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
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 2
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 3
Acronyms
CBOs Coop Coops DAs ETB EDA FTC Ha HHs MDGs NGOs NMA PRA Qt. SHA Shoat Community Based Organizations Cooperative Cooperatives Development Agents Ethiopian Birr Emmanuel Development Association Farmers Training Centers (FTC) Hectare Households Millennium Development Goals Non-Governmental Organizations National Metrological Agency Participatory Rapid Assessment Quintals Self Help Africa Sheep and Goat
Page 4
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 5

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 couldnt 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 informations; 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 6
1.
Introduction various rural based
Self Help Africa (SHA) is an international NGO which has been implementing
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 countrys 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 AgricultureBased 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. 1.1.1.
Description of the Project 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 7

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 Sex Male Female Religion Orthodox Protestant Educational background Illiterate Read/write Grade 1-4 Grade 5-8 Grade 9-10 Marital status Married Single Widowed Total 33 2 32 3 5 10 7 8 5 31 3 1 35 Percent 94.3 5.7 91.4 8.6 14.3 28.6 20.0 22.9 14.3 88.6 8.6 2.9 100.0
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 8

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 o o Socio-cultural/technical/institutional: was the operation functioning properly, taking in to account the motivation, skills and organization of those concerned? Policy: was the policy environment conductive to the operations success? Socio-economic and ecological environment: was the operations 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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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 peoples 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 13

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 couldnt 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 14
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) ETB 439 households supported inputs to produce crops and vegetables and engaged in honey production Access for market created for the target communities to benefit fair & better prices of products Sub-total(for the program objectives) Administration cost 384,833.00 365,404.19 629,162.00 1,107,983.00 563,684.85 1,113,138.14 65,477.15 5,155.14 19,428.81 Grand-total 1,492,816.00 1,478,542.33 14,273.67 -0.96 -5.05 -10.41 0.47 478,821.00 549,453.29 70,632.29 14.75 % Variance Reason for Variance
Of course, there are no set criterias 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 15

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 couldnt 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 16

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 1 2 3 4 Name W/ro Engidaye Gebeyehu Ato Debebe Tesfaye Digo Goshu Kasaye Cherkos Total Planter area in ha 2010 2011 0.38 0.25 0.75 0.25 1.25 0.25 0.5 2.63 Remarks Shifted from teff to mung bean Shifted from sorghum Shifted from teff
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 17

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 Area planted Production(qt) Sale(revenue) Expenses(Birr) Net profit 1n 2010 0.25 67 22000 12000 10000 In 2011 0.25 110 72215 10000 62215 Remark
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 18
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 couldnt 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 farmers 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 19

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 A) total area planted-ha -onion -pepper B) total production-qt -onion -pepper C) Total revenue(Sale) -onion -pepper D) Total expenditure -labour -Fertilizer E) Net profit=C-D 2010 1 1 54 54 12,000 12,000 2130 1680 450 9870 2011 0.625 0.5 0.125 105 84 21 46,000 23,000 23.000 5810 4910 900 40,190 Planting, digging(3-rounds), DAP and UREA Dry (9 qt) and green pepper(12 qt) Remarks
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 20

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 21

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 garlic, pepper, mung bean and honey onion,
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 22
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 couldnt 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 23

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 24

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 furnitures: 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 A) Mung bean seed B) Onion, Garlic and pepper seeds Onion seed + water pump Garlic seed + water pump Pepper unit No No No No No No plan 200 161 90 10 60 30 391 Achievement 240 169 97 11 61 30 439 % 120 104.97 107.78 110.00 101.67 100.00 112.28
C) Modern bee hives and accessories Total (A + B + C)
Page 25

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 furnitures were also accomplished as per the plan (Table 7).
Table 7 Summary of plan and achievements under the purposes Reason for the S/N o Planned activities HHs supported inputs to 1 1.1 produce crops and Haney Distribution of seed Mung bean qt 30 34 113.33 Reduction of Onion Garlic pepper Sub-total Distribution of Bee Hives with 1.2 accessories Distribution of water pumps with 1.3 2 2.1 accessories Market linkage created Market promotion workshops 3 2 66.67 Explained on the 2.2 2.3 2.4 Seed certification Provision of training Cooperative formation Construction of small size stores 2.5 and office furnitures No. 2 2 100 No No 391 2 387 2 99 100 topic No. 10 12 120 No. 30 30 100 1.62 5 0.23 36.85 0.6 4 0.23 36.87 37.04 80 100 121.66 onion prices Unit Targets achievem ent % deviation from the target
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 26
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 27

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 28

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 furnitures 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 29

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 couldnt be purchased and distributed to cooperatives; the constructed stores seems smaller size that couldnt 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 30

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 31
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 32

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 furnitures. 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 33

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 informations.
Page 34

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 35
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 36

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 countrys 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 NGOs 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 31 st 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 37

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.? 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. Assess the quality of the organization and management of the projects in terms of progress and financial reporting and systems of accountability. 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 operations success? Socio-economic and ecological environment: is the operations assailable and compatible with the conservation of renewable resources, and the protection of the environment?
3.
4.
5.
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. 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. Assess if the strategy pursued by implementing organizations in its project has been effective in addressing gender inequalities in the area. Assess the effectiveness of the partnership relationship and arrangements including the relationship with the office of Agriculture and other co-operating partners.
7.
8.
9.
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 Team member expert in livestock development
2.
Page 38

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. 2. 3. Valid license for 2004 EC; TIN registration and VAT registration (if any) Testimony of experiences in similar tasks in the last five years, 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 Africas role should be considered: 1. 2. 3. SHA, EDA and EWNRA will provide transport services to and within the project sites SHA, EDA and EWNRA will cover per diem and accommodation costs while outside Addis Ababa SHA will cover costs related to validation workshop cost, if any
Page 39

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 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 Annex 3. Schedule of the evaluation Date Monday Tuesday Wednesday 16/01/2012 17/01/2012 18/01/2012 Activity Travel to Fogera Woreda Enumerators training Stakeholder consultation and secondary data review Field observation of the major activities FGDs Travel to Kewot Woreda Enumerators training Stakeholder consultation and secondary data review Field observation of the major activities FGDs Travel back to Addis Ababa Data entry and analysis Draft report writing Comment and feedback Final report and presentation People contacted Yitbarek Bekele Beshahwured Yirga Abegaz Fekie Shegaw Habtu Abebe Belay Gobeze Mar-Esht Mulugeta Sefinew Kayo Sherkole Solomon Alemu Responsibility deputy head External Resource and NGOs coordinator Cooperative Expert and Focal person for EDA Horticultural crops expert Agronomist Livestock expert Area manager Consultant Consultant Organization Office of Agriculture Woreda office of Finance and Economic Development Office of Agriculture Office of Agriculture Office of Agriculture Office of Agriculture EDA Gillo consulting .. Duty station Kewet Kewet Kewet Kewet Kewet Kewet D/Berhan Addis Ababa Addis Ababa
Thursday 19/01/2012 Friday 20/01/2012 Saturday 21/ 0/01/2012 Sunday 22/01/2012 Monday 23/01/2012 Tuesday 23/01/2012 Wednesday 24 -30/2012 February 1-10/2012 February 11-14/2012 February 14 -17/2012
Page 40

Annex 4: Check List for the evaluation of NeedBased Livelihood Diversification and integration support provision project termination I. Topical outline for key informant interview-KII o o o (SHA, EDA, EWNRA, Government/sectoral offices, 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 41

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 ETB Reason for variance
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 42

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 43
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 44

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. 1.1 General information Area Identification Zone: ____________________ Woreda: __________________ Keble: ___________________ Household demographic characteristics Village/Gotse :____________________ Agro Ecological zone: ______________ Livelihood zone :___________________
1.2
Name of the beneficiaries ___________________ Age: ________________________ sex: Religions Ethnicity 1= male 2= Female
Educational Background
Marital Status 2 3 What are your livelihood based source of income of the house hold What was your level of participation in the project
1= orthodox 2= Muslim 3=Protestant 4= Other _______ 1= Amhara 2= Oromo 3= Tigre 4= Other _______ 1=Illiterate 2= Read/ write 3=Grade 1-4 4= Grade 5-8 5= Grade 9-10 6= Grade 11-12 7= Other _____________ 1= Married 2= Single 3= Divorced 4= Widowed 1=.mixed farms 2= Crop farming 3=.Livestock 4= Others 1=Very high 2= Good 3= Little 4= None
Page 45

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 How did evaluable the overall achievement Is there any change in type of Nutrition Status of your family after the project How do you explain the change? 1= Very good 3= poor 1=Yes 2=Good 2=No
If any indicators (MUAC, nutrition survey etc on childrenetc ) Is there any change in food resource of major crop after the intervention 1=Yes 2=No
What was the average annual income before the project___________? What are the average annual income after the project______________? Did you take any training after the project If yes, in which Area did you take training? Did the training improve your technical skill? Do you produce vegetable and mungbeans? 1= Yes 2=No 1=Horticultural 2=Beekeeping 3=Marketing 4. Entrepreneurship 1. Yes 2. No 1. Yes 2. No
15 16 17
If yes If yes, what is the extent of yield increment Is the yield of other vegetable crops increased after the project? If Yes, which vegetable crop?
1. Before the project 2. After the project 3. Both 1. < 50% 2.> 50% on average 1. Yes 2. No 3. Both yield /quintal before onion Pepper after
1. Onion 2. Pepper 18 19 vegetable crop What is the range of yield increment?
20 21 22 23
Do you produce honey? If yes, what is your mechanism of honey production before the project? If yes, what is your mechanism of honey production After the project? Average production in Kg/beehive / yearbefore the project? Average production in Kg/beehive / year after the project? Are you a member of mug been, vegetable, and honey supply and promotion cooperations If yes
24 25
1. Yes 2. No 1. Modern 2. Intermediate 3. Traditional 1. Modern 2. Intermediate 3. Traditional 1. Modern___________ 2. Intermediate ________ 3. Traditional __________ 1. Modern _________ 2. Intermediate ____________ 3. Traditional ____________ 1. Yes 2. No 1. After the project 2. Before the project 3. Both 1. Local market 2. Through market arranged by cooperative 3. Export
26
27
Where do you sell your mug bean production
Page 46

Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification For Small Holder Farmers

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Agriculture-Based Livelihood Diversification For Small Holder Farmers

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Gillo Consult

Emmanuel Development Association (EDA)

Submitted To Self Help Africa (SHA) Ethiopia, Addis Ababa

Submitted by Gillo consult, Addis Ababa

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Kayo Shankulie Manager Gillo Consultancy firm

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Introduction various rural based

Description of the Project Location

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Table1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents

Economics and livelihoods

Fig 1: Sources of Livelihood

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Program performance analysis

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Provision of Water pump:

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

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Figure 3: Members of mung bean producers in Terre

Seed distribution and production of Onion, garlic & Pepper:

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

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

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

C) Modern bee hives and accessories Total (A + B + C)

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Fig 13 Households skills improved due to the project interventions

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

improvement of household food security situation

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Flexibility of the Program:

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Annex 1: Evaluation TOR

Terms of reference for evaluation of ADLi & LiDFP Project

December 2011 Addis Ababa

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region

Final Evaluation Report on Kewot Woreda Amhra Region