) was

also increased and almost all members of this intervention have paid back their outstanding loans immediately

from the first harvest. Similarly, encouraging results were also obtained from bee keeping intervention for

instance, the evaluation analysis indicated that, the average honey production per beehive has increased by 75%

compared to pre-project production.

Market linkage was the other key purpose and it has also been created through the formation of cooperatives and

capacity building activities. In line with this, two cooperatives were established as per the plan and

entrepreneurship and marketing skill of beneficiaries were enhanced through trainings and workshops. The

achievements with cooperatives formation and training in this intervention were 100% and 99% respectively.


Page 6

In conclusion, Community beneficiaries and government partners unanimously agreed that the intervention

resulted in greater food security, better nutrition or improved profitability for the targeted HHs through creating

access to crop production and building their capacity by providing relevant trainings for better income

generation by the end of the project year.

With regard to impact, type of nutrition status of HHs after the project was changed both in quality (variety of

food sources) and size of meal per day through increased yield of mung bean and vegetables (by more than 50%

after the project). Moreover average households income of the target beneficiaries increased by 112% ( from

11,108 birr before the project to 23,512 birr after the project). This finding was in agreement with the objective

stated to increase average household income by 85 %. Technical skills of beneficiaries on crop production, bee

keeping, marketing and entrepreneurship also improved. The evaluation team assessed sustainability of the

project from technical, social, economic, environmental and institutional dimensions and found to be

sustainable.

The evaluation team generally concluded that, the program was logically and coherently designed, and it was

efficient and effective; hence it has brought the required changes and impacts to the target communities. Finally

the following Recommendations are made by the evaluation team:

1) Strengthen the market promotion and linkage initiatives:

2) There is a need to collect adequate information on market price of necessary inputs before launching

interventions:

3) Organization of proactive preparedness plan in advance to protect agricultural pests to avoid chemical

sprays around the bee keeping sites;

4) Construction of shades to protect the exposed bee hives in the apiary so that bee colonies can be saved

from likely hazards;

5) Continuous support is required to the newly established cooperatives as they are currently at infant

stage and couldn‟t compete with the local and global markets;

6) Timely release of agricultural inputs/budget should be required to realize effective achievements of

project objectives;

7) The need to extend the pilot period at least for two years for similar project interventions to be

expanded and to see better impact of the interventions;

8) Price projection is required during the planning process so that the budget could be affected less by

most likely inflations to be happened;

9) Continuous follow up and technical support is required to beneficiaries in all interventions till farmers

well retained with the techniques;

10) It is advisable to diversify the project interventions with high value fruits, oil seeds especially sesame

in the lowlands, improved livestock production (poultry, Shoats, dairy and ox fattening) based on

concrete information‟s;

11) It is also advisable for such pilot projects to assign a permanent project coordinator to manage the

project activities on a full management capacity;

12) Promotion of mung bean production should be promoted as it has proved to be very effective means

to increase the income of smallholder farmers.


Page 7

1. Introduction

Self Help Africa (SHA) is an international NGO which has been implementing various rural based

interventions since 1987, predominantly in integrated rural development projects. In the early years of its

involvement, the organization initiated various programs focusing on food security, natural resource

management and sustainable rural livelihood development, provision of social facilities and mainstreaming of

gender equality and HIV/AIDS. Based on the experiences and lessons gained from those interventions, SHA had

designed multiple new initiatives which build the capacity and confidence of rural smallholder households to

alleviate poverty and establish sustainable system that have been supporting the country‟s rural development

program strategies.

On the other hand, Emmanuel Development Association (EDA) is a local non-governmental, not for profit

organization which was established in August 1996 and has been operational since 1997. The organization has

been functioning in Amhara region North Shewa, South and North Wolo while in the central region it operates

in Akaki Kality Sub City of Addis Ababa.

In order to scale up the efforts and improve organizational efficiency, SHA recently launched new but focused

five years strategic plan (2011-15) which is slightly different from the way it has been implementing before.

One of the key strategic directions set for this period highlighted the need for partnership with likeminded

organizations. Therefore, SHA selected EDA that have similar vision with what SHA wants to achieve in 2011.

In line with this, Self Help Africa and EDA have made agreement to undertake a project entitled “Agriculture-

Based Livelihood Diversification for smallholder farmers in Kewet of Amhara Region”. The project has

been effective as of January 2011 and ended on 31st December 2011.

Major components of the program included: Support inputs (to produce mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper ),

improve beekeeping practice, provide trainings (on vegetable, pulse crop and honey production) and creating

market linkage for beneficiary farmers engaged in production of onion, garlic, pepper, mung bean and honey

The main purpose of the evaluation is to assess and learn from the achievements of project interventions during

the last one year of program implementation (2011). The evaluation was conducted by a team of experts from

Gillo consultancy firm (GILO) and assisted by SHA Ethiopia, Kewet Woreda EDA staff. The evaluation was

conducted in January 2012.

The key project evaluation methods employed were secondary information review, focus group discussion, key

informant discussion, household interview, field observation and meeting with stakeholders.

This final evaluation report consists the major findings and recommendations of the project implemented over

the one year period (January 2011 to December 2o11).

1.1. Description of the Project

1.1.1. Location

The project is found in North Shewa Zone of Amhara Regional State, Kewet wereda which is located at 225 km

north of Addis Ababa along the main road to Dessie. Kewet wereda is one of the 106 woredas in Amhara

region, with an altitude ranging between 1100 and 2700 metres above sea level. The woredas is divided in to 18

administrative kebeles.


Page 8

1.1.2. Demography

The total population of Kewet woreda is estimated at 86,825 (47,794 males and 24,032 are females); from

which the program had targeted a total of 391 household level beneficiaries living in six Kebeles of the Woreda.

In the evaluation process, a sample of 35 households were taken and interviewed to look the performance and

impact of the project interventions in the target area. The sex compositions of the sampled population were 33

(94.3 %) males and two (5.7%) females. Out of the interviewed household 32 (about 91.4%) are Orthodox

Christians and the remaining 3(8.6%) were Protestant Christians. Marital statuses of the surveyed HHs were: 31

(88.6 %) married, 2.9% widowed and 8.6% single. Education background of the respondents under study varies

among individuals where illiterate accounts to 14.3% only (Table 1)

Table1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents

No Percent

Sex

Male 33 94.3

Female 2 5.7

Religion

Orthodox 32 91.4

Protestant 3 8.6

Educational background

Illiterate 5 14.3

Read/write 10 28.6

Grade 1-4 7 20.0

Grade 5-8 8 22.9

Grade 9-10 5 14.3

Marital status

Married 31 88.6

Single 3 8.6

Widowed 1 2.9

Total 35 100.0

1.1.3. Economics and livelihoods

The main economy of the rural people is based on mixed farming (crop production supplemented by livestock

production). From the sampled beneficiaries, it has been analyzed that about 51% of the population in the

targeted areas were engaged in mixed farming both crop production and livestock rearing (fig 1 )

Fig 1: Sources of Livelihood


Page 9

Kewet woreda has Dega and kola agro-ecological zones. The kola livelihood zone has fertile soils and the main

crops are sorghum, maize, teff, masho (mung bean), tobacco, fruits and vegetables. On the other hand barley,

beans and wheat are the major crops grown in the highlands (Dega) parts of the woreda.

1.2. Objective of the evaluation

1.2.1. Overall objectives

The objective of this evaluation is to examine comprehensively the implementation and impacts of the project

entitled “Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification for smallholder farmers in Kewet of Amhara

Region”. More specifically, the purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance (relevance, efficiency,

effectiveness and sustainability) of the projects as well as to identify the lessons learned from the project and

feed into the wider SHA program. The overall aim of the evaluation is, therefore, to analyze and reflect on the

experience of the project in order to assess its contribution to sustainable development of rural communities.

Result of the evaluation is expected to guide decision makers or program managers in reproducing programs

that would succeed and to encourage the achievements of program stakeholders. In doing so it would foster an

environment of learning by doing and promotes greater accountability for performance. Moreover, the

evaluation will ascertain the overall accomplishments made so far to determine optimal strategies for the

continuation of similar programs in the future.

1.2.2 Specific objectives

The purpose of the evaluation was to address the following specific objectives of the project:

Whether the project was effective and efficient in achieving its intended objectives.

Positive and negative changes on the rural economy and area of operation that took place as a result of

the project.

To what extent the quality of the organization and management of the projects was fruitful in terms of

progress and financial reporting and systems of accountability.

To what extent the project is viable/sustainable, to the following factors:

o Socio-cultural/technical/institutional: was the operation functioning properly, taking in to

account the motivation, skills and organization of those concerned?

o Policy: was the policy environment conductive to the operation‟s success?

o Socio-economic and ecological environment: was the operation‟s “assailable” and compatible

with the conservation of renewable resources, and the protection of the environment?

To what extent the program fitted within Government Ethiopia national rural development policy

guidelines and local government priorities.

The processes of community participation within the program and the extent to which different sections

of the community have been involved in problem analysis, project identification, design and

implementation. If any groups within the community that have not been involved.

If the strategy pursued by implementing organizations in its project has been effective in addressing

gender inequalities in the area.

Whether the partnership relationship and arrangements including the relationship with the office of

Agriculture and other co-operating partners was effective.

The level of learning, feedback and flexibility which has characterized the projects from the

perspective of the rural community, the project partners and the implementing organizations. To what

extent have lessons learned been shared with other development partners? Was there scope for more

dissemination of the lessons learned by implementing agencies?


Page 10

Constructive lessons that can be gained from the evaluation process could be incorporated into the

designing of other similar projects

The project was implemented in six Kebeles of Kewet Woreda and expected to reach more than 391 households

over a period of one year (January 2011 to December 2011).

The evaluation team has focused on the achievements and lessons learned within the project period as well as

highlighted the areas which should receive greater attention in the design and implementation of future similar

projects.

2. Methodology of the evaluation

In undertaking the evaluation, Gillo consult has employed multi-methodological approach in order to realize the

objectives of this evaluation. Stakeholders that have been impacted by the program, both directly and indirectly

and the partners and beneficiaries were involved in the evaluation. The evaluation was started with the

familiarization of the evaluation objectives and methodologies to stakeholders enrich the tools in ensuring that

necessary data will be collected and organized.

2.1. Data collection:

Even though, there is an extensive literature on quantitative versus qualitative data collection methods in

assessment, there is also a growing acceptance of the need for integrating the two approaches. The consultant,

therefore, applied both qualitative and quantitative methods in conducting the evaluation in general and

generation of primary data at field level in particular

2.1.1. Qualitative method

One of the qualitative methodologies used in the evaluation was the technique developed for Participatory

Rapid Assessment (PRA), which considers participants knowledge and understanding of the conditions. Some

Of the major types of PRA tools adopted for qualitative data collection include A) Large Group

Discussion B) Key Informant Discussions-KIDs, C) Focus Group Discussions-FGDs, D) Field Visit/Direct and

Participatory Observations, E) Review of secondary information (project documents, periodic reports and

others)

A) Large group discussions (LGDs): Large group discussions (LGDs) were held with a group of beneficiaries

in collecting basic information on: livelihood strategies, Relevance, effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability

and the impact of the project on the livelihood of the project. Mixed groups, representing a cross section of the

community, age segregation, men and women were included. Elders and people with wider scope of the area

were also assessed carefully and interviewed.

B) Key Informant Discussions - KIDs: Discussion was made with key informants at various levels with SHA,

EDA, Government/ sectoral offices, Community Based Organizations –CBOs, DAs and community leaders.

The discussion was guided by a checklist which was developed for the purpose.

C) Focus Group Discussions – FGDs: The evaluation team has conducted focus group discussion by taking

group of people from each project activity with semi-structured checklists. Four keeled were selected randomly

and the beneficiaries within each kebeles were stratified based on the project types. Then selection was made

randomly from each project activity/type, with proportional representations.

D) Field Visit and Direct Observations: sampled households in selected Kebeles of the study Woredas were

visited to get first hand impressions on the nature of the project using a developed checklist to record

observations during the field visits as well as documenting the situation with photos.


Page 11

E) Review of relevant documents: Relevant documents such as project proposal, quarterly progress report as

well as final report, baseline survey, relevant studies, and mid-term evaluation reports were critically reviewed.

2.1.2. Quantitative method

Survey instrument: Household survey was conducted with selected households (families) in all target Kebeles

of the study Woredas. The basic objective of the household survey was to generate quantitative data and

information that was used to measure project performance and impact on the livelihood of the community in the

project target area. Since the primary objective of this particular survey was to generate data for evaluation of

the impact of project, the survey instrument gave more emphasis on generating data on current status, practices

and perceptions and income as compared to “without project” scenario.

Sampling type and method: Household questionnaire was developed for a cross-sectional survey prepared in

English and translated into Amharic language which was administered on 35 targeted households from the total

of 438 beneficiaries HHs in all target Six Kebeles of the project under the study. Semi-structured checklists

(Annex II and III) were used to collect primary data to assess the impacts of the program at household level

Sampling technique was applied to select respondent households in which each household had an equal chance

of being selected for the sample. A stratified and simple random sampling technique was followed in selecting

the households from each targeted Kebeles Administration,

Survey administration: Field level data collection was done by enumerators/interviewers who were recruited

from the study areas. One day training including pre-test was given to acquaint them with the questionnaires.

The training was incorporated administration of the questionnaire and basic interviewing skills. Data collection

was made by Development Agents from office of agriculture in the woreda who have experiences of

participating in similar surveys in the past and knowledge of the local language. Training of the data collectors

included classroom discussions, mock interviews and field demonstrations using the data collection instruments.

The theoretical discussion included basic interviewing skills, administering the questionnaire, the importance of

data integrity and explanation of terms, questions and concepts in the questionnaire. A pre-test of the survey

instruments was done on field during and the necessary corrections were made accordingly.

2.2. Composition of evaluation team:

The evaluation team was composed of Lead consultant – irrigation specialist, Agriculturalist, Economist,

statistician and staff member from SHA. Professionally, the team have considerable experience in evaluation of

integrated rural development programs and conversant with both quantitative as well as qualitative studies. The

evaluation team made focus group discussions, key informant interviews and detailed case studies with

beneficiaries and stakeholders.

2.3. Data Analysis: After data collection was completed, the qualitative and quantitative data collected was

coded and analyzed with SPSS software by an expert. Further, interpretation of results was carried out by the

team using conceptual frameworks and indicators developed for the purpose.

2.4. Organization of the review/evaluation


Page 12

Data collection was carried out by the consultant and SHA in consultation with stakeholders including EDA and

SHA project staff, regional officials; woreda and kebele government officials involved in the region were

consulted using a questionnaire and checklist developed by the consultant for the purpose. Once the data

collection task has been completed, analysis and interpretation of results were done by the team using SPSS

Finally, the study team summarized the findings and produced a draft evaluation report and submitted to SHA

for comment as well as for validation workshop preparation. Toward the end of the consultancy, the consultant

will organize and facilitate a validation workshop with SHA and implementing partners. Feedback from the

workshop will be used to refine and finalize the report. A final version of the evaluation report will be produced

taking into account the feedback gained from the workshops, receipts and incorporations of further comments

from SHA.

3. Overview of the project under evaluation

3.1 Goal Statement

The overall objectives of the project in Kewet are:

Support 391 households to participate in the production of mung bean, onion, garlic, pepper and honey

to generate additional income and ensure food security in Kewet Wereda during the period January

2011 to December 2011,

Enhance the capacity of 391 beneficiary households through agriculture based trainings and creation of

market linkage

To this effect, the project had planned to undertake activities in the area of small scale irrigation development

and rain fed mung bean production, and bee keeping activities at household level as well as promotion of market

linkages.

3.2 Program purpose

The overall purpose of the project is to enhance food security and improve livelihood of the target households

through needs and resource based and integrated service provision.

3.3 Program Outputs

Output 1.1: 391 households received inputs to produce mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper; engaged in

improved beekeeping practice;

Output 1.2: market linkage created for beneficiary farmers who engaged in production of onion, garlic, pepper,

mung bean and honey

3.4 Program beneficiaries

The project was planned to address 391 direct beneficiaries ,however, it actually retargeted and benefitted 438

beneficiaries of smallholder farmers. Beneficiaries were screened by kebele management committee which

included the chairman, DAs and other members of the kebele administration based on criteria designed before

the screening process. The beneficiaries of the targeted area are predominantly poor rural households in the

villages of Kewet with different needs and resource potentials upon which the livelihood diversification

intervention will be based.

The target beneficiaries included women headed households and other farm households who have the potential

to undertake the demonstrative and replicable smallholder livelihood diversification activities. Moreover,

households within the intervention kebele not participating in the project and other households in adjacent

Kebeles also indirectly benefited from the program as the project demonstrated improved practices in the

vicinity. Government organizations and other stakeholders, which were concerned with ensuring food security,


Page 13

reducing poverty, advancing adaptation capacity to climatic shocks, protecting the environment, realizing water

resources vitality in the area, and in general those cooperating for attaining the objectives of the Growth and

Transformation Plan (GTP) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) also benefited from the

intervention directly or indirectly as this project contributed to the fulfilment of the above listed objectives.

The project was targeted at six Kebeles with good resource potential but vulnerable and food insecure

households because of lack of agricultural inputs and market linkages and promotional service provisions. The

selected six Kebeles were Medina, Sefi-Beret, Abaye-Atir, Birbira, Tere and Yellen.

3. Program performance analysis

4.1. Overall program design: Results of discussions with program staff, woreda sector offices (experts and

officials) and beneficiary communities revealed that the program design was highly participatory and consistent

with the local situation. This was also confirmed through HHs survey where 97% of the interviewed HHs

responded their participation in the project was high to very high. Partners were also adequately consulted and

involved in need identification, prioritization and program formulation.

Fig. 2 Level of community participation in the project

Evaluation results also indicated that the project design is logical and coherent to show the logical link between

the designed outputs, purposes and direct contribution to the achievement of the program goal. It was also

observed that standards were set based on the baseline data surveyed before the program and indicators/targets

were set to monitor and evaluate changes as a result of the intended programs.

Partners were strategic in terms of mandate, influence, capacities and commitments. Program signatory followed

the regular procedures and agreement signed at the regional level with partner sector bureaus. Program goal and

objectives were also found to be in line with government policies and strategies aimed at reducing poverty and

improving quality of people‟s life.

4.2. Relevance of the project: All the rigorous discussions made with stakeholders, focused group and

beneficiaries were analyzed; and they unanimously indicated that need analysis was made at the beginning and

the project reflecting the various needs of different stakeholders. Important problems of the community were

identified and prioritized in the project area before the start of the project. For instance, the major problems

prioritized in the proposed project site of Kewet woreda were: Low productivity (poor utilization of potential


Page 14

rivers), poor market linkages, very traditional bee keeping practices and environmental degradations. Therefore,

the proposed project was found to be relevant in addressing some of these bottlenecks, if not all, to alleviate the

food and livelihood insecurity problems of the targeted households in the project area.

Results of the evaluation indicated that the program designed was flexible to accommodate new activities or to

shift planned activities under the given budget in consultation with task force at woreda level. For example, it

was learnt from the discussion made with the KI that there was additional water pumps supplied to the farmers

when the demand arose; when the price of onion dropped down, the plan for garlic seed was flexibly revised and

decided to provide additional garlic seeds for the targeted farmers (when prices of garlic was increasing).

Moreover, mung bean production was shifted to meher season when production in the belg season failed due to

poor belg rains. Similarly, the down payment of water pump was high which poor HHs couldn‟t afford , thus the

woreda task force decided and put a solution that payments for the poor HHs could be after harvest. Efforts of

EDA also got a common appreciation as the organization jointly planned and implemented project activities

with stakeholders.

4.3. Efficiency of the project: Resources (funds, human resources, time, etc.) have been allocated strategically

to achieve outcomes. Therefore, efficiency of the project has been assessed with the extent of project

performance and resource utilization within the project lifespan.

4.3.1. Timeliness of the intervention: The life span of the project was almost one year, from November 2010

to December 2011. It was clear from the focused group, key informants and project staff discussion that most of

the project funds and activities have been delivered in a timely manner. For example, provision of most

agricultural inputs specially mung bean seeds, modern bee hives, pepper and partly onion seeds was timely.

4.3.2. Working relationship and collaboration: Implementation of the project was noticed with full

involvement and collaboration of all key actors and targeted communities at woreda level. These members have

a good grasp of the project strategy and there was a clear sharing of responsibilities and systematic joint

monitoring and review schedule of the interventions. There is effective communication, coordination and work

relationships among partners in the woreda. It was witnessed that there is a woreda task force which has

scheduled meeting time (once in a month) and is responsible to manage major issues of concern in the project

implementation. There is also NGOs quarterly forum lead by the woreda administration in which performances

are reviewed and experience opportunities to jointly learn from the interventions and getting the support of the

government partners for the success of implementation. In this regard, EDA is effectively communicating with

its stakeholders and has established partnership and smooth working relationships with the key actors in the

target area.

4.3.3. Integration/Synergy with other on-going initiatives: There are other non-governmental organizations

(NGO) working in the woreda, however, there was no duplication of resources or overlapping of activities

implemented. It was noticed that the joint practices of coordination, planning and implementation of project

interventions with other on-going extension packages by the government office at woreda level have created

integrations/synergies in the community. The explained integration was observed in all operational kebeles of

EDA in the woreda.


Page 15

4.3.4. Resource allocation and utilization (Nov 2010 to Dec, 2011): In this program, a total of 439 needy

people were targeted. From (the finally revised) allocated total project budget of ET Birr 1,492,816.00, about

74.22% (1,107,983.00 birr) was invested to meet the project objectives which showed efficient resource

allocation. Further, from the total allocated budget (1,107,983.00 birr) for the program objectives, 100.47%

(1,113,138.14 Birr) was utilized to accomplish the activities of the program (Table.2) that indicated efficient

utilization of budget over the intended program activities. The program management cost was also only 25.78%

of the total allocated budget (1,492,816.00Birr) for the project.

Table 2 Comparison of program budget allocation and utilization

Objectives/Activity Allocated

Budget(ETB)

Expenditure

(ETB)

Variance Reason

for

Variance ETB %

439 households supported inputs to

produce crops and vegetables and

engaged in honey production 478,821.00 549,453.29 70,632.29 14.75

Access for market created for the target

communities to benefit fair & better

prices of products 629,162.00 563,684.85

-

65,477.15 -10.41

Sub-total(for the program objectives) 1,107,983.00 1,113,138.14 5,155.14 0.47

Administration cost

384,833.00 365,404.19

-

19,428.81 -5.05

Grand-total 1,492,816.00 1,478,542.33

-

14,273.67 -0.96

Of course, there are no set criteria‟s or rates of investment per beneficiary compared with the government and

non-government stakeholders was optimum. However, some experiences in Ethiopia indicate investment per

beneficiary to be as high as 770 Birr while for the EDA project it is about ET Birr 2523 This indicates a much

higher investment per beneficiary probably because of high prices (cost escalation) of some technologies like

the water pumps.

With regard to human resource, EDA permanently assigned two community development agents, two guards

and one focal person on contract bases (temporarily). The focal person is a government employee in the office

of Agriculture and delegated for the responsibility of EDA project coordination (part timer) on top of his

permanent duties and responsibilities. Therefore, it is better for EDA to assess the human resource in the project

area (Kewet) and assign a permanent project coordinator to manage the project activities on full management

capacity.

4.4. Effectiveness of the project

The evaluation team thoroughly discussed the indicator values which were found to be appropriate means of

verification for tracking progress, performance and achievement of the program objectives. Thus, effectiveness

of the Program was assessed from the perspective of accomplishment of out puts and activities within the agreed

period. The effectiveness and delivery of outputs were evaluated from the perspective of each output as


Page 16

indicated in the agreed program design documents. The progress of the program has been explained in the

respective outputs for the purpose of the programme.

Output 1.1: 391 households received inputs to produce mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper; engaged in

improved beekeeping practice;

In this component 391HHs were intended to increase their production and income through provision of

agricultural inputs such as water pumps, seeds (mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper) and modern bee hives and

accessories. However, 439 beneficiaries have been selected and provided with this agricultural input which is

112% accomplishment against the plan.

Mode of input provision: All the inputs were purchased and delivered to the beneficiaries through EDA. Task

Force was established at woreda level which was responsible to support EDA in the process of purchasing the

inputs as required. Target groups were organized in intervention based associations and the purchased inputs

were distributed to the beneficiaries on credit basis.

All beneficiaries paid a minimum of 10% advance (down payment) from the total credit they received and

assumed the remaining 90% will be repaid immediately after harvest. However, for the bee keeping, payments

were planned in three installments: the first payment shall be after the first harvest; and the remaining loan after

each subsequent harvest. The problem observed in relation to credit was that the down payment of water pump

was high which poor HHs couldn‟t afford it, thus, the woreda task force decided and put a solution that poor

HHs to pay their down payments after harvest.

Provision of Water pump: In this intervention, provision of 10 water pump machines and 2408.53 liters of

fuel for irrigation were planned and 12 water pumps (120%) were distributed among 12 groups of beneficiaries

in the entire project period. In this case, the plan of water pumps at the beginning was revised and reduced from

10 to 7 due to increased global market and later the budget was amended and five water pumps were added.

Thus, water pumps were distributed in two rounds: In the first round, seven water pumps were timely provided

for 60 onion producers whereas the other five were re-distributed for 37 onion and 11 garlic producers after

replanting.

The main problem in this intervention was the repeated revision of plan due to cost escalation lead to second

round redistribution of water pumps. However, as the water pumps are not just one time inputs, the increased

number of water pumps will eventually improve the output of the farmers in the coming years.

Moreover, about 1,560 litres of fuel which is 64.77% of the plan (2408.53 liters) was distributed among the

irrigation beneficiaries. This fuel is used for the water pumps to support the irrigation scheme. Farmers in this

irrigation group were contributing Et Birr 10 per month and finally they used the money for maintenance of the

water pumps.

Seed distribution and production of Mung bean: Mung bean was intended to be produced in rain fed

agriculture among the poor HHs in the target area and a total of 34 quintals of seed which is 113 % of the plan

(30 qt) was distributed among 240 farmers in 2011 belg season. However, the planted crops of one hundred


Page 17

farmers failed due to the poor performance of the belg rains. The plan was shifted to 2011 meher season, and 24

quintals of mung bean seed was again redistributed for the 100 farmers who lost their crops in the belg season

and 140 new farmers. In this activity, 120% (240 HHs) from the plan (200HHs) were successfully supported by

the provision of mung bean seed.

The major problem associated with mung bean seed distribution was information gap on belg rains. In this case,

seed was provided to farmers without looking the belg rain forecasts from authorized agencies like National

Meteorological Agency (NMA); which finally lead to wastage of resources. However, the effort made to

redistribute the seeds for the affected targeted farmers in the meher season was appreciable.

From focus group discussions at Tarre kebele regarding the program outcome on mung bean, beneficiaries

explained that they have taken seed of 10 kg for 0.50 ha each on credit bases in June 2011 for meher season and

they have got appreciable benefits. Farmers explained that planted area by mung bean has increased in 2011 as

compared to the previous year (Table 3). This area increment was noticed due to shifting other cereals mainly

teff and sorghum to mung bean as mung bean is a high value or cash crop.

Table 3 Compression of area planted by mung bean between 2010 and 2011 in Tare

S/N Name Planter area in ha Remarks

2010 2011

1 W/ro Engidaye Gebeyehu - 0.38 Shifted from teff to mung bean

2 Ato Debebe Tesfaye 0.25 0.75 Shifted from sorghum

3 Digo Goshu 0.25 1.25 „‟ „‟ „‟

4 Kasaye Cherkos - 0.25 Shifted from teff

Total 0.5 2.63

From the discussion, it was also clear that quantity of mung bean production has increased significantly in 2011

from the previous year due to area expansion. All the beneficiaries interviewed in Tere kebele also explained

that all of them completely paid their back – payments immediately from the first harvest; and appreciated the

return from the intervention

Figure 3: Members of mung bean producers in Terre

Seed distribution and production of Onion, garlic & Pepper:


Page 18

Under this intervention, a total of 169 farmers which are 105% of the plan (161 HHs) were supported with

improved seeds, water pumps and involved under small scale furrow irrigation. It is estimated that a total of 61.5

hectare were covered with different vegetables.

Onion : It was planned to distribute 162 kg of onion seed, and EDA purchased 89 kg certified onion seed (red

Bombay variety) from which only 60 kg of seed was distributed for 97 HHs through out the project period. The

performance of purchase and distribution of onion seeds to beneficiaries was 55 and 37% respectively.

Distribution of onion was performed in two rounds following the distribution of water pumps. In the first round,

the purchased 60 kgs onion were distributed with seven water pumps for 60 HH ,however, price of onion

dropped down dramatically (from birr 8 to birr 1 per kg) in the first cycle production discouraged other farmers

to take the certified seed on credit bases. In the second round, 37 farmers have taken only water pumps and they

used local onion seed (instead of the certified seed) along the water pumps. In fact, the price of onion improved

from time to time (5 Birr per kg at farm get price).

The team learnt in the focused group discussion in Yellen kebele that beneficiaries were successful on vegetable

production using water pumps though price of onion has dropped. Fore example Ato Taddese Assefa member

of the water pump cooperative in Yellen kebele has got a net profit of 62,215 Birr from onion sale (table 4) in

2011 which is extremely higher as compared to the net profit of ET Birr 10,000 in the previous year (2010) on

the same land size.

Table 4: income of Ato Taddese Assefa from onion sale in Yelen kebele

Activity 1n 2010 In 2011 Remark

Area planted 0.25 0.25

Production(qt) 67 110

Sale(revenue) 22000 72215

Expenses(Birr) 12000 10000

Net profit 10000 62215

Ato Gebeyehu Wolde is also another member of the group who has taken water pump in the second round, and

growing onion (with 55 growing days) in one ha and very optimistic to get high return after a month ( after 35

growing days)(fig 4). He also diversified his crops with tomato using the water pump in his fields and the crop

is found at maturity level with good performance.


Page 19

Figure 4: Ato Gebeyehu Wolde with his onion and tomato crops

Generally, it has been observed that there are many other farmers who have taken water pumps in the first round

and have got appreciable income from onion harvest (like Ato Taddese Assefa). There are also farmers who

have taken water pump lately in the second round and expected good harvest (though delayed) from onion,

tomato and other crops which is at growth and maturity stage ( like Ato Gebeyehu Wolde).

Generally, among the 97 farmers who were involved in onion production through irrigation, 60 of them have

received water pump in the first round and planted onion for second and third times. They have got high income

from onion sales thus, have started repayments from the income they got.

The major problems associated with onion production were: A) Selling of onion at a lower price due to lack of

market information and promotions B) Late provision of water pumps for some of the producers which couldn‟t

even harvest once; still their crop was at field level but it was with good growing stand and promising.

Garlic: Local selected garlic seed was distributed to 11 poor farmers in the high land area (Ayaber kebele) with

one water pump. The achievement of garlic seed distribution was 80% (4 qt) from the plan (5 qt) because of

producers encouraged due to increased price of garlic. During this time, management of EDA has revised the

plan and decided to provide additional garlic seeds for the targeted farmers in consultation with SHA. This

indicated flexibility of planning with the demand of targeted beneficiaries in the ground.

Pepper: During the start of the intervention, there was no sufficient information on suitability of pepper. Then,

EDA made an assessment and confirmed through farmer‟s interview that the area is conducive for pepper

production and all the planned 23 kg seeds of pepper was provided to 61 farmers lately (in the third quarter) and

all the farmers planted pepper on 15.33 hectares of land.

Some farmers produced pepper in rain fed, some supplemented with irrigation water and some of the farmers

fully grown it in irrigation.


Page 20

Ato Wubderesegn Bekele (fig 6) is member of the 97 HHs organized in water pump cooperative in Yellen

kebele and he has taken 0.375 kg of certified pepper seed in May 2011. He raised seedlings and transplanted it

to 0.125 ha in July 2011.He harvested the crop from September through October and he used supplementary

irrigation towards the end of the crop maturity. He practiced intensified agriculture in a small land with onion

and pepper using the water pump, certified seed and fertilizers (table 5)

Table 5 Compression of income of Ato Wubderesegn Bekele between 2011 and 2010

Description 2010 2011 Remarks

A) total area planted-ha 1 0.625

-onion 1 0.5

-pepper - 0.125

B) total production-qt 54 105

-onion 54 84

-pepper - 21 Dry (9 qt) and green pepper(12 qt)

C) Total revenue(Sale) 12,000 46,000

-onion 12,000 23,000

-pepper - 23.000

D) Total expenditure 2130 5810

-labour 1680 4910 Planting, digging(3-rounds),

-Fertilizer 450 900 DAP and UREA

E) Net profit=C-D 9870 40,190

From the above table, we can see that Ato Wubderesegn Bekele has got 40,190 Birr net income from 0.625 ha

which means that he could have got a profit of 64,304 Birr from one ha; which is more than six fold from the net

income in 2010 (Table 5).

Figure 5: Ato Wub-Deresegn Bekele

The evaluation team observed in the field visit that there was high demand and request of water pump in the

target areas as the growers became very successful in this intervention. There is also high water potential and


Page 21

irrigable area to expand and scale up vegetable production in Yelen kebele along the bottom valley of the

villages.

The above facts were also proved from the analysis of household survey and 91.4% of the interviewed

beneficiaries confirmed that vegetable production significantly increased after the project (fig 6)

Fig 6 Response of households on increased productivity of vegetables after the intervention.

Bee keeping:

In the intervention of bee keeping, 30 HHs were planned to organize in cooperative and provided with 30

modern bee hives and accessories. Accordingly, 30 beehives, 3 honey extractors, 3 wax printers and other

accessories were distributed to 30 HHs by EDA to the cooperative in the project period.

Analysis of the household survey indicated that average honey production per hive has increased by 75% after

the project (23.33 Kg) when compared to the time before the project (13.33 kg) due to modern beehive and

accessories support to HHs Fig 7

Fig 7. Compression of average honey production (kg) per bee hive before and after the project

Farmers in the focussed group discussion also explained that the business (bee keeping) is profitable. For

example Ato Kifetew Taye (members of bee keeping group) described that he has got an income of 10,000 Birr

from the sale of honey. This finding is consistent with the annual report of EDA which stated that “300 kg of

honey were harvested from 11 beehives in the first cycle and sold a total of birr 36,000.00”. From the provided


Page 22

30 improved bee hives, honey was harvested only from 11 beehives in the first cycle. This is due to the reason

that the other apiary members did not want to harvest from the rest beehives expecting better bee colony

maturity and high productivity in the next harvest.

Members of the apiculture also explained in the interview that they have got trainings on bee keeping and have

been technically assisted regularly. As a result, the beneficiaries were motivated to expand their honey

production and they are hopeful to get better honey harvest in the coming harvest season.

Figure 8: Bee keeping in Yellen kebele

In the discussion with the bee keeping focus group, it has been raised that there is a potential threat of chemical

sprays to control pests like Quelea bird (grisa wof), locust, grass hopper, beetle and other insects which can

affect bees on the other hand. There are also experiences of spraying chemicals by airplane in the wereda to

control pest outbreaks particularly Quelea bird which most likely affect apiculture in the area. This issue was

thoroughly discussed with KI, community and project staff and all project actors agreed that they will use other

methods to control these pests through organizing a proactive action and in advance preparedness. Moreover,

they also explained that the event of the risk is seldom and with too low percentages. The other problem

observed in this intervention was that all the beehives in the apiary have no shelters and they are exposed to

likely external hazards which are an area of concern.

Output 1.2: market linkage created for beneficiary farmers who engaged production of onion,

garlic, pepper, mung bean and honey

The major problems of households particularly for those who have engaged in vegetable and mung bean in

Kewet woreda was Lack of market linkages. Farmers in the target area have benefited less from their actual

production because of unfair brokers between them and the direct consumers. Moreover, small holders in the

target area have little or no capacity to compete further in the national market; thus they were in need of market

infrastructures, quality products and promote their skills on how best they can produce and link into the

competitive market. Thus, market linkage was attempted through market promotion, seed certification,

construction of stores and provision of trainings on market linage, improved agriculture production and

cooperative formation

Market promotion: Market linkages being the bottleneck in the target area, 3 workshops with a total of 135

participants were planned to address the problem and enable the producers to benefit from their efforts and

endeavours.


Page 23

Accordingly, two market linkage workshops (one day each) were conducted in May and july 2011 in the

woreda. In these workshops, about 75 people (56 % of the plan) participated.

The first workshop was conducted on 24 May, 2011 in Shewa-Robit Town of Kewot woreda where 45 people

were participated. The composition of participants were: higher officials and experts from Ethiopian

Commodity Exchange Authority, potential crop exporters, Government sect-oral office office representatives,

SHA and EDA representatives, Debre-Berhan university, DAs, local customers, representatives from Debre

Berehan and Shewa Robit Correction Centers, Framers Unions, and representatives of district cooperative

promotion office and representatives of beneficiary farmers attended the workshop.

In the first workshop, it was learned/observed that many farmers were initiated to produce onion more than the

prevailing demand using the support of seed and water pumps on credit basis. However, onion price sharply

reduced after the first round of harvest. This situation discouraged farmers to take certified onion seed in the

second production cycle of the project period; rather farmers used local seed fearing the risk of prices. The

decreased onion price was justified as it was country wide phenomenon which resulted from poor market

information flow. Nevertheless, the situation was a lesson for concerned parties and the implementing

organization to be alert enough to assess market information and to work more on market linkage and

promotion.

The second market linkage workshop was conducted at two localities namely; Rassa and Terre where 30 people

participated. Participants were composed of contact farmers, Development Agents, staffs from district

agricultural office, representative from district cooperative promotion office and two community workers from

EDA. The major output of the workshop discussion was to create market linkage with exporters and other

traders. According to the discussion in the workshop, one mung bean exporter went to the region and dealt with

the contact farmers to conclude marketing agreement, however, the exporter couldn‟t appear for the negotiation.

To sustain the market linkages in the future, two basic cooperatives were established to give market and store

service to farmers. Thus, the cooperatives will provide farmers with up-to-date information on prices of

agricultural products that will create an opportunity of better market access to the producers. However, these

coops are at infant stage and continuous follow up is required to strengthen their capacity further technically and

financially.

Besides, training was given on nutritional value of mung bean to promote local markets (as part of market

linkage activities) where participants of the training have been convinced to use mung bean at home and in their

institutions. For instance, representatives from Debre-Berhan University and correction centres pledged that

they will purchase mung bean in bulk quantity to serve their students and prisoners. This is part of the market

linkage work done to sustain production through local markets promotions.

Despite the fact that there were efforts made to create market linkages, beneficiaries explained during the

focussed group discussion at Terre kebele that price of mung bean has reduced significantly from 2300 Birr in

2010 to 1350 birr in 2011; and beneficiaries at the kebele were complaining about the price change. This

implies that still the problem on market persists and need to work more on its linkage and promotions. In line


Page 24

with this, analysis from the HHs survey indicated that about 80% of the interviewed people sold their mung

bean in local markets (Fig 9)

Fig 9 Response of HHs to the type of markets where their products (mung bean) sold

Seed certification: The overall aim of seed certification was to supply organic mung bean with appreciable

prices to the market In this context, farm lands should be free of any agricultural chemicals at least for the last

three years. Information from farmers and the local agriculture office was consulted about this issue during the

planning stage and EDA was provided a go ahead clearance. However, the case did not stand the test of time at

later stage.

Accordingly, EDA surveyed each beneficiaries farm (by their own internal inspections before involving the

external examiners); and found that most farmers have used agro-chemicals (especially herbicides) on their

farms in the past couple of production years. Thus, due to this reason the seed certification initiative was not

continued and the activity was not accomplished.

Provision of training for 391 beneficiaries on market linkage, agricultural production, cooperative

formation, etc

Under this component, 387 beneficiaries received training on mung bean and vegetable farming, water pumping

operations and bee keeping and organic honey production. Besides, training was offered in enhancing

entrepreneurship and marketing skill of the beneficiaries. The achievement with this intervention was 88% of

the selected (439 HHs) and 99% of the plan (391 HHs) beneficiaries. In this case, 51 of the total beneficiaries

still did not attend the training because of their own personal problems; however, they have been contacted by

EDA development agents and received door to door orientation.

From the HH survey, it was confirmed that 97% of the interviewed HHs improved their technical skill on crop

production and market promotions through trainings.


Page 25

Cooperatives establishment: As part of market linkage and promotion, two cooperatives namely; crop and

honey supply (with 30 members) and market promotion cooperative (with 87 members) were established in

November 2011 by the members of the target beneficiaries as per the plan. The members who established crop

and honey supply coop are those who were involved in apiculture production in Yellen kebele where as the

members who established the market promotion cooperative are those who were involved in onion production

from Tere and yellen kebeles .

The role of these coops is providing market and information services for their members. It is also believed that

the coops are supposed to give store service with affordable prices for the beneficiaries when ever they need to

store their produces. Cooperatives are also expected to purchase the produces from the beneficiaries at a

reasonable price and sell it to other parties (Farmers Union, Exporting Private Limited Companies, consumers,

etc).

The cooperatives have already developed business plan, bylaw and detail term of reference (TOR) that clearly

articulates the roles and responsibilities of the cooperative.

Construction of stores: As part of capacity building for the established two new cooperatives, it was observed

in the field visit that construction of two small size stores (8 x 5 and 6 x 5 m2) were about to be completed.

These stores are believed to be important for farmers to maintain qualities of their produce until they get better

prices in the market. However, the size of these stores seems to be small when compared to the interventions

and outputs of the program in the target area.

There was also a plan to furnish the target group with office furniture‟s: 4 chairs, 2 tables and 2 shelves; and that

have been delivered to the crop and honey supply, and market promotion cooperatives as per the plan. However,

the plan to purchase and deliver 2 weighing scales to the cooperatives in the project period was not successful

because the material was not available on the market.

Plan and achievements: The project aimed at improving food security and enhancing livelihoods of 391 target

households by the end of 2011. However, 439 beneficiaries have benefitted from the interventions which are

112% accomplishment against the plan (Table. 6).

Table:6. Number of households supported with inputs compared to the plan

Type of imputed provided to HHs unit plan Achievement %

A) Mung bean seed No 200 240 120

B) Onion, Garlic and pepper seeds No 161 169 104.97

- Onion seed + water pump No 90 97 107.78

- Garlic seed + water pump No 10 11 110.00

- Pepper No 60 61 101.67

C) Modern bee hives and accessories No 30 30 100.00

Total (A + B + C) 391 439 112.28


Page 26

All the selected 439 beneficiaries received different agricultural inputs, materials and water pumps individually

and in group. Generally, 36.87 quintals of seed (mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper), 10 water pumps and 30

bee hives were planned to be distributed among the beneficiaries. Accordingly, 45.11 qt of seeds (34 qt of mung

been, 0.89 qt of onion,4 qt garlic and 0.23 qt of pepper), 12 water pumps and 30 bee hives have been distributed

among 439 beneficiaries in the project period. The accomplishment of these activities was 95%, 120% and

100% respectively. Moreover, 1,660 litters of fuel were provided from the planned 2408.53 liters for water

pump machines for irrigation. Training was offered in enhancing entrepreneurship and marketing skill of the

beneficiaries and the achievement with this intervention was 99% of the plan (taking 391 HHs or 88% compared

to retargeted 439 HHs) beneficiaries. Similarly, formation of two cooperatives and construction of two small

size stores and office furniture‟s were also accomplished as per the plan (Table 7).

Table 7 Summary of plan and achievements under the purposes

S/N

o Planned activities Unit Targets

achievem

ent %

Reason for the

deviation from

the target

1

HHs supported inputs to

produce crops and Haney

1.1 Distribution of seed

- Mung bean qt 30 34 113.33

- Onion „‟ 1.62 0.6 37.04

Reduction of

onion prices

- Garlic „‟ 5 4 80

- pepper „‟ 0.23 0.23 100

Sub-total „‟ 36.85 36.87 121.66

1.2

Distribution of Bee Hives with

accessories No. 30 30 100

1.3

Distribution of water pumps with

accessories No. 10 12 120

2 Market linkage created

2.1 Market promotion workshops „‟ 3 2 66.67

2.2 Seed certification

Explained on the

topic

2.3 Provision of training No 391 387 99

2.4 Cooperative formation No 2 2 100

2.5

Construction of small size stores

and office furniture‟s No. 2 2 100

Generally, the intended results of the project were obtained in the progress of the project time. These

achievements were also in agreement with results of community perceptions.(Fig 11)

Fig 11 Perception of community on the overall achievement


Page 27

The only two interventions which were not implemented are the purchase of the weighing machines and the

mung bean certification. These activities could have been better planned: weighing machines cannot be declared

unavailable country-wide (maybe high cost could be the reason for not purchasing and through better

information, the mung bean certification should not have been included as an intervention until there was clear

information about the process.

5. Impact/Impact-trend of the project

The intervention resulted in greater food security, better nutrition or improved profitability for the targeted HHs

through creating access to crop production and building their capacity by providing relevant trainings for better

income generation by the end of the project year.

Improved nutrition and livelihood status among HHs: All the interviewed HHs (100%) responded that the

intervention brought change in type of nutrition status of their family after the project. The change was

explained both in quality (variety of food sources) and size of meal per day.

It was clear from the HHs survey that yield of mung bean and vegetables has increased by more than 50% after

the project because of the effective implementation of the interventions;which also impacted livelihood status

of the targeted groups.

Increase household income and food production: Considering all income from the component of the project

(onion, pepper and honey), average annual income of the surveyed HH was analyzed before and after the

project. Average households income of target beneficiaries increased by 112% ( from 11,108 birr before the

project to 23,512 birr after the project) through supporting HHs with agricultural inputs (seeds, water pump, bee

keeping materials) and promoting their farming and marketing skills (Fig 12) This finding is in agreement with

the objective stated as increase average household income by 85 %.


Page 28

fig 12. Average income (ET Birr) of HHs from the interventions of multiple responses

Technical skills of beneficiaries improved:

Through capacity building interventions, about 378 beneficiaries (from the targeted 438 HHs) improved their

skills on crop production(58.8%), bee keeping(8.8), marketing and entrepreneurship(32.4%) for better income

generation through focused trainings, linked with markets and organizing them into self-help groups with

bylaws (fig 13)

Fig 13 Households skills improved due to the project interventions

It was also observed that the selected technologies have no any deleterious effect on the environment.

Intervention with mung bean was found to be enriching soil fertility as the crop is legume and has the capacity

to fix free atmospheric Nitrogen (N2) in to Nitrate (NO3).


Page 29

6. Sustainability of the project

The project is strategically oriented towards making a significant contribution to broader, long-term, sustainable

development changes. The results of the project are most likely durable and can be maintained or even scaled

up and replicated by project partners.

Participation in program design: The team has confirmed through discussions that the local community and

government partners have fully participated in the project design and implementation of each project component

at all levels. The program has created sense of ownership, for example the beneficiaries grouped under water

pump have been contributing money on monthly bases to maintain their water pumps. This indicates sense of

ownership of the community which can ensure sustainability of the interventions. Moreover, involvement of

local government decision makers at all level and development agents who have technically been working at

grass root level created fertile ground for sustainability of the project.

All the trainings provided to beneficiaries (on mung bean and vegetable farming, water pumping operations and

bee keeping and organic honey production and entrepreneurship and marketing improved farmers‟ skills which

have paramount importance in sustaining the program.

Institutional arrangement: Beneficiaries were organized and grouped in associations in all the project

components and members of each association contribute some amount of money which enables them to cover

the recurrent costs of the interventions. Moreover, two coops were established and capacity building works is

undergoing where construction of stores and purchasing of necessary office furniture‟s were accomplished.

There is also a government plan to embrace these beneficiary group associations as members of the local

cooperatives in the future. It is believed in the cooperative that farmers will get continuous advice related to

development of business management skills among smallholder farmers to improve savings and productive

investments further.

There are two community development workers of EDA, who are supporting the farmers, and there is also

office of agriculture which has established its structure up to the kebele level and it has been working in

agreement with EDA to provide sustainable service to the communities.

Technological sustainability: The introduced technologies in the intervention are based on the local needs,

experiences and capacities or those have been effective elsewhere in the country. This makes the technologies

more feasible and sustainable with minimum external support. Despite the fact that those technologies are

simple and feasible, some of the technologies like maintenance of water pump and bee keeping management

will require a continued follow up from the relevant line departments.

7. Concerns / problem identified

Summary of constraints and limitations of the program identified during the review are summarized below:

Limited achievements on market promotion and linkage: No appreciable results were obtained in these

interventions and still need efforts to meet farmers demand. Many mung bean and onion producers

were observed complaining of market prices as they have been selling their produce at a low market

prices;


Page 30

Lack of adequate information during the planning process affected some activities; for example seed

certification initiative failed as there was no sufficient information gathered on chemical contamination

in the farm lands of the beneficiaries before the start of the intervention.

Chemical sprays to control pests like quelea quelea bird (grisa), locust, grass hopper, beetle and other

insects remained of concern as the practice can affect bee colonies in the target areas;

Bee hives in the apiary have not shelters; this condition has exposed bee colonies to likely external

hazards to happen;

Limited budget to address the increasing community demand to get support. For example the team has

observed still very high demand and request of water pumps ;

Delayed provision of water pumps affected implementation of some activities: The lately delivered

five water pumps (due to inflation caused budget amendments) impacted timelines planting of some

vegetables in the target area;

Limited support to the newly established cooperatives; though some capacity works have been done,

still continuous follow up and capacity building works are required to strengthen the coops as they are

at infant stage. Support should be focused: Some necessary items indicated in the plan like weighing

scales couldn‟t be purchased and distributed to cooperatives; the constructed stores seems smaller size

that couldn‟t accommodate the crop and honey produced from the interventions; still there is a gap on

market information, linkages and promotion;

EDA project activities in Kewet woreda were being managed by a focal person (part timer). He is a

government employee in the office of Agriculture and delegated the responsibility of project

coordinator on top of his permanent duties and responsibilities. This arrangement was chosen due to

budget limitations; which in turn lead to repeated budget revision and forced to recruit the coordinator

on a contract bases. Some activities of the project were compromised with this type of arrangement as

there were top priority assignments and commitments in the Government office.Therefore, the project

coordinator was not managing at a full time capacity; thus a coordinator needs to be assigned

permanently.

Short piloting time; it has commented by all stakeholders consulted, that one year project duration time

is too short to see better impact of the interventions;

8. Key Lessons learned/ strength

The strengths of the program identified during the review are those summarized below:

The holistic approach of the program; a) Integration of development activities such as irrigation, crop

production and bee keeping b) Integrated support for targeted households to contribute for the

improvement of household food security situation

Participatory nature of the project; The project reflected the need of all stakeholders as it has

participating community and government partners in process of problem analysis and program design.


Page 31

This was further complemented with similar process during annual action plan design and targeting of

household beneficiaries.

Effective woreda task force (embracing relevant stakeholders); working closely in all processes of the

intervention and there is a clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities by all stakeholders

involved. There is also a joint monitoring and evaluation which ensured that appropriate decisions were

made in a timely manner.

Flexibility of the Program: It was learnt from the discussion made with the KI that budget was

amended though prices of some activities escalated; for example there was additional water pumps

supplied. Planning of activities was also seen revised according to the local need; for example

provision of garlic seed increased when the price of onion dropped down. Moreover, when mung bean

production failed in the belg season due to poor rains, farmers had got a chance to re-plant in the next

meher season. The high down payment of water pump for poor HHs was resolved by the woreda task

force in such a way that poor HHs decided to pay the down payment after the first harvest.

Formation of cooperatives (with members of the program beneficiaries) will create market access and

enable beneficiaries to compute in the local and global market; and this will contribute to sustainability

of the interventions in the target area.

The training on nutrition value of mung bean; The method of preparing varieties of food with mung

bean is a new in the country and such training is important to promote local market for mung bean.

9. Opportunities for designing and scaling up similar projects.

Conducive environment in the target area is an opportunity to expand similar or other interventions:

There are perennial rivers passing through many farm lands in the plain areas of the woreda which

deserves more vegetable and fruit production using irrigation practices (water pumps). The existing

huge area closures in the woreda coupled with the irrigation practices in the area will also contribute

sustainable forages supply for bee colonies and favors apiculture production in the vicinity. Moreover,

the agro-ecology is suitable for different livestock and crop production in general.

The emerging demand of cash crops like mung bean, sesame, vegetables and fruits and honey on the

local and global markets coupled with the accessibility of road and market in the targeted areas

encourage farmers on this regard.

Rural Development Policy of the Government is encouraging; Community-based agriculture extension

services are being promoting through assigning qualified extension personnel and establishing farmers

training centers (FTC). This will create opportunity to continue technical support to community

initiatives on agriculture, and market oriented productions.

There is positive communities‟ attitude to fight poverty which is supportive to strengthen the

initiatives.


Page 32

Local cooperatives established in the target area: They are opportunities for beneficiary group

associations to get better market access (for their produces) and other credit and saving opportunities

for productive investments.

10. Conclusions and Recommendations

10.1. Conclusions

The evaluation team has concluded through extensive evaluation process that the project made sufficient

progress and achieved its planned objectives. The quantity and quality of the outputs produced in the project life

time are satisfactory.

It was realized by the evaluation team that the project design was logical and coherent. The program

components were also comprehensive and complementary to contribute the intended goal. Program areas were:

A) 391 households supported with inputs to produce mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper; engaged in improved

beekeeping practice; B) market linkage created for beneficiary farmers who engaged in production of onion,

garlic, pepper, mung bean and honey. Findings of the team indicated that all the interventions were relevant and

executed in line with the agreement made with the stakeholders. The specific impact trends that the evaluation

has analyzed from this review are these summarized below.

391 households supported with inputs to produce mung bean, onion, garlic and pepper; engaged in

improved beekeeping practice:

In this intervention 391 HHs were targeted to be supported with different agricultural inputs; however, 439

beneficiaries were selected and received the inputs. Provision of seeds, water pumps and bee hives were the

major inputs intended to distribute among beneficiaries and the accomplishment of these activities was 95%,

120% and 100% respectively.

From the focused group discussion, the team learnt that beneficiaries were successful on vegetable production

supported with water pump and helped them to produce two –three times in a year. The irrigation groups are

benefiting a lot from the products they sell especially onion and pepper and they have started collecting savings

from sell of their products to cover cost of pump maintenance to sustain the service.

Area planted and production of mung bean (even though rain fed) was also increased mainly due to shifting

from other cereals particularly teff and sorghum as mung bean is a high value or cash crop. Thus, income of

HHs has improved and beneficiaries in this group appreciated the return from the intervention and almost all

members of this intervention were paid their back – payments immediately from the first harvest. Similarly, the

intervention on apiculture also started appreciable results.

Market linkage created for beneficiary farmers who engaged in production of onion, garlic, pepper,

mung bean and honey:

Market linkage has been created through formation of coops and capacity building activities; which believed to

be improved productivity and market access of beneficiaries. In line with this, two coops were established as per

the plan and entrepreneurship and marketing skill of beneficiaries were enhanced through trainings and


Page 33

workshops. The achievements with coops formation and training in this intervention were 100% and 99%

respectively whereas the initiative with seed certification of mung bean aimed at organic mung bean supply to

the market was failed due to contamination of farm lands with agro-chemicals. Further, the coops were

capacitated with provision of constructed small size stores and office furniture‟s. However, results of this

intervention are limited as this intervention is new and needs more efforts to establish a system and still farmers

were complaining of low market prices of mung bean and onions; implies that all responsible bodies have to

work more in this area.

The evaluation team generally concluded that the program was logically and coherently designed, and it was

efficient and effective; hence brought the required changes and impacts to target communities and government

partners.

However, Limited achievements on market promotion and linkage, lack of adequate information during the

planning process, llimited budget to address the increasing community demand, delayed provision of water

pumps, llimited support to the newly established cooperatives and short piloting time were the major problems

identified during the implementation period of the project. Whereas the holistic approach of the program, the

participatory nature of the project ( community and government partners in the whole process of the project),

effective task force responsible in managing issues, flexibility of the Program, formation of new cooperatives

through beneficiary groups and Government to properly manage interventions to maintain sustainability are

some of the strengths.

On the other hand, conducive agro-ecology for similar interventions in the target area, the emerging demand of

cash crops and honey in the global and local markets, encouraging government policy for rural development,

positive communities‟ attitude to fight poverty and the newly established local cooperatives in the target area are

a fertile ground for designing and scaling up similar projects in the woreda.

10.2. Recommendations

1) Strengthen the market promotion and linkage initiatives: The encouraging output of the

interventions (crop and honey) production should be supported with strong market linkages and

promotions. Thus it is advisable to assess and study the constraints of market with market actors

and come up with solutions. Moreover, the activities which already started under this component

are advisable to continue in line with the proposed solutions during the assessment. Support should

be continuous till the groups or the established cooperatives managed it and play a significant role

in the market interactions;

2) Adequate information should be collected before launching interventions: a) It is advisable to see

weather outlook (seasonal forecasts) before deciding a mung bean seed distribution to farmers for

rain fed agriculture b) To intervene with seed certifications aiming supply of organic produce,

farm lands of beneficiary HHs must be identified and surveyed first in consultation with

stakeholders like office of agriculture in the vicinity and then continuous follow up of the

identified farm lands at least for three years (depend on type and need) is required to prove that all

plots are free of chemicals (fertilizer, herbicide, etc);


Page 34

3) Organized proactive preparedness plan should be developed in advance to avoid chemical sprays

around the bee keeping sites; In this case, early warning system should be strengthen at all levels

through improving the information flow on migratory pests like quelea quelea bird (grisa), locust,

and other potential pests like army warm, beetle etc. The available information at higher level

should be transfer immediately to the farmers. Thus communication networks should be

strengthening. There must be term of reference (TOR) indicating share of all stake holders

including the community. All the non-chemical control measures suitable to the area should be

assessed ahead and awareness should be created to the community and stakeholders on these

control methods;

4) It is important to construct shades to protect the exposed bee hives in the apiary so that bee

colonies can be saved from likely hazards likely to occur. Shelters should be constructed in

consultation with the office of agriculture to consider all factors optimum.

5) Continuous support to the newly established cooperatives; the cooperatives at this stage are not

capable to cope up with the local and global market competitions. Thus, it is advisable to build

their capacity in terms of training, materials and facilitating credits to rise up their capital and

involve in the market promotions to provide sustainable services to their members and farmers in

the target area;

6) Timely release of agricultural inputs/budget should be required to realize effective achievements of

project objectives;

7) Piloting period is advisable to extend at least for two years for similar project interventions to be

expanded and to see better impact of the interventions; otherwise impact of some project

interventions will be difficult to measure;

8) To avoid repeated plan revisions and/or reduced the targeted activities; it is very important to give

sufficient time to assess market for the type of inputs, availability and their anticipated prices. In

this case prices should be projected a head while planning so that the budget could be affected less

by most likely inflations to be happened. Thus, this will help to prepare realistic plan. The

experience of flexibly amending cost variations is good and it should be continue for important

problems of the community whenever the demand arises;

9) Continuous follow up and technical support is required to beneficiaries in all the started initiatives

(bee keeping management, crop and water management) till farmers well retained the techniques.

10) The project area has high potential to diversify the livelihood strategies such as high value fruits,

oil seeds especially sesame in the lowlands, improved livestock production (poultry, Shoats, dairy

and ox fattening). Thus, it is also important further to diversify project interventions based on

concrete information‟s.


Page 35

11) It is advisable for EDA to assess the human resource in the target woreda and assign a permanent

project coordinator to manage the project activities on a full management capacity.

12) Lastly, the team observed that the project interventions were found effective benefitting the people

in the target area and still there is high demand by the community as well as by the Gov.

Therefore, there is a need to design a new project based on this evaluation output at large scale so

long as fund is secured.


Page 36

Annex 1: Evaluation TOR

Terms of reference for evaluation of ADLi & LiDFP Project

Self Help Africa

P.O.Box 1204

Tel.+251 116 620659

Fax: +251 116 619724

December 2011

Addis Ababa


Page 37

Annex 1 Terms of reference for evaluation of ADLi & LiDFP

Introduction

Self Help Africa (SHA) has been working in Ethiopia involving in various rural based interventions since 1987,

predominantly in integrated rural development projects. In the early years of its involvement, the organization

initiated various programmes focusing on food security, natural resource management and sustainable rural

livelihood development. Based on the experiences and lessons gained from those interventions, SHA had

designed multiple new initiatives which build the capacity and confidence of rural small holders households to

alleviate poverty and establish sustainable system that have been supporting the country‟s rural development

programme strategies.

In order to scale up its effort and improve organizational efficiency, SHA recently launched its new but focused

five years strategic plan (2011-15) which is slightly different from the way it has been implementing before.

One of the key strategic directions set for this period highlighted on partnership working with likeminded

organizations. In line with this, SHA selected two local NGO‟s that have similar vision with what SHA wants to

achieve in 2011. Accordingly a one year contract was signed with Emmanuel Development Association (EDA)

and Ethiowetlands & Natural Resources Association (ENWRA) to engage in Agriculture-Based Livelihood

Diversification projects in Amhara Regional states of Kewet & Fogera woredas, respectively.

The projects has been effective as of January 2011 and ends on 31st December 2011

Overall Objective of this Evaluation

This evaluation is being commissioned to examine comprehensively the implementation and impacts of

Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification Project for Poor Rural Households in Amhara Region, Kewet

Wereda & a project named “Needs-based Livelihood Diversification and Integrated Support Provision for

Smallholder Farmers in Fogera Plains” of Emannuel Development Association and ENWRA, respectively.

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the performance of the projects as well as to identify the lessons

learned from the project and feed into the wider SHA programme. The overall aim of the evaluation is,

therefore, to analyze and reflect on the experience of the projects in order to assess its contribution to sustainable

development of rural communities in Ethiopia, specifically the project intervention woredas, and to identify

areas which need to be strengthened in the partnership working modalities.

Scope of the Evaluation

The evaluation will focus on the “Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification Project for Poor Rural

Households in Amhara Region, Kewet Wereda” & on “Needs-based Livelihood Diversification and Integrated

Support Provision for Smallholder Farmers in Fogera Plains” within the context of the initial action plans and

the baseline surveys..

The evaluation team will focus on the achievements and lessons learned within the project period as well as

highlighting the areas which should receive greater attention in the design and implementation of future similar

projects.

Specific Objectives

The evaluation will be expected to address the following specific objectives of the project:

1. Assess the effectiveness of the projects in achieving its intended objectives. Compare actual, tangible

results (output and immediate objectives realized) with intended results (initial and modified). Analyze

factors which have determined (a) the actual results and (b) the differences between these and the

intended results.


Page 38

2. Assess the impact of the projects on the rural community and area of operation, foreseen or unforeseen,

positive or negative on development, i.e. in terms of irreversible improvement in the ability of the

people and the institutions concerned to ever more effectively take control of their own future: who

benefited, or not: women, youth, poor, better off, government etc.?

3. Assess the efficiency of the projects. Assess value of tangible results, describe and evaluate critically

means, methods and time taken to achieve them, and analyze cost benefit relationship thus obtained.

Compare these figures with operation study forecasts analyze reasons for any discrepancies.

4. Assess the quality of the organization and management of the projects in terms of progress and

financial reporting and systems of accountability.

5. Assess the viability/ sustainability of the projects. Assess (or estimate) post implementation survival of

operation with reference inter alia, to the following factors:

Socio-cultural/technical/institutional: is the operation functioning properly, taking in to

account the motivation, skills and organization of those concerned?

Policy: is the policy environment conductive to the operation‟s success?

Socio-economic and ecological environment: is the operation‟s “assailable” and compatible

with the conservation of renewable resources, and the protection of the environment?

6. Assess the extent to which the programme fits within Government Ethiopia national rural development

policy guidelines and local government priorities. Identify any areas of conflict and any areas where

there is scope to improve coherence.

7. Assess the processes of community participation within the programme and the extent to which

different sections of the community have been involved in problem analysis, project identification,

design and implementation. Identify any groups within the community that have not been involved.

Identify whether the programme has supported collective community action.

8. Assess if the strategy pursued by implementing organizations in its project has been effective in

addressing gender inequalities in the area.

9. Assess the effectiveness of the partnership relationship and arrangements including the relationship

with the office of Agriculture and other co-operating partners.

10. Assess the level of learning, feedback and flexibility which has characterized the projects from the

perspective of the rural community, the project partners and the implementing organizations. To what

extent have lessons learned been shared with other development partners? Is there scope for more

dissemination of the lessons learned by implementing agencies?

11. Make conclusions and recommendations concerning the operation, viability and impact of the project

assessed.

12. Examine the way in which the lessons learned from these two projects could be incorporated into the

designing of other similar projects

Methodology of the Evaluation

The evaluation team will consist of 2 members

1. Lead consultant/Team leader (expert in agricultural and rural development). Team leader will be

responsible for report writing and timely submission

2. Team member expert in livestock development


Page 39

3. Representative of Self Help Africa programme and EDA/ or EWNRA shall also be members as

necessary.

The evaluation team is expected to visit both project areas located in North Shewa zone, kewet woreda and

South Gondar Zone, Fogera woreda of Amhara Regional State. The team is expected to visit various sites within

each projects to get a comprehensive understanding of the scale and scope of the interventions. Throughout the

mission the team should adopt a participatory approach and should consult widely with all project partners e.g.

Farmers (male and female), farmer groups, community groups, local government authorities (agriculture,

cooperative office), etc. The evaluation team should engage respective project staff to critically reflect on the

lessons learned within project.

Output/s of the evaluation

In the last days of the evaluation, the team should present a summary of the findings in a workshop consisting of

key stakeholders and validate their findings.

A draft report should be submitted to SHA within 10 working days after completion of the mission. Three

copies (hard and soft) of the final report should be submitted not later than 7 days after receiving comments

made by the partners.

Timing

The evaluation is planned to take place from 01-31 January 2012.

Requirements

Consultants with valid experience in the evaluation of agricultural development projects could submit technical

and financial proposals in separate sealed envelopes to Self Help Africa office located at Kenenissa Bekele

Avenue, off Adwa Square (Megenagna) along the Adwa Square-Adwa-Bridge street in person or through mail

(P.o.Box 1204 Addis Ababa).

A. Technical proposal

Consultants are required to submit as part of their technical proposal the following:

1. Valid license for 2004 EC; TIN registration and VAT registration (if any)

2. Testimony of experiences in similar tasks in the last five years,

3. CVs of core professionals to be involved in the evaluation

The technical proposal shall include methods of evaluation, and work schedule. Before embarking on the

evaluation, the selected consultant is expected to present an inception report on the general framework &

methodology of the evaluation and get approval of the client.

B. Financial proposal

The financial proposal shall include all costs and presented inclusive of all taxes. In the preparation of the

financial proposal, Self Help Africa‟s role should be considered:

1. SHA, EDA and EWNRA will provide transport services to and within the project sites

2. SHA, EDA and EWNRA will cover per diem and accommodation costs while outside Addis Ababa

3. SHA will cover costs related to validation workshop cost, if any


Page 40

General

Self Help Africa is an inclusive employer; competent women are encouraged to apply for the consultancy

service.

Self Help Africa reserves the right to amend, cancel in part or the whole of the evaluation task.

Annex 2. People contacted during the evaluation

No People contacted Responsibility Organization Duty

station

1 Yitbarek Bekele deputy head Office of Agriculture Kewet

2 Beshahwured

Yirga

External Resource and

NGOs coordinator

Woreda office of Finance and

Economic Development

Kewet

3 Abegaz Fekie Cooperative Expert and

Focal person for EDA

Office of Agriculture Kewet

4 Shegaw Habtu Horticultural crops expert Office of Agriculture Kewet

5 Abebe Belay Agronomist Office of Agriculture Kewet

6 Gobeze Mar-Esht Livestock expert Office of Agriculture Kewet

7 Mulugeta Sefinew Area manager EDA D/Berhan

8 Kayo Sherkole Consultant Gillo consulting …….. Addis

Ababa

9 Solomon Alemu Consultant Addis

Ababa

9

Annex 3. Schedule of the evaluation

Date Activity

Monday 16/01/2012 Travel to Fogera Woreda

Tuesday 17/01/2012 Enumerators training

Stakeholder consultation and secondary data review

Wednesday 18/01/2012 Field observation of the major activities

Thursday 19/01/2012 FGDs

Friday 20/01/2012 Travel to Kewot Woreda

Saturday 21/ 0/01/2012

Enumerators training

Stakeholder consultation and secondary data review

Sunday 22/01/2012 Field observation of the major activities

Monday 23/01/2012 FGDs

Tuesday 23/01/2012 Travel back to Addis Ababa

Wednesday 24 -30/2012 Data entry and analysis

February 1-10/2012 Draft report writing

February 11-14/2012 Comment and feedback

February 14 -17/2012 Final report and presentation


Page 41

Annex 4: Check List for the evaluation of Need–Based Livelihood Diversification and integration

support provision project termination

I. Topical outline for key informant interview-KII

o (SHA, EDA, EWNRA,

o Government/sectoral offices,

o Community Based Organizations (CBOs and community leaders)

1. Overall Programme Design

To what extent is the project design consistent with the local situation and the coherent of the proposed

activities?

How was the participation of beneficiary and other stakeholders in need identification?

Did partners get adequate consultation in the preparation and submission of projects at different levels?

Were different stakeholders ready for working in partnership?

Were there exist well defined performance indicators for the project objectives and activities?

How was the degree of objective-oriented planning; existence of baseline data, clarity of expected

outputs, assumptions and risks, monitoring and review plan?

Did the project use of Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) with well defined performance indicators

for each objectives and activities?

2. Relevance of the Project and its Approach (positive attitude towards the given

Intervention)

What were the most important problems, needs and priorities of the communities of the project area

before the start of the project?

What were the development priorities of local institutions, associations and government before the

start of project activities in the area?

How relevant was the project approach in relation to addressing the project objectives?

Was the approach relevant in the context of the development need and potential of the areas?

How is your judgment/perception/observation on the contribution/ability of the project in reducing

poverty?

Were the project activities consistent with circumstances, traditions and perceptions of the

community?

What activities do you think are missing in the project objectives? Which would have made the project

more successful?

Were the different activities of the project complement each other and lead to the overall objective of

the project? How?

Was the project design flexible and posses the room for amendments and incorporation of encountered

important problems of the communities after its design? i.e. how responsive and flexible was the

project document to problems identified during proposal development and the Mid-Term Review?

Implementation arrangements: How efficient? What problems observed

- The role of EDA/ENWRA in project implementation

- The role of Government partners in project implementation

- the role of the community

Accountability, transparency and level of participation

- the procurement procedure and distribution inputs

- Are the region, zone, Woreda and community are aware of project plan and achievement (is

the report circulated to all partners on time)

3. Efficiency of the Project

How does project's performance and outputs compare against its resource utilization?


Page 42

- What disbursement procedures were followed and who were involved in decision

making on financial expenditures?

- Have there been unanticipated expenditures?

- Have there been costs not quantified at the start of the project? If any, how have these

been accounted for?

Table 1- Project budget and utilization

Objectives/Activity Allocated

Budget(ETB)

Expenditure(ETB) Variance Reason for

variance ETB %

How efficiency was assessed during the project implementation?

How efficient the inputs are converted to outputs? i.e., did the project achieve the expected outputs

according to the resources allocated and the time frame given to each activity?

How did the project costs and benefits compare? Are the project benefits exceed project costs for those

activities that are achieved during the given time and resources?

The extent to which activities were implemented and managed, i.e., how the quality of project

management at different levels of the project and in managing of the project budget?

The extent to which activities were carried out in the most appropriate manner given available

resources and time, i.e. according to your opinion, was the project efficient in achieving its planned

objectives with the allocated resources and the given time?

How do you explain the extent to which the above was done at the minimal cost to produce the

expected results?

Is there any case of duplication and overlapping of activities with other actor(s) in the same locality?

How is the level of integration/complementarities/synergies and coordination of the project

interventions with other on-going similar initiatives, if any?

- Was there similar food security project at the same time in the Woreda and created

duplication of efforts?

- Agriculture (crop, livestock, veterinary, irrigation and training)

- Food Access (Income generation, technology)

- Community Capacity

How was the working relationship of the project management and staff with different stakeholders,

beneficiaries, other local institutions and authorities in relation to joint monitoring, agreement with

stakeholders, etc?

- How efficient the partnership among different stakeholders?

- What measures have been taken to strengthen partnership (e.g. sharing of

responsibilities, regular interaction and exchanges, other aspects, etc)?

How was the quality of internal monitoring/review procedures including the use of efficiency

indicators?

Was there implementation agreement/procedure between project management and concerned

stakeholders/institutions such as memorandum of understanding?

How was the level of community participation in decision making as well as contribution for the

project during implementation of various project activities?

4. Effectiveness of the Project (achievement of the project objectives, success attribution, objective realization,

expectation realization, etc)

Extent to which the project is achieving expected results, i.e.,

- What is the progress of the project to date towards its outputs/expected results?

- Did the outcomes of the project meet the project objectives?


Page 43

Table 2- Comparison of plan and achievements under the purpose

Description unit planned achieved variations Reasons for

variation deviation

In relation to the project as a whole

- What are the major factors influencing the achievement of the project objective including

unforeseen external factors?

- What have been the intended and unintended consequences of the working environment that

affected project environment?

- What are the key issues in the new context of the intervention area in particular and the

country in general that needs to be taken into account for the future of the project?

- How can opportunities in the changing context to be taken into account to ensure successful

project impact?

- How could you explain the management capacity to ensure that the results help to the

attainment of the stated purpose?

- Did the project actually achieve stakeholder satisfaction?

- How were the reaction of beneficiaries and the use of project results and benefits?

- What are the unplanned effects of obtained results, if any,

- Cross-cutting issues such as gender, the environment, poverty reduction?

- What proportion of the beneficiaries are women / women headed households?

- What proportion women involved in project implementation,

- How do you see the strategies used to implement the project? Were they appropriate and

effective?

- What monitoring arrangements have been made for a joint follow-up progress in

implementation? (e.g. joint supervision, reporting, etc)

5. Impact/Impact-Trend of the Project

What evidence is there that the project has had an impact and/or impact trend and for which output(s)?

What indicators have been used and evidence gathered by the project team or other stakeholders to

reach these conclusions (both quantitative and qualitative)?

What are the most significant positive changes and most significant negative changes, if any, that the

project brought for different stakeholders? i.e., the effects of the project on its direct beneficiaries as

well as to its wider and overall effects on larger numbers of people, within the sector or in a geographic

area in terms of technical, economic, socio-cultural and institutional factors.

The extent to which the overall objectives were achieved and the contribution of the project to their

achievement.

In your opinion, what will be the impact of the project after the withdrawal of the implementing

agency? Including impact-trends of the project.

What are the external factors, if any, which influenced the overall impact as well as the capacity of the

project to respond to these factors?

What were the possible unplanned impacts of the project and the effects of this on the overall impact?

What are the impact and/or impact-trend(s) of the project on gender-related, environment and poverty

issues?

Are the project objectives still realistic and achievable? Are the assumptions on which the project's

likely impact relied still valid?


Page 44

6. Sustainability of the Project

What arrangements have been made to ensure sustainability of the project from the point of view of

- Local stakeholders' participation,

- Sense of ownership of communities for the project outputs

- Institutional arrangement,

- Compatibility of project objectives and community needs, etc

- Capacity building effort to support the project implementation and its sustainability?

What potentials are available to continue to help attain the project objective once the project has been

phased out,

- The capacity of the beneficiaries/communities to maintain and continue the activities and/or

outputs of the projects,

- The support required by different stakeholders to sustain the different

Project activities,

- Unforeseen obstacles on sustainability, and so on?

What are the effects of external factors on sustainability?

How did the self-reliance of the communities and their determination in taking over and guaranteeing

the overall project continuity?

7. Other Issues

What do you think were the major strengths of the project?

What were its weaknesses?

What were the major opportunities/favorable conditions for the realization of project objectives?

What can be said about threats of the project?

What problems (capacity and others) and/or constraints have been faced in the implementation of the

project?

What did you make improve the problems and constraints?

What are the key lessons drawn from this project that will be used for similar intervention in the

future?

What are the best partnership practices which could be replicated in the area and considered for future

development activities?

Availability of updated activity report and financial status of the project.

How was monitoring and supervision mechanism including reporting?

What are your practical recommendations in relation to implementation strategy and modalities as well

as to improve the overall project including participation, phasing out, sustainability, and the way

forward for the extension of the project by the agency in the future, etc?

Any other issues you would like to rise for the review team

II. Topical outline for Focus Group Discussion-FGD (women and male headed)

General information

Introduction

1. Greet the focus group according the local culture of the area. Introduce yourself by asking him/her about

his/her family situation, rain etc.


Page 45

2. Explain the objective of the study and confirm that the information obtained will be used only for the

intended purpose to benefit the community and the name of any respondent will be conduit the community

and the name of any respondent will be confidentially.

3. Ask if the group knows and how they come to know

Name of the village/PA

Date of the interview

Demographic condition

Major economic activities/livelihood

Food security status

Key development actors in the area and their major intervention?

Main wealth group in the area and their proportion

Community participation in project identification , planning , implement monitoring and evaluation

Is the project designed based on the full need of the community

Fairness of beneficiary selection and screening criteria

What were the most important problems needs of the community addressed by the intervention?

Was the program launched at the right time with the right resources in the area

Program performance against resources?

The effect of the project

Impact of the project increasing the income level of the HH of the target HHs

Women participation in the project in what ways?

Effectiveness of the project in terms of time and cost

III. Needs based live livelihood Diversification and integrated support provision for smallholder farmers

Kewot Woreda of north show Region

Semi-structured questionnaire for households interview (beneficiaries)

Name of the enumerator: _______________________

1. General information

1.1 Area Identification

Zone: ____________________

Woreda: __________________

Keble: ___________________

Village/Gotse :____________________

Agro Ecological zone: ______________

Livelihood zone :___________________

1.2 Household demographic characteristics

Name of the beneficiaries ___________________

Age: ________________________

sex: 1= male 2= Female

Religions 1= orthodox 2= Muslim

3=Protestant 4= Other _______

Ethnicity 1= Amhara 2= Oromo

3= Tigre 4= Other _______

Educational Background

1=Illiterate 2= Read/ write

3=Grade 1-4 4= Grade 5-8

5= Grade 9-10 6= Grade 11-12

7= Other _____________

Marital Status

1= Married 2= Single

3= Divorced 4= Widowed

2 What are your livelihood based source of

income of the house hold

1=.mixed farms 2= Crop farming 3=.Livestock

4= Others

3 What was your level of participation in the

project

1=Very high 2= Good

3= Little 4= None


Page 46

4 How did evaluable the overall achievement 1= Very good 2=Good

3= poor

5 Is there any change in type of Nutrition Status

of your family after the project

1=Yes 2=No

6 How do you explain the change?

7 If any indicators (MUAC, nutrition survey etc on children…etc )

8 Is there any change in food resource of major

crop after the intervention

1=Yes 2=No

9 What was the average annual income before the project___________?

10 What are the average annual income after the project______________?

11 Did you take any training after the project 1= Yes 2=No

12 If yes, in which Area did you take training?

1=Horticultural 2=Beekeeping

3=Marketing 4. Entrepreneurship

13

Did the training improve your technical skill?

1. Yes 2. No

14 Do you produce vegetable and mungbeans? 1. Yes 2. No

15 If yes

1. Before the project

2. After the project 3. Both

16 If yes, what is the extent of yield increment

1. < 50% 2.> 50% on average

17 Is the yield of other vegetable crops increased

after the project?

1. Yes 2. No

18 If Yes, which vegetable crop?

1. Onion 2. Pepper 3. Both

19 What is the range of yield increment?

vegetable crop yield /quintal

before after

onion

Pepper

20 Do you produce honey? 1. Yes 2. No

21

If yes, what is your mechanism of honey

production before the project?

1. Modern 2. Intermediate

3. Traditional

22

If yes, what is your mechanism of honey

production After the project?

1. Modern 2. Intermediate

3. Traditional

23 Average production in Kg/beehive / yearbefore

the project?

1. Modern___________

2. Intermediate ________

3. Traditional __________

24 Average production in Kg/beehive / year

after the project?

1. Modern _________

2. Intermediate ____________

3. Traditional ____________

25 Are you a member of mug been, vegetable, and

honey supply and promotion cooperation‟s

1. Yes 2. No

26 If yes

1. After the project

2. Before the project 3. Both

27 Where do you sell your mug bean production

1. Local market 2. Through market arranged by

cooperative

3. Export

Documents

Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification for Small Holder Farmers