CSCF Annual Report - template and guidance - Send a Co 038 In… · Web viewThis annual report template ... Submit your Annual Report and all accompanying documentation including

CSCF Annual Report - template and guidance

Global Poverty Action Fund

ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT 2013

Please read the following instructions carefully.

This annual report template includes DFID reporting requirements for 2013. It is designed to:

provide assurance on project progress and management;

check compliance with the terms and conditions of your grant;

inform a wider analysis of all GPAF projects; and

contribute to learning on emerging results.

The revised template reflects grantholders and Fund Managers experience from previous rounds

What is required:

How

Use the Annual Report template (this document)

Cover the period between 1st April 2012 and 31st March 2013

Keep to page length requirements

Submit your Annual Report and all accompanying documentation including separate annexes as WORD documents, not as PDF files.

Send it by email to [email protected]. Hard copies are not required.

When

Your report is due by 30th April 2013

What to send use as checklist:

1. Narrative Report (this document)

Check

Section and Title

Max no. of pages

Notes

|_|

1

Basic Information

2

Basic project data

|_|

2

Summary, Progress & Results

3

A narrative summary of progress and results

|_|

3

Value for Money (including Equity)

2

A summary of actions and achievements in relation to value for money, gender and inclusion

|_|

4

Lessons

2

Lessons from project implementation for learning and dissemination to others.

|_|

5

Project accountability to stakeholders

1

Information on project mechanisms to enable beneficiary feedback.

|_|

6

Responses to Due Diligence recommendations

1

Information on actions undertaken following Due Diligence review

|_|

Annex A

Outcome and output scoring

8

A record of progress against the milestones and targets in your project logframe. Includes an assessment of progress against each indicator and the evidence which supports the statements of achievement.

|_|

Annex B

Consolidated beneficiary table

2

An overall summary of the number of project beneficiaries.

|_|

Annex C

Portfolio Analysis

3

Some basic information about your project to feed into an analysis of the whole portfolio of GPAF projects.

2. Project Documents (attachments)

Check

Document

Notes

|_|

Photograph

A photograph which illustrates your project see section 2.1 of the report.

|_|

Most recently approved Logframe and Activity Log

In word or excel format. Please label it GPAF (ref no.) MOST RECENT LOGFRAME.

|_|

Revised Logframe

If applicable see section 2.6 of the report.

|_|

Revised Risk Matrix

Highlighting any new risks If applicable - see section 2.8 of the report.

3. Financial Report (attachment - use the most recent Excel template circulated with this report template)

Check

Document

Notes

|_|

Annual financial report

Worksheet 1 of excel template showing expenditure over 2012/13

|_|

Financial summary

Worksheet 2 of excel template showing a summary of expenditure over the life of your project

It is very important to note that:

project expenditure must be reported against the full budget agreed by Fund Manager and not the summary budget used for expenditure claims.

Any variances in excess of 10%, either positive or negative, (or transfers between main budget-sub-headings) must be explained.

You should show any variances both in terms of total amount in GBP () and percentage of your budget.

If you have any questions about the completion of your annual reporting requirements, please contact Triple Line Consulting Ltd at [email protected] or on 020 8788 4680.

GPAF ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT

SECTION 1: BASIC INFORMATION (Max 2 pages) - to ensure GPAF database is up to date

1.1

Grantee Organisation Name

Send a Cow (SAC)

1.2

Grantee Organisation Address

The Old Estate Yard

Newton St Loe

Bath

BA2 9BR

1.3

Project partner(s) Please list implementation partners

1. Send a Cow Ethiopia

2. Kale Hiwot Development Programme (KHDP)

3.

4.

5.

1.4

Project Title

Developing Smallholder Farmers in South Ethiopia

1.5

GPAF Number

038

1.6

Country/ies

Ethiopia

1.7

Location within country/ies

Wolayita Zone (Damot Sore, Boloso Sore, Soddo Zuria districts); Gamo Gofa Zone (Bonke, Kamba, Ditta, Boreda districts)

1.8

Project Start & End Dates

Start: 07/2012

End: 06/2015

1.9

Reporting Period

From: 07/2012

To: 03/2013

1.10

Project Year (e.g. Year 1, Year 2)

Year 1

1.11

Total project budget

844,538

1.12

Total funding from DFID

578,724

1.13

Financial contributions from other sources Please state all other sources of funding and amounts in relation to this project. Sources should be listed in brackets, e.g.:

75,000 (ABC Foundation)

Total 265,814

List all contributions

114,991 (Anonymous donor)

21,600 (Tesco Charity Trust)

15,000 (major donor)

114,223 (Send a Cow funds)

1.14

Date report produced

(25/04/2013)

1.15

Name and position of person(s) who compiled this report

Name: Jakob Braun

Position: Programme Funding Officer, Ethiopia

1.16

Name: Peg Bavin

Position: Programme Funding Co-ordinator

1.17

Name:

Position:

1.18

Name and position of contact point for correspondence relating to this project

Name: Jakob Braun

Position: Programme Funding Officer, Ethiopia

1.19

Email address(es) for correspondence

Email 1: [email protected]

Email 2: [email protected]

1.18

Acronyms

Please list & explain all acronyms used in this annual report.

e.g. ABC Afghanistan Babies Charity

Acronym

Explanation

DFID

Department for International Development

ETB

Ethiopian Birr

HTP

Harmful Traditional Practice

IMS

Information Management System

KHDP

Kale Hiwot Development Programme

NGO

Non-Governmental Organization

NRM

Natural Resource Management

SACUK

Send a Cow UK

SHG

Self-Help Group

SOA

Sustainable Organic Agriculture

SECTION 2: SUMMARY, PROGRESS AND RESULTS (max 3 pages)

2.1

PROJECT SUMMARY (200 words)

In your own words please describe your project and its context. Include direct quotations from beneficiaries that illustrate how your intervention improves their lives. Please attach an illustrative photograph.

The project supports poor and vulnerable smallholder farmers (70% female) in the remote Southern Highlands of Ethiopia to become food secure and productive, self-confident agents of their own development. Irregular and insufficient food production, poor diets, low agriculture and livestock productivity, exploitative market structures, lack of efficient community support structures, depletion of natural resources, perpetuation of HTPs coupled with lack of technical knowledge, skills and self-esteem contribute to vicious poverty cycles. Through the project, beneficiary farmers organized into SHGs are learning to unfold the potential of local resources to increase farm production, build resilience to climate change, promote sustainable self-employment and empower women. Best practices are disseminated to the younger generation through schools clubs, and to the wider communities and other institutions. A project participant, Kindo Chinasho (aged 27) explained the project benefits; In the short period of time of the project so far I have gained a lot of new knowledge, for example on vegetable production, but the most important thing is that now I believe in my own capacities and can look at the future with hope.

2.2

RELEVANCE

Does your GPAF project remain relevant in the context where you are working? Please explain what you have done to ensure that the interventions represented in the logframe and activity log continue to respond to the needs of the target population.

The project remains very relevant in the context. Needs of the target population are continuosly assessed in collaboration with communities and local government offices: SHG members discuss achievements and challenges with project staff and volunteer community facilitators on a weekly basis; project staff hold monthly review and planning meetings; a wide range of stakeholders (beneficiaries, community leaders, government extension workers, project staff and members from other NGOs) have been involved in participatory and inclusive learning and experience-sharing events such as the Annual Review Meeting and the Participatory Review and Reflection Workshop, contributing their opinions and ideas. Moreover, the project logfarme (including activity plan) and the Risk Matrix have been updated with reference to the baseline survey conducted in August 2012 and to feedback from the above mentioned activities to ensure the continued relevance of project intervention.

2.3

KEY ACHIEVEMENTS

Please provide a summary of your three most significant achievements over the last year. This is an opportunity to tell the story of the projects success this year. Consider the most important changes the project has brought about; how many citizens benefited (men/women; girls/boys); who they are and how they benefited.

1. 40 Self-Help Groups (SHGs) with 885 members (625 female, 260 male) are established and active; the community members came together to form groups and applied to SAC for involvement in the project. SAC, together with implementing partners and local government bureaus, verified that applicant groups complied with the beneficiary selection criteria which included poverty levels, female/male membership ratio and willingness to learn and share experiences with others. Even though the project SHGs are at an early stage, they have already shown a great level of commitment and are willing to work hard to overcome poverty: they have set their own group vision, have defined clear action plans, developed by-laws and established saving and credit schemes. SHGs have opened up opportunities for learning, experience-sharing and innovation. Group members underwent training in SOA and NRM, plus gender and social development and improved animal management. An additional 40 SHGs will join the project in July 2013.

2. Ten school clubs have been established by project staff and teachers in Wolayita zone (6) in Gamo Gofa zone (4). 325 students (161 female, 164 male) aged 11 to 18 are actively involved. While most educational programmes promoted by the government and NGOs focus on supporting excelling students, this project aims at building the capacity of those who are left behind in the country's development path, offering a meaningful and integrative educational curricula. The great majority of these primary school students live in a rural context of decreasing farmland size, shrinking natural resources, and increasing climate change impact. Most rural developmental projects in Ethiopia focus on providing inputs (in some cases coupled with training) to adult farmers who follow deeply rooted practices and are more resistant to change. This project invests in the youth, whose attitude and mindset can still be shaped toward sustainable ways of resource utilization. Students have so far enthusiastically participated in gender sensitization events, practical agricultural training and the establishment of demonstration sites on composting, waste recycling, home-made pesticides, organic fertilizers, fuel energy conserving stoves and agro-forestry.

3. The level of participation of the community in the project has been very encouraging. Staff and beneficiaries engaged in community awareness creation, disseminating the project approach, guiding principles and values. Community members actively participated in assessment events including the participatory review and reflection workshop, and contributed to identifying challenges and opportunities in the project area. Moreover, 37 community workers (25 volunteers), who are farmers, are currently living and working in the project communities and closely following and supporting the development of SHGs. These skilled and motivated farmers have been trained to establish demonstration and learning sites on their own farms which are accessible to the wider community. As such they will become key players in the process of passing on knowledge and skills beyond the direct beneficiaries, and have a signficant role to play in the project's sustainability beyond the 3-year funding period.

2.4

PROGRESS AGAINST TIMESCALE AND BUDGETING

Please read the statements below and tick 1 or more boxes as appropriate.

a. This project is on-track against its budget, deliverables and original time-scale

|_|

b. This project is not on track against its budget, deliverables and original time-scale

|_|

c. This project is expected to be back on track in the next reporting period

|_|

d. This project is not expected to be back on track in the next reporting period

|_|

Provide a brief explanation of the reported status including a summary of key factors affecting progress and how challenges have been addressed:

885 beneficiaries, organized in 40 SHGs are currently participating in all project activities, as per project plan and budget: they have set their group vision and have defined clear action plans. Groups have developed by-laws, established saving/credit schemes, undergone training and participated in experience-sharing visits. Key factors and related actions: 1) self-esteem of beneficiaries has been strengthened through individual mentoring, group discussions and experience-sharing; 2) active participation of women has been enhanced through promoting high female participation (currently 69% SHG members are women), recruitment of a significant percentage of female staff and establishment of school clubs; 3) involvement of wider community has been enhanced by including family members in project activities; 4) collaboration with government has been strengthened through full involvement since inception and regular exchange of experiences.

2.5

CHANGES TO PROJECT STATUS

In the last reporting period have there been any significant changes in relation to the following? Tick the boxes as appropriate.

a. Project design

|_|

b. Partner(s)

|_|

c. Context

|_|

Provide a brief explanation of what has changed and why:

No significant change has occured in the reporting period with regard to the project design, implementing partners and the general context. SAC and TripleLine (on behalf of DFID) have reviewed the project's logical framework, setting new milestones based on the baseline survey results. The project's risk matrix has also been amended. The new logical framework and the new risk matrix have been approved on April 19th 2013 and this report takes into account any amendment.

2.6

CHANGES TO LOGFRAME/BUDGET

Please answer the question below. Note: All changes to logframes require approval from the Fund Manager. If you wish to change your logfame please attach a justification and a copy of your revised logframe highlighting the proposed changes.

Do you need to make changes to your most recently approved logframe? (tick as appropriate

Yes |_| No |_|

If you answered yes have you attached a justification and a copy of your lograme highlighting the proposed changes?

Yes |_| No |_|

2.7

RISK MANAGEMENT & MITIGATION

Risk management matrix: Please use the table below to describe the risks you faced in the reporting period and how you dealt with them.

Which risks materialized during the year? Describe briefly.

Was the risk anticipated?

Answer either: Yes, No, to some extent

What action did you take to address the risk? Briefly explain.

Was this action sufficient?

Answer either: Yes; No; to some extent

1. Particularly long dry season (October 2012 - March 2013)

Yes

The project builds resilience to unfavourable climatic conditions as farmers were trained in water conservation and farming in the dry season (kitchen gardens, mulching, compost preparation).

Yes: after harvest we will be able to measure the effectiveness of measures

2. Chicken disease: Foul Cholera (only in the Wolayita project area)

Yes

Project staff worked in collaboration with local government and involved them in chicken purchase and distribution. Government vets vaccinated each chicken before distribution.

to some extent

3.

4.

5.

2.8

Are you expecting significant new risk(s) in the next reporting period that would affect project performance or completion? If yes, tick the box and list the new anticipated risks in the table below.

Yes |_| No |_|

Anticipated risks and mitigating actions. Complete the table if relevant. Focus on higher level risks such as a deteroriation in operating environment (maximum of 4 risks).

Anticipated risks

Intended mitigating actions

Risk rating: Your assessment of risk probability & impact

1.

2.

3.

4.

2.9

If you anticipate new risks please submit a revised risk matrix.

Revised risk matrix attached highlighting new anticipated risks (tick box)

Yes |_| No |_|

7

22

GPAF Annual Report Template 2013

SECTION 3: VALUE FOR MONEY (including equity) (Max 2 pages)

For guidance and resources on VfM please see: Value for Money: What it means for NGOs; and Integrating Value for Money into othe Programme Cycle available on this website: http://www.bond.org.uk/pages/value-for-money-resources.html

3.1

Equity: Does this project continue to contribute to equity (i.e. equitable poverty reduction and empowerment of men, women, girls and boys and relevant marginalized groups to participate in decisions that affect them at the local and/or national level?)

Yes |_|

No |_|

To some extent |_|

Please explain your response and provide examples as evidence of achievements

The project is implemented in the remote Southern highlands of Ethiopia, which have been neglected by development interventions, where farm communities are marginalized due to lack of access to services and infrastructure. Project beneficiaries were selected using the following inclusive criteria: 1) gender: 69% of group members are women; 2) income: group members are from households with extremely low income levels (government categorization, social mapping and wealth ranking); 3) food security status: households suffering from chronic/seasonal hunger; 4) access to productive resources: limited access to resources such as livestock, trees, crops. 5) land size: farmers who own/have access to land of less than 0.5 hectares; 6) group members are not assisted by the governments productive safety net programme or other NGOs interventions and actions. Particularly vulnerable families, such as women-headed households, people with disabilities, those living with HIV/AIDS and other socially marginalized families were included. For input placement priority has been given to those in greatest need. Rotational leadership of SHG will ensure full participation, contributing to equity. SHG members agreed to pass on the knowledge and skills gained through project activities to other family members, regardless of age, sex or health status. Youth (school pupils aged 14-18) also actively participate through schools clubs.

3.2

Effectiveness: Is the project achieving the intended results?

Yes |_|

No |_|

To some extent |_|

Please explain your response and provide examples as evidence of achievements:

After 9 months of project implementation we have seen some significant changes at output level, especially in the area of awareness and knowledge turned into practice, and results are already visible. A) Food security and income: farmers have learned to use local resources in a more efficient way, becoming aware that their land, animals and labour-force can become far more productive and profitable. Tangible impact on food security and income will be evident after the next harvest in September 2013 but already 819 of 885 farmers (93%) are growing vegetables in kitchen gardens they have built and 394 of 885 farmers (45%) have constructed a poultry house for keeping chickens. B) Empowerment of women: 611 of 885 SHG members are female (69%) and 25 of the 40 (62.5%) are led by a female chair person; C) Building community support structures: 40 groups have set their vision and action plans and 35 groups have developed concrete plans for engaging in group income generating activities. Moreover, participating farmers and communities have shown a great level of commitment and willingness to work hard to overcome poverty. This is a fundamental prerequisite for the success of the intervention.

3.3

Economy: What has the project management done this year to buy and employ inputs at an optimum value-for-money price?

Provide examples in bullet points:

- market assessment has been conducted before purchasing items to ensure optimum value-for-money;

- quotations from three different providers have been obtained before purchasing any item costing more than ETB 2,000;

- fair competion through bids has been enhanced where considered relevant;

- a purchase committee has made the final decisions on purchase based on the product/service's quality, delivery time, presence of guarantee etc.

3.4

Efficiency: How do you ensure resources are used efficiently to optimise the results achieved compared to the required level of inputs (include reference to use of relevant benchmarks at the output level and the project's approach to working with others )?

Provide examples in bullet points:

- any project input (seeds, livestock, tools) has been given only after the recipient has attended training so they know how to manage inputs effectively;

- following the passing-on-the-gift principle, one of the project's cornerstone values, any input recipient commits to share what she/he gained from the project, including knowledge, with another family in need;

- community members contribute with their own resources (land, water, wood, labour, time, skills etc.) throughout the entire project;

- the use of certain project inputs, such as farm tools, are managed by SHGs, whose members sign clear by-laws that ensure fair and efficient utilization of shared resources;

- the project promotes 'copy farming', a dissemination of learning among the community which is reinforced through the establishment of demonstration sites and experience sharing visits. The demonstration sites are set up and managed by local farmers establishing a training and knowledge resource that will remain within the community at the end of the project.

- the government has formally agreed to allow the project to continue until June 2017, beyond DFID funding, to make the most effective use of investment, built capacity and to widen the reach and impact.

3.5

Are there multiplier effects from this project?: e.g. potential for leveraging additional funds; longer term or larger scale implementation; or replication of approaches and results? Where additional project funds have already been secured, how have they been used to enhance delivery?

Yes |_|

No |_|

To some extent |_|

Please explain your response and provide examples as evidence of achievements:

Even though it is too early to provide evidence of replication of activities, several stakeholders, including the government and local/international NGOs operating in Ethiopia have shown great interest in the project strategy and approach. Involvement of significant number of stakeholder representatives in project activities (i.e. government officials are trained along with beneficiaries) sets the foundation for replication of approach and scaling-up of best practices.

However, the key multiplier effect will be generated by the project farmers themselves who will share what they learn and the inputs they receive from the project with many other family members, relatives, friends and neighbours, multiplying the benefits to reach many more people. In additon the community facilitators will establish farmer owned demonstration sites to which many people from the community will come, but are also likely to be used by other NGOs or organisations once they are fully developed.

If applicable, how has leveraged funds this affected the delivery of activities?

3.6

Sustainability: What have you done to ensure the sustainability of the project results?

37 community workers (12 employed and 25 volunteers) have been recruited and trained to support farmer households. These will closely follow up the self-help group work and establish demonstration and learning sites accessible to beneficiaries and to the wider farmer community, contributing to the projects long-term sustainability. These workers will continue living and farming in the project locations beyond the project period, thus becoming role models of change and active agents of community development. Moreover, SHG members have been trained in group management and leadership including by-law development, minute recording and conflict management; saving and credit management including record keeping and income management. These trainings ensure that SHGs have the capacity to manage their activities beyond the project period. Farmers have been trained in sustainable organic agriculture and improved animal management. They have been made aware that through the pass on the gift process they will share the practical knowledge as well as the inputs they gained from the project with other farmer families, contributing to the project's long-term sustainability. Experience sharing and exposure visits have provided self-help group and community members with visual and practical learning in the fields of sustainable organic agriculture, natural resource management, improved animal management and community development. SAC's experience shows that practical farmer-to-farmer learning provides beneficiaries with robust and long-lasting practical skills. Ten school clubs have been established and will become instrument of change by disseminating development ideas and best practices to the wider community and to their own family members way beyond the project period.

SECTION 4: LESSONS (max 2 pages)

Please note you do not have to provide lessons under each area. Try to draw lessons on how you achieved results that might be useful for other GPAF projects. Try to avoid presenting obvious lessons (e.g. the participation of women in project activities is key to their empowerment).

4.1

Innovation: Describe any project innovations which have the potential for scaling-up or replication by your own or other organisations.

A) Promotion of a holistic approach that makes sustainable use of local resources (e.g. organic pesticides, natural fertilizers, compost, agro-forestry) is innovative in a context dominated by promotion and use of chemicals; B) Focussing on improving the quality of livestock and its' management rather than the quantity of owned livestock is a new concept in the culture of the project area, but one that will increase production whilst reducing environmental degradation from grazing. C) The developmen of Peer Farmers and Farmer owned demonstration sites is a novel approach pioneered by SAC that has the potential for scaling up. Excellent farmers are trained to support and mentor their SHG and others, and are seen as the "trusted advisor" to other farmers. D) Involving younger generations, who will be Ethiopia's farmers of tomorrow, in project activities is an innovation in this context where traditionally adult farmers have been the main target for agriculltural and gender development.

4.2

Equity and gender: What are the key lessons learned from the project's approach to reducing inequalities between men women, girls and boys or other relevant aspects of diversity, particularly in relation to participation and empowerment in decision-making?

A) working with a high percentage of women beneficiaries enhances empowerment of female farmers who feel free to speak openly and to explore innovative concepts; B) Setting project activities at a convenient time in an easily accessible location significantly increases women's participation; C) Conduction of shared awareness training for men and women has significant potential to reduce female workload; D) The contribution of female staff creates trust and openess amongst beneficiaries.

4.3

Capacity building: How have you been building the capacity of civil society, such as local partners and community groups, to address poverty and/or to negotiate and claim their rights? what approaches have been most successful? Provide an example.

Two community participatory review and reflection workshops were held at which farmers participated alongside local leaders, community elders, government agricultural and heath extension workers and project staff. Participants discussed the importance of group work, the meaning of sustainable development, responsibilities of communities and other actors in social development. This event was a good opportunity to build the capacity of all stakeholders and for them to learn from each other whilst creating a comprehensive understanding of the root causes for poverty and marginalization. At a later stage the project will assess how such events have turned into increased awareness, bargaining power, and willingness to claim rights. In addition, the capacity of women to speak out and to lead within SHG has been built and from our experience from other projects, they will go on to take up leadership in organisations beyond their groups and have influence in the wider community.

4.4

Monitoring & Evaluation: What tools and methods have been most useful and practical in measuring and demonstrating evidence of project achievements?

Within SHG and the community management committees and steering groups have defined clear, measurable objectives and held monthly meetings (guided and facilitated by project staff) to discuss progress, resolve conflicts, review impact and use their findings to guide activity plans. Group members have used pictorial tools to self-review their progress against outputs quarterly. Community facilitators conducted farm visits to see how beneficiaries were getting on and feed back any challenges or successes to project staff. Project office staff carried out a baseline survey that were used to set realistic and achievable targets. They also conducted weekly update and reflections on progress and to share learning, as well as quarterly planning meetings. SAC Ethiopia staff visited the project monthly spending time with project staff and beneficiaries. They also facilitated the SAC Ethiopia Annual Review Meeting. During this reporting period the staff also started shooting a video which features 3 project beneficiary families and their journey out of poverty. The families will be filmed every 6 months over the 3 years of the project to provide visual evidence of the impact of the project on smallholder farmers.

4.5

Approaches to Empowerment and Advocacy: a) What lessons have you identified in relation to factors that enhance approaches to empowerment or advocacy processes? b) What lessons have you identified in addressing resistance against the empowerment of marginalized groups?

a) In the Ethiopian context, international NGOs such as SAC are not allowed to work in the fields of advocacy, promotion of human/civil rights and awareness raising on topics considered sensitive such as democracy. However SAC and partners are witnessing that through high involvement of female household members in project activities, women can gain recognition and are put in a position to advocate for their rights. Socio-economic development provides farmer communities with a wider access to food, assets, commodities, services, empowering them to make informed decisions and claim their basic rights. SAC considers this as a natural and spontanous spill-over effect that is not directly driven by implementers so that we are fully operating within the legal framework of the country. b) The project has witnessed the collaborative attitude of communities and institutions towards implementation and dissemination. The risk of potential social tensions within the wider community, driven perhap by jealousy of beneficiaries, or ignorance about the project focus on marginalized groups, have been mitigated by informing the communities about the project strategy and approach and by involving all family and community members (women, elders, disabled people etc.) in activities and events.

4.6

Other lessons learned: Please include any other lessons learned that you think may be useful for other partners, grant holders or DFID

a) Participatory Rural Appraisal is a powerful tool in identifying the poorest and most vulnerable people in society; b) Working through community-based volunteers enables more frequent interaction with project farmers, even on a daily basis, and facilitates mutual understanding and learning; c) If properly facilitated, self-help development concepts and ideas can restore hope, confidence and purpose of communities which have survived on external aid for generations; d) SHGs with a clear vision and achievable objectives are willing to save money regardless of their level of income; e) Once farmers have built trust in the project and its approach, they are likely to introduce innovative ideas to their lives; f) Input placement can only be efficient if integrated with adequate training; g) Involving community members, particularly influential individuals, in project activities ensures full participation and public awareness; h) Appreciation of local culture, positive traditions and indigenous knowledge adds value to introduced technologies; i) School clubs hold a great potential for disseminating project approaches (SOA, improved animal management and gender development) to young people; j) Following cornerstone values and working with integrity and consistency increases the level of trust and appreciation of communities and other stakeholders.

4.7

Applied learning: How have you used learning to improve project delivery?

SAC is a learning organization and any new knowledge gained from project delivery is used to improve implementation methods and approaches. Lessons learned have been used for replanning and, where necessary, to amend the logframe, activity plan and risk matrix. Specifically SAC considers the logframe as a living docuemnt that can be revisited based on evidence collected from the field and lessons learned. Any lesson has been shared with relevant stakeholders, including donors, and with project beneficieries.

SECTION 5: PROJECT ACCOUNTABILITY TO STAKEHOLDERS (max 1 page)

DFID is particularly interested in project mechanisms to enable beneficiaries to provide feedback to project managers. The questions below aim to enhance understanding of the use of beneficiary feedback mechanisms within the GPAF portfolio.

5.1

It is understood that the majority of GPAF projects collect feedback from beneficiaries. What questions does your project seek to answer in collecting this type of data?

The project collects feedback from beneficiaries to answer the following questions (list up to 4 examples):

a) how relevant and effective have project activities been so far for you and your family?

b) what do you think you can/should contribute to make the desired change happen?

c) in what area do you think your capacity needs to be (further) built to escape food and livelihood insecurity?

d)

5.2

How often do you collect and analyse beneficiary feedback data?

When a complaint is made by beneficiaries

|_|

Once a year

|_|

Mid-term

|_|

Final evaluation

|_|

Other (explain in brief):

Data and information about beneficiaries is collected throughout the year and input to the SAC Information Management System (IMS) that is web based and accessible to every SAC country programme office and staff so that SAC programmes information can be shared and analysed rapidly upon request.

5.3

Provide a brief example(s) of how beneficiary feedback has influenced project decisions on implementation.

Example 1: vegetable types to be promoted among beneficiairies for dry season farming were selected based on farmers' interest, on the resources at their disposal and on the skills that either were present in the community before project implementation or have been introduced through the intervention.

Example 2: timing for chicken purchase and distribution has been set based on beneficiaries' feedback on availability of local feed and water.

5.4

After their views are analysed, what feedback if any does the project provide to beneficiaries and how?

Beneficiaries are briefed about any significant change in project delivery that affects them during the weekly SHG meetings. They are informed about project activities and related schedules in reasonable advance. Baseline survey results have been disseminated through group representatives. Beneficiaries' opinions are collected through focus group discussions and individual interviews.

SECTION 6: RESPONSES TO DUE DILIGENCE RECOMMENDATIONS (max 1 page)

Please provide an update on any actions taken in response to the Due Diligence Assessment of your organisation by KPMG (this does not relate to those recommendations included as specific terms and conditions in section 4 of your Grant Arrangement).

Partnership Agreements: The due diligence report recommended that SAC develop formal partnership agreements with the proposed project partners. We developed Partnership Agreements between SAC UK and Kale Heywet South West Zone, and SACUK and SAC Ethiopia. Once draft versions were approved, the documents were signed by all relevant partners and sent to the Fund Manager.

Conflict of interest: The due diligence report recommended that SAC amend its conflict of interest policy and supporting guidelines. This process was already underway prior to being awarded the DFID GPAF grant and has been completed. The report also required all senior staff and partners to make an annual declaration of interest. This is standard practice for SAC Trustees and CEO, but was extended to additional senior staff, trustees and partners. Signed declarations were submitted to the Fund Manager.

Securing matching funding: The due diligence report proposed that we provide an update on securing the matching funding for the project. The full project cost is 844K over 3 calendar years (4 DFID financial years) of which DFID has committed 578K, leaving 266K to raise. We secured grants of 115K over 1.5 years from a key donor, and 21.6K from Tesco Charity Trust. One of SAC's major donors has committed to giving 15K and to raising additional money from friends and contacts. Further proposals to major donors and corporate funders are being considered. We have a total of 114K to raise for the second half of year 2 and year 3. We do not foresee a challenge in achieving this but SAC has sufficient unrestricted funds if necessary.

Purchasing Guidelines: It was recommended that SAC update its purchasing guidelines and this has been done.

Environmental policy: The due diligence report recommended that SAC formalise its environmental policy. We have finalized a revised version of our environmental policy in line with recommendations.

ANNEX A: OUTCOME AND OUTPUT SCORING (maximum of 6 pages)

PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS ON THIS PAGE CAREFULLY AND COMPLETE ALL SECTIONS

ANNEX A asks you to score peformance against your Outcome and Outputs (Purpose and Outputs), making a judgement on the actual achievement of expected results in the reporting year. Use the five-point scoring system to rate your achievement of results. Your milestones should guide your judgement of how you rate your score.

Under outcomes and outputs, list all indicators from your most recently approved logframe.

Clearly state the achievement against the indicator in the reporting year focusing on results. Do not simply describe activities.

Back up statements of progress/achievements with references to evidence that can be checked if necessary.

ANNEX A also asks you to provide dissagregated beneficiary data against outcomes and outputs. Note that ANNEX B now asks you to record total consolidated beneficiary numbers without double counting.

Score

Description of Score

A++

Output/outcome substantially exceeded expectation

A+

Output/outcome moderately exceeded expectation

A

Output/outcome met expectation

B

Output/outcome moderately did not meet expectation

C

Output/outcome substantially did not meet expectation

Annex A Outcome and Output Scoring (max 8 pages)

Retain in portrait format

0.1

Outcome: write in full your project outcome(s) in the box below

Please see attached revised Annex A provided for Tripleline for our April reporting

0.2

Outcome Score: Please provide an overall outcome score (C A++)

0.3

Write in full each outcome indicator, the milestone, and state progress.

Explain any over or under achievement.

0.4

Disaggregate the number of citizens benefitting from this outcome; describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged; NB. Adult = 18 years and above; Child = below 18 years. (Please delete the example in the first row)

Adult Male

Adult Female

Child Male

Child

Female

Total

Brief description

Change/Improvement

0.5

State the evidence base that supports the progress described: where relevant include details of the representativeness of surveys, and details of timing, place and methodology (focus groups, participatory rural appraisal etc.)

1.1

Output 1 Write in full

1.2

Output 1 score (C A++)

1.3

Write in full each output indicator, the relevant milestone, and state progress.

1.4

Disaggregate the number of citizens benefitting from this output; describe briefly who they were and how they were engaged.

Adult

Male

Adult Female

Child Male

Child

Female

Total

Brief description

Nature of engagement

1.5


1.6

Impact weighting (%)

Please insert the impact weighting for this Output (from your logframe) and note any revisions since your last Annual Report. If the rating has changed, please provide an explanation.

1.7

Value of inputs for this Output

Please insert the estimated value of total inputs (in s) allocated for the delivery of this Output (from your logframe) and note any revisions. If the value of inputs, or the DFID proportion of inputs has changed, please provide an explanation.

2.1


2.2


2.3


2.4


Adult

Male

Adult Female

Child Male

Child

Female

Total

Brief description


2.5


2.6



2.7



3.1


3.2


3.3


3.4


Adult

Male

Adult Female

Child Male

Child

Female

Total

Brief description


3.5


3.6



3.7



4.1


4.2


4.3


4.4


Adult

Male

Adult Female

Child Male

Child

Female

Total

Brief description


4.5


4.6



4.7



ANNEX B: CONSOLIDATED BENEFICIARY TABLE: (max 2 pages)

To be completed by all projects

You will need to use the figures in Annex A to arrive at a consolidated figure of total individual beneficiaries reached by the project as a whole.

If you reach the same beneficiaries in more than one output ensure you do not double count them when calculating the consolidated total.

Gender and Age Dissaggregation

OVERALL TOTAL

Adult Male

(18 years +)

Adult Female

(18 years +)

Child Male

(under 18 years)

Child Female (under 18 years)

Consolidated total number of beneficiaries reached since project began

5,635

983

1,300

1,677

1,675

Consolidated total number of beneficiaries reached this reporting year

5,635

983

1,300

1,677

1,675

Provide a clear description of your beneficiaries in the box below (e.g., people living with HIV/AIDS; disabled children; soapstone workers; child labourers).

Description:

Extremely poor and food insecure smallholder families (mainly women-headed households, people with disabilities and socially marginalized families) with little or no access to infrastructure, services, employment opportunities.

How many of these beneficiaries were unintended and how did they become beneficiaries?

Description:

none

How many of these beneficiaries received benefits that they could not have received from other (non-GPAF funded) providers e.g. state, other NGOs and private sector?

Description:

5,634

Indicate or estimate the percentage or number of disabled beneficiairies reached in the box below (e.g., people living with HIV/AIDs; disable children).

Description:

10%

How has the collection of disaggregated data improved project approaches to reducing gender inequalities in participation and empowerment in decision making. Please provide an example in the box below.

Description:

Disaggregated data have been important in setting targets in the logframe and in preparing the activity table. For example, the baseline survey which collected detailed data and information about household chores of women has demonstrated a clear gender gap in the participation of women in the sale of livestock (the decision to sell, the actual sale, bringing the animal to the market, bargaining the price, agreeing with the buyer) and decisions about how to use or re-invest the income generated. Therefore, during the logframe review process which took place in March/April 2013 one output indicator has been added '% of women involved in decision making over selling of livestock'. The collection of disaggreated data has made it possible to reshape outome and output indicators in a way that they are able to capture women's journey towards reduced inequalities in participation and increased empowerment in decision making.

If the project is unable to specify who all beneficiaries are please explain.

N/A

If the project faces challenges in providing exact beneficiary numbers, please explain.

The project works with 40 SHGs with a total of 885 members. This number is exact, but we do not know the full composition of each of the 885 families and so we have used an average of 6 family members per household (from our previous project data) to calculate the total number of people who will directly benefit from the project (885 X 6 = 5,310). Figures in the beneficiary table are therefor calculated using this assumption. The project also works with 10 school clubs, formed by 325 primary school students (161 female + 164 male). These numbers are exact but it is hard at this stage to identify any impact on other students and so we have not included these in our calculations for this report.

If the project is unable to disaggregate beneficiaries by gender or age, please explain.

N/A

ANNEX C: PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS (maximum of 3 pages)

To be completed for all projects

DFID aims to capture and compare performance and results across the whole GPAF portfolio based on the information provided in the Annual Reports.

Please Answer each of the following questions.

1. Which of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) is your project contributing to directly? You may choose up to 3.

Please indicate:

1 = Primary MDG

2 = Secondary MDG

3 = Tertiary MDG

Please indicate the relative level of contribution to the selected MDGs as a percentage

MDG 1: Eradicate Extreme Hunger and Poverty

1

50%

MDG 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education

%

MDG 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women

2

30%

MDG 4: Reduce Child Mortality

%

MDG 5: Improve Maternal Health

%

MDG 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

%

MDG 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability

3

20%

MDG 8: Develop a Global Partnership for Development

%

2. What is the main methodological approach being used by the project to bring about the changes envisaged?

Please select up to three factors and prioritise them as 1, 2 and 3 (with 1 being of highest significance).

(a) Rights awareness

e.g. making rights holders more aware of their rights so that they can claim rights from duty bearers

(b) Advocacy

e.g. advocating publicly for changes in policy and/or practice on specific targeted issues

(c) Modelling

e.g. demonstrating best practice / approaches / behaviours which can be adopted or relicated by others to bring wider improvements in policy or practice

1

(d) Policy engagement

e.g. building relationships with decision-makers behind the scenes, pragmatic collaboration on policy development to achieve incremental improvements

(e) Service provision in collaboration with government

e.g. working with government to enhance the services already provided

3

(f) Service provision in parallel to government

e.g. providing an alternative service

2

(g) Monitoring of government policy

e.g. monitoring budget-making or enforcement of rights

If you are using other methodological approaches please note in the box below.

N/A

3. Whose capacity (in the main) is being built through the project? Select a maximum of 3.

(a) End-beneficiaries (poor and vulnerable groups)

|_|

(b) Local leaders / change agents

|_|

(c) Local Community-Based Organisations

|_|

(d) Civil Society Organisations / Networks

|_|

(e) Local government

|_|

(f) National government

|_|

(g) Local implementing partner(s)

|_|

(h) Trade unions

|_|

(i) Private sector organisations

|_|

(j) Other (Please name below)

|_|

4. Environmental Impact and Climate Change Mitigation

7.1 How would you describe the projects environmental impact?

1. Positive, 2. Neutral, 3. Insignificant

1|_|2|_|3|_|

Provide a brief justification for choice of ranking

885 farmer households have been made aware on the importance of environmental and ecosystem conservation and the crucial impact natural resource recovery measures have on their livelihoods. Through training in sustainable organic agriculture they have learned soil and water conservation practices; to improve soil fertility; to improve vegetation cover; and to harvest water. Training and experience-sharing has also taught them to practice livestock management with the effect of reducing pressure on grazing land. These measures will be of crucial importance for communities and are prerequisites for the livelihood security of future generations. In addition, independent research suggests that Send a Cows overall work captures carbon, thus making a contribution to reducing climate change.

7.2 Describe actions the project took to reduce negative environmental impact (use bullet points)

Training on how to apply compost and organic matter to backyards;

Awareness sessions on planting/conserving trees;

Training on improved animal management;

Training on water harvesting and conservation.

7.3 Describe any activities taken by the project to build climate change resilience (use bullet points)

The holistic project aproach integrates sustainable organic agriculture with natural resource management and improved animal husbandry and supports smallholder farmers in building resilience to climate change. The focus on this crucial area of sustainable development will be strangthened in project years 2 and 3 (July 2013-June 2015);

Moreover, community and SHG awareness creation sessions on climate change have been conducted.