Afar Emergency Drought Response Project
Final Draft Report
(October 2011 –June 2012)
Addis Ababa July 2012
1. Basic data Project Title Afar Emergency Drought Response
Contact Details: Name of Organisation: Farm Africa Name of Contract holder Farm Africa Address: P.O. Box 5746, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia Telephone: +251- 1-467-4129/ 1-467-55156 Fax: + 251 14674281 PROJECT SUMMARY
Location of Project Amibara, Burimodayitu and Gewane Woredas of Afar Regional State , Ethiopia Project Number: 106605 Duration: Start Date: 1st October 2011 End Date: 31, March 2012 Budget Neutral extension period: from 1 st April to 30 th June, 2012 (Ref. No. 00.190.461) Reporting Period: From: 1, October 2011 To: 30, June 2012 Total budget ETB 4,391,261 CORDAID Contribution ETB 4, 200,000 (= EUR 175,000) Other contributions Contribution ETB 191,261
Sector of Intervention : Emergency livestock feeding and animal health service (vaccination)
Target Population: The total number of people directly benefiting from the project are 7252 households out of which, 20% of the beneficiaries are female- headed households.
2 Acronyms
AEDRP Afar Emergency Drought Response Project AHAs Animal Health Assistants AHTs Animal Health Technicians CAHWs Community Animal Health Workers CSA Central Statistical Authority CBPP Contagious Bovine Pleuro -Pneumonia DA Development Agent DPFSB Disaster Prevention and Food Security Bureau FA Farm Africa FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation LEGS Livestock Emergency Guideline and Standards PARDB Pastoral Agriculture and Rural Development Bureau PARDO Pastoral Agriculture and Rural Development Office PPR Peste des Petits Ruminants WRDO Water resource development Office
3 2. INFORMATION ON CONTEXT
Afar region is predominantly pastoral region with 90 % of the population depending on livestock production. According toCSA, there are there are 10,179,277 livestock in the region of which 4,267,969 or 41.93%, 2,463,632; 24.20%, 2336483 or 22.95%, 852016 or 8.37% are goat, sheep, cattle and camel respectively1.
Livestock production in the region depends on rain fed natural pasture which, its productivity is declining as a result of recurrent droughts, land degradation, encroachment of agriculture, conflicts and invasion of prosopis. Livestock production is further constrained by, seasonal water shortage, livestock disease, poor infrastructure, and lack of markets. Livestock productivity is constrained by wide spread livestock disease. Bacterial, viral, protozoal diseases and internal and external parasites commonly exist in all species of livestock. Anthrax and Black leg occur sporadically in cattle.
Agro-pastoralism is the second important source of livelihood in the region, where about 10% of the people who depend on it. Agro-pastoralism is common in Awsa-Gewane areas and specific woredas adjacent to Oromiya, Amhara, Tigray regions. These woredas include: Argoba special woreda, Afambo, Assyaita, and parts of Abala, Megale and koneba. According to the 1997 survey 29,760 ha is used for crop production. The major crops cultivated include teff, Barley, wheat, Maize, Sorghum, millet, pulses, and cotton and oil crops such as Neug, Linseed, and Rapeseed.
In 2011, the region state suffered from a very poor Sugum and Kerma rains. According to the multi-agency humanitarian needs assessment and regional DPPFSB’s November 2011monthly food security and early warning reports indicated that the food security situation in the Region was deteriorating. The loss of productive assets and increasing household food insecurity due to drought, have become defining features of the region. The region has faced numerous problems such as declining livestock population and productivity, caused from erratic rainfall conditions, especially the recurrence of drought, land degradation, invasion of prosopis, expansion of commercial agriculture, inability to access markets and population pressure.
1 Livestock Populations in pastoral areas of Ethiopia are often ‘contested’. Sandford and Habtu, (2000) estimate Afar livestock population as 3,600,000, 2,000,000, 3,000,000, and 900,000 for cattle, sheep, goats and camels respectively
4 In recent years, Afar has experienced regular cycles of below average rainfall which has delayed pastoral livelihood recovery. In addition, very poor Sugum and Kerma rains in 2011, meant that the drought situation in Afar region became a serious concern. The multi- agency Mid-Kerma humanitarian needs assessment and regional DPPFSB July r 2011 monthly food security and early warning report, indicated that the food security situation in the region was deteriorating and warned that, unless addressed on time, the situation would cause serious livelihood and humanitarian crises. The rapid food security assessment jointly undertaken by relevant regional government sector offices, confirmed the growing crisis, due to the cumulative effect of very poor rains for consecutive seasons. The rapid assessment findings also highlighted a decline in livestock prices and fewer buyers, water and pasture shortages, livestock deaths in some areas, concerns regarding child nutrition, which is linked to poor livestock conditions, milk loss.
In response to this emergency situation, Farm Africa designed Afar Emergency Drought Response Project (AEDRP), and secured funding from Cordaid (main donor) and small grants from other sources. The project was implemented in three drought affected Woredas of Afar Region. The targets were pastoralists and agro pastoralists living in 14 Kebeles Amibara, Buremodayitu and Gewane Woredas of Afar Regional State. The target Kebeles include: Amibara Woreda ( Arba, Andido, Halaydege, Angelele and Gelsa Kebeles), Burimodayitu Woreda (Debel, Gefrem, Bedafdero and Kudae Kebeles ) and Gewane Woreda ( Adbaro, Gebya bura, Kada bada, Bieda and Urafita Kebeles).
The project was implemented for nine months from 1st October 2011 to 30 th June 2012 (the last three months from March to June 2012 is agreed as a budget neutral extension) with a total budget of ETB 4,391,261, .
Therefore, this final report is intended to inform the project merits and demerits which were observed during the project life.
5 3. Progress towards achievement of project objectives
Describe to what extent the project –according to the indicators stated in the original proposal has accomplished the specific objective of the project
Project goal, objectives and indicators
The main goal of the project is to assist targeted groups in Amibara, Buremudayitu and Gewane Woredas to meet their immediate needs and increase their resilience and capacity to recover from and shocks. Towards this goal, the project intended to achieve three specific objectives:
Objective 1 : Support 7,252 households to withstand and recover from drought by immediately improving food security through improving livestock productivity and milk supply and protecting their major livelihood assets (livestock) through timely provision of animal feed and veterinary services.
Drought induce emergency situations in pastoralist areas like situation in the three target Woredas (Amibara, Buremodayitu and Gewane) in Afar Region are characterized by a lack of food for human beings as well as feed for animals and depleted resources. The severity of the situation means that there would be a reduced off take rate or loss of livestock in drought affected areas increases. Though there are no official figures on death of animals due to the recent drought, the findings of a recent survey by Farm Africa field staff revealed that on average surveyed households lost more than 20 animals due to the recent drought. Furthermore, the majority of surveyed HHs (88 out of 94) indicated that many of their remaining animals have been weakened due to lack of adequate feed, disease and shortage of water. As animals are weakened due to lack of adequate feed and deteriorating condition means that the animals becomes more vulnerable to disease attack.
Table 1: The effect of drought $drought effect*Woreda Crosstabulation t what was the effect of the recent drough Woreda Burem Amibara udayitu Gewane Total was there human illness due to Count 5 20 8 33 drought was there livestock death due to Count 33 27 28 88 drought were animal got weakened due to Count 1 2 3 6 drought
6 Total Count 35 31 28 94 Percentages and totals are based on respondents a. Dichotomy group tabulated at value 1. Source: HH survey
Therefore, interventions that improve access to supplementary feed (concentrates) for animal and immunisation (vaccination) and treatment of animals note only protect household assets but also improve access to food for family members. To this effect, the Afar emergency drought response project provided supplied 3940 quintals 2 of supplementary animal feed (concentrate) to 1350 households (23% being female headed households). The feed (together for a piece 1m 2 sized plastic sheets) was then distributed to target households to feed a total of 6000 breeding shoats and 3000 cows for 43 days and 59 days respectively. This means that each target household should feed four shoats and two milking/pregnant cows only. For this purpose, the project allocated concentrate feed of 0.5Kg/day for each shoat and 1.5kg/day for each cow. Looking through the lens of LEGS, the daily quantity allocated to each heads of animals was very generous 3.
At the time of writing this report, assessment was not conducted on the impact brought about by the distribution of supplementary feed. However, according to Livestock Emergency Guideline and Standards (LEGS), such a supplementary feeding will help HHs to maintain body conditions of breeding animals and level of (milk) production during the dry months and until a long-term intervention is implemented.
In a household survey, majority (78%) respondents revealed that they fed four shoats and two cows for as recommended by the project. However, quite a significant number of targets HHs (22%) fed the concentrate they received to more number of animals than was initially proposed by the project. In some cases they have increased the number of shoats to five or six in number.
2 Which is about 97.3% of the plan 3LEGS’ minimum recommended quantity per animal per day is 0.25kg for shoats and 1kg for cattle;
7 Benefit/ Cost analysis
During the project period, Farm Africa supplied supplementary feed for 1350 target Households to feed 2 cows and 4 goats each. These are the two most preferred breeding species. These animals were fed on concentrate feeds purchased from factories in Adama, Oromia Regional state. A a total of 6000 breeding shoats and 3000 cows for 43 days and 59 days (respectively) before the rains that is expected to come in June/ July. Each cow and goat was given 1.5 kg and 0.5kg of concentrates every day for two months and forty three days respectively.
Vaccination of animals and other veterinary treatments were carried out alongside s. feeding animals. The total cost of feeding and vaccinating animals, rehabilitation /maintenance of water points as well as capacity building government and community institutions was about Ethiopian Birr (EB) 4,391,261 (Eur183,000). However, to restock 1350 households with two cows and four goats each at a current market price, it would cost nearly EB 25.8 million (EUR 1.08 million). The benefit/cost ratio is approximately 5.9.
Therefore, implementation of the drought emergency response project has helped to protect household asset, which is much more economical than implementing a restocking intervention after the end of a drought .
Objective 2: Support 4,144 households to cope with current drought conditions and improve their capacity to cope in the future through immediate provision of water and repair and rehabilitation of dysfunctional water points ;
Access to safe water during a period of drought is consistently a major problem of drought affected Woredas. Access to food income and water are linked in important ways particularly during drought. Therefore, any intervention that improves access to water for drought affected community and livelihoods assets is a commendable action. In this regard, the emergency project repaired 5 (out of 6planned ) non-functional water pumps, installed additional cattle troughs, constructed public water distribution points and rehabilitated one (out of 2planned) pond, which resulted in improved access to water for both human and livestock. Photo 1: partial view of water pumps repaired One of the main effects of these actions has been the construction of cattle troughs away from the public water distribution point (see photo 2, below).
8 However, finding necessary spare parts for pumps was not easy. As a result repair and maintenance of pumps was very slow. This in turn caused shortage of time to actually assess the impact of this intervention in terms of the time reducing waiting time for fetching water at the point of this water points.
Objective 3: Enhance the capacity of 270 vulnerable pastoralist households to prepare for and withstand drought through training in alternative livelihood activities, early warning and emergency preparedness; and training of government extension staff enabling them to better support vulnerable households
Different trainings were organised and facilitated for both communities and government counterparts. A bout 89 agro-pastoralists (17% being women) who were drawn from the three target Woredas were training in small scale irrigation and crop husbandry. This training was meant to improve alternative (to livestock rearing) livelihoods options to drought affected population. In order to ensure that trainees apply their new skills and knowledge, participants
Before After Photo 2: Cattle trough before and after rehabilitation were provided with some farm tools after the training.
Capacity building intervention for community members and government staff as well as Farm Africa’s staff mainly focused on facilitating training on early warning systems and management of water points, as well as on minimum standards expected while implementing emergency interventions in drought affected pastoralist areas like the target Woredas.
About 138 pastoralist and agro-pastoralists (23.2% being female) from the three target Woredas attended training on sufficient awareness of early warning and emergency preparedness as well as management of water point management. It is believed that the training has improved the knowledge and awareness of the participants about early warning signs and importance of preparedness. In addition, the participants gained knowledge about and the importance of managing the water points that were repaired by the project as well as other existing water points. In addition, management, Woreda level staff from Woreda water resource office and pastoralist and rural development office participated in these trainings.
There are evidences that lack of capacity of implementing agencies greatly affect the extent at which emergency situations can be handled and how responsive be delivered. To this effect, the project organised training on Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards
9 (LEGS) as well as Ethiopia Emergency Livestock intervention guidelines and standards for a total of 24 participants pulled from Regional Pastoralist and Rural Development Bureau (PARDB), Regional Disaster Prevention Food Security Coordination Office (DPFSPCO) relevant Woreda offices of target Woredas as well as Farm Africa staffs. This training enabled participants to understand the minimum standards that should be met when implementing emergency interventions in pastoralist areas. 4. Major outputs 5.1. Outputs related to objective 1. There are two outputs under objective-1. These include: a) Vaccinating about 90000 (ninety thousand) heads of animal against acute disease outbreak; b) provision of supplementary concentrate animal feed for 6000 goats and 3000 breeding cows a) Provision of animal vaccination
The animal health service was delivered in a strategic way and based on epidemiological findings, and according to vaccine distribution legal working formats/document developed and submitted to the concerned personnel. In addition, responsible Woreda staffs have been assigned in each Woreda and every Kebele received he allocated resource and distributed to Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) in order to vaccinate shoats and cattle.
The table below summarises the total number of beneficiaries, as well as the the number of animals that were vaccinated by the project.
Table 2: number of animals vaccinated Woreda Beneficiary HHs number of animals vaccinated M F T cattle sheep goat total Amibara 713 188 901 13,011 17,261 22,912 53,184 Burimodayitu 1561 458 2019 10,109 18,772 13,612 42,493 Gewane 625 251 876 15,559 17,045 32,852 65,456 Total 2899 897 3796 38,679 53,078 69,376 161,133 b) Provision of concentrate animal feed
The purpose of animal feed provision (concentrate) to protect the core assets of affected households until the natural resource base can recover and normal management practices can be resumed. Before the distribution of animal feed (concentrate) the necessary awareness about animal feed (concentrate) was given to the beneficiaries.
The two main arrangements for feeding livestock are either to feed animals in situ in the homestead (de-centralized approach) or to collect animals together in some kind of feeding centre (centralized approach). AEDRP preferred the decentralized approach due to debilitated condition of livestock by the recent drought which made livestock difficult to go the
10 long distances to centralized location . The animal feed MNB/ concentrate which was transported to each target Kebeles in the three Woredas, and distributed to the beneficiary households. As shown in table 3 (below), the project distributed 3940 quintals, which is about 97.3% of the plan. Table 3: quantity of concentrate feed distributed in the three Woredas
Woreda Quantity of concentrate animal feed No of beneficiary HHs No (in quintals) Actual % M F Total Planned distributed achievement 1 Amibara 1620 1576 97.28 406 134 540 2 Burimodayitu 1215 1182 97.28 319 86 405 3 Gewane 1215 1182 97.28 318 87 405 Total 4050 3940 97.28 1043 307 1350
5.2. Outputs related to objective 2
a) Maintenance of 6 (Six) Borehole/ Water points to Improve access to water for livestock and human. In collaboration with Amibara Woreda Water resource development office, the project supplied the necessary spare parts, and fixed pumps for six (6) boreholes that were not functional. In addition, nine cattle troughs and two public water points were rehabilitated. Before implementing these activities, initial assessment was conducted to identify the problems and missing parts.
b) Rehabilitation of ponds/earth dams
The plan was to rehabilitate/ maintain one pond in each Burimodiytu and Gewane Woreda Woredas. During the project period, the project completed rehabilitation and maintenance of one pond in Gewane Woreda. However, at the time of implementation of the project, it was learn that there was no pond in Buremedayitu Woreda. Hence, through discussion with the Woreda officials, and communities, the budget allocated for pond rehabilitation was relocated to maintenance of a hand pump that was not functional at the time.
In addition, the resource was used to construct three new cattle troughs in Beidaforo and Gefrem Kebeles of Buremodayitu Woreda, and one new cattle trough in Gewane Woreda.
5.3. Outputs related to objective 3
a) Community members trained in alternative livelihood activities such as low-cost small-scale irrigation and crop husbandry
11 A total of 89 agro-pastoralists were trained in alternative livelihood activities. The training covered different topics including; Soil plant Relationship, Soil management & land preparation, Methods in Crop production, Essentials for Plant Growth & their influence, Plant Water requirement & simple way in plant water need determination, Types of Simple Irrigation techniques, and Advantages of Planting space. (See table below for composition of participants.
Table 4: number and composition of trainees No Name of Woreda Unit Plan Actual (achievement) % of Female M F Total (%) trainees 1 Amibara) No 30 22 7 29 96.67 24.14 2 Burimodayitu No 30 25 5 30 100 16.7 3 Gewane No 30 27 3 30 100 10 Total 90 74 15 89 98.89 16.85
b) Training provided for Government staffs Twenty four participants attended training on Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards (LEGS) though the plan was to train 30 people. Shortage of budget was the main reason for the reduced number of participants.
A three days training on Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standard (LEGS) was facilitated by a well experienced trainer who came from Addis Ababa, CARE International Organization Office. The training covered key aspects of emergency livestock intervention based on Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standard (LEGS): • Origin of LEGS, over all structure of LEGS; • Assessment and response mechanisms and requirements; • Minimum Standards common to all livestock intervention and approach of LEGS; • How to, and who should use LEGS; What LEGS covers, and not cover. • Steps to be followed in designing response project;
Table 5; Composition of participants Name of organization planed Actual Female trainees No Unit achievements (%) M F Total 1. Amibara Woreda No 8 5 1 6 16.67 2. Burimodayto Woreda “ 8 3 3 6 50 3. Gewane Woreda “ 8 5 1 6 16.67 4. Region “ 4 0 0 0 0 5. FARM Africa “ 2 5 1 6 16.67 Total 30 18 6 24
c) Community groups trained in Early Warning and Emergency Preparedness, and management of water points
12
A total of 138 pastoralists and agro-pastoralists (92% of plan) drawn from the three target |Woredas were trained in Early warning, Emergency Preparedness and management of water points.
A two days training early warning, emergency preparedness and management of water points given for participants drown from Amibara, Burimodaiytu and Gewane Woredas. The participant got sufficient awareness of early warning and emergency preparedness as well as management of water points. The community are aware how to inform Woreda Officials during emergency. They also got sufficient knowledge how wisely manage their water resource and promised to use their water resources wisely. The trainers came from Awash Woreda PARDO, as well as from Water Resource Office of Amibara, Burimodaiytu and Gewane Woredas which have better Know how on early warning , emergency preparedness and management of water points.
Table 6: composition and number of community participants No Name of Woreda Unit Plan Actual achievement % of Female ned M F Total (%) 1 Amibara No 50 25 13 38 76 34.21 2 Burimodaiytu » 50 40 10 50 100 20 3 Gewane » 50 41 9 50 100 18 Total 150 106 150 138 92 23.19
5. Core Activities a) Preparation and signing with project implementing partner All the necessary preparation activities and official agreement and document signing was completed with the donor and the regional government bureaux.
b) Staff recruitment
The project employed three Community Facilitators, two Livestock Officers and one Project Coordinator. The three Community Facilitators and the two Livestock Officers were responsible for the timely delivery of emergency feed inputs, overseeing the targeting of beneficiaries and feeding activities, providing technical backstopping. They worked in close collaboration with the Woreda officials and beneficiaries and liaised directly with, and were managed by, the Project Coordinator. The Livestock Officers were responsible for organizing, coordinating the day-to-day activities, both in relation to the emergency livestock feeding and health interventions. The Project Coordinator was responsible for planning, coordinating and implementing the overall activities of the project and worked in close collaboration with Regional Bureaux, Woreda offices, and Kebele officials.
c) Project inception and planning workshop
The project facilitated an inception workshop at Woreda level. A one day Woreda level inception workshop was held on 04 January 2012 in Gewane, The participants were from the
13 following regional bureaux: PARDB, DPFSB, Women Affairs, Woreda Administrations Woreda PARDOS and Woreda WRDOs. The workshop involved the presentation of the project objectives, intervention modalities, feeding approaches.
d) Identify operation Kebeles
The project, in collaboration with the Woredas, discussed and set criteria to carry out a preliminary assessment to identify the target Kebele. Through the development of selection criteria and referring to the Woreda livestock statistics, the Committee identified 14 Kebeles (5 in Amibara, 4 in Burimodayitu and 5 in Gewane) which very vulnerable and highly affected by drought. The Woredas acknowledged the assessment report and announced the selected Kebeles and beneficiary numbers to all the target Kebeles through an official letter.
e) Targeting of beneficiaries
i. Selection of households
Following the selection of the Kebeles, the next step was the targeting of the beneficiaries in each Kebele. The Kebele chairperson, clan leader, elders, women’s representative, Community Facilitators and Das were involved in the selection of beneficiaries . In each Kebele, a community gathering was held and beneficiaries were selected according to the criteria agreed. The criteria included the following: highly marginalized families, female- headed households and severely drought stricken households. In total, the project targeted 7252 households, (20 % of which were female-headed). The beneficiary list was signed and sealed by the Kebele administration and submitted to FA and the Woreda PARDOs.
ii. Selection of Animals
Livestock selection was carried out according to the project criteria i.e. each beneficiary had to feed two breeding cattle and four breeding shoats per household. The quota for animal feed and animal health service delivery (vaccination) beneficiary households was allocated for each Woreda according to the Project proposal then beneficiary identifying and listing of households were done. 6. Challenges encountered
A number of factors affected implementation of the project. • Delay in staff recruitment is one of the main reasons that caused delay in project implementation. Due to lack of qualified staff with knowledge and experience in implementation of emergency projects in pastoralist settings, implementation was delayed until December/January though project agreement was signed with the donor in October. • Procurement of spare parts, and the work of pump repair was delayed due to lack of qualified technical personnel to determine specification of spare parts required to repair non-functional water pumps.
14 • The purchasing and distribution of animal feed was delayed due to lengthy procurement process coupled with lack of local supplier
7. Conclusion and lessons learnt
• FARM Africa Afar Emergency Drought Response Project has been implementing emergency response activities based on the designed project proposal from December 1st 2011 up to June 30th 2012. During this period AEDRP tied its best to rebuild the livelihood of drought affected pastoralists through provision of animal feed, animal health service, rehabilitation of bore hole pumps as well as ponds, construction of new water troughs and capacity building of pastoralists
• Generally, AEDRP has been successful in addressing the identified needs of the communities in the targeted areas. Despite the delays in project start-up, the project has generally been effective, efficient and highly relevant; and that it achieved its main objective – rebuild livelihood assets of Drought affected communities.
• Emergency response interventions that focus on household assets protection are less costly than interventions that attempt to recover assets through provision of households. Based on a conservative estimation, implementation of this project showed that the benefit generated from animal feed supply outweighs the cost of the project. • Most of the pumps installed in existing water points (boreholes) are old models (or obsolete). Finding their spare parts was very challenging. A proper planning and budgeting needs to be a major priority of Woreda and Regional government to make total replacement of such pumps in the target Woredas. Furthermore, the rehabilitation and maintenance works which need close follow up by the community and government sector bureaus and offices should be done with the direct involvement of the community by providing free labour in order to avoid dependency syndrome and enhance property ownership.
• Strategies to feed drought affected breeding animals at centralized feeding centres have been very difficult due to the debilitating condition of the animals to travel back and forth. Hence, decentralized feeding method becomes an appropriate alternative that is implementable.
8. Recommendation
• There have been concerns about decentralised supplementary feeding strategies that households may distribute the feed to more animals. To overcome, this problem, communities should be properly made aware about the purpose of supplementary feeding action. In addition, the decentralized feeding method should
15 be complemented with destocking of animals, and ensure that households feed only those selected breeding female goats and/or cows.
• Animal health service (vaccination) activities should be supported by treatment such as deworming of parasites which helps the proper utilization of the limited feed available.
• The achievement of planned results of emergency interventions are usually hampered due to delays caused mainly by the long time it takes to procure inputs and deploying project staffs; to avoid these problems emergency projects should be considered differently from development projects. They should be given priority due to the short implementation period they have and this needs to set up alternative mechanisms and procedures which speed up procurement and staff deployment procedures.
• The pastoralists are dwelling in regions which are very prone to naturally calamities specially drought. These naturally calamities are becoming more frequent these days due to the climate change which is observed worldwide. These frequently occurring natural calamities make the pastoralists to lose their livelihood assets which in turn make them vulnerable to disaster. The need to protect the pastoralists from disaster through rebuilding of the livelihood assets by implementing emergency response projects as well as long term development projects are complimentary activities not alternatives. So the need to mainstream emergency projects within the development projects or implementing them as separate project is desirable. Otherwise to implement development projects without giving response to the urgent need of the communities is very difficult.
16 Annex:
A. Amibara Woreda beneficiary data- Amibara Woreda beneficiary households for vaccination service
No Name of Kebele Sex Total Percentage of Unit M F female HHs 1 Areba No 334 246 580 42.41 2 Halaydege » 319 261 580 45 3 Andido » 397 183 580 31.55 4 Angelille » 461 119 580 20.52
5 Gelsa » 383 197 580 33.97 Total 1894 1006 2900 34.69
B. Amibara Woreda beneficiary house holds for supplementary animal feed (concentrate)
No Name of Kebele Sex Total Percentage of Unit M F female HHs 1 Areba No 79 37 116 31.90 2 Halaydege » 89 35 124 28.23
3 Andido » 63 37 100 37
4 Angelile » 89 11 100 11
5 Gelsa » 86 14 100 14 Total 406 134 540 24.81
C. Burimodaiytu Woreda beneficiary house holds for vaccination service
Sex
No Name of Kebele Unit M F Total Percentage of female HHs 1 Debel No 361 183 544 33.64
17 2 Gefrem » 308 236 544 43.38
3 Kudaie » 385 159 544 29.23
4 Beadafero » 408 136 544 25
1462 714 2176 32.81 Total
D. Burimodaiytu Woreda beneficiary house holds for supplementary animal feed (concentrate)
Sex
No Name of Kebele Unit M F Total Percentage of female HHs 1 Debel No 87 13 100 13
2 Gefrem » 65 40 105 38.09
3 Kudaie » 90 10 100 10
4 Beadafero » 77 23 100 23
319 86 405 21.23 Total
E. Gewane Woreda beneficiary house holds for vaccination service
Sex Percentage of No Name of Kebele Unit M F Total female HHs
1 Adbaro No 326 109 435 25.06
2 Kada bada » 245 190 435 43.70
18 3 Urafita » 361 74 435 17.01
4 Beida » 365 70 435 16.09
5 Gebya bura » 359 76 435 17.07 Total 1656 519 2175 23.86
F. Gewane Woreda beneficiary house holds for supplementary animal feed (concentrate)
Sex Percentage of M F female HHs No Name of Kebele Unit Total 1 Adbaro No 50 30 80 37.5 2 Kada bada » 42 28 70 40 3 Urafita » 73 12 85 14.11 4 Beida » 73 12 85 14.11 5 Gebya bura » 80 5 85 5.89 Total 318 87 405 21.48
19 G. Beneficiary HHs, No and type of Animal vaccinated in each operational Woreda
Woreda Beneficiary HHs Livestock Vaccinated Percentage M F T Anthrax CBPP PPR Pasteurellosis Sheep pox Total of female HHs Cattle Cattle Sheep Goat Sheep Goat Sheep Goat Amibara 713 188 901 6233 6778 11006 14696 5244 7062 1011 1154 53184 20.8657 Burimodayitu 1561 458 2019 5010 5099 8690 5943 2147 1655 7935 6014 42493 22.6845 Gewane 625 251 876 8822 6737 8031 13951 3020 5816 5994 13085 65456 28.653 Total 2899 897 3796 20065 18614 27727 34590 10411 14533 14940 20253 161133 23.6301
Additional PPR vaccines were collected from Gewane Woreda PARDO
Purpose: To strengthen the capacity of vulnerable drought-affected pastoralist households in 3 Woredas (14 Kebeles) of Afar Regional state to withstand and recover from the current drought situation and withstand recurrent droughts in the long term
Method of Objectives Activities Inputs Outputs Outcomes Indicators measuremen t/ verification Objective 1: Identify target area and Support 7,252 selection of Livestock households to beneficiaries disease risk Field withstand and reduced visit recover from drought Monitor livestock Target beneficiaries by immediately disease investigation selected Good physical Commun improving food and vaccination Livestock feed condition of Better physical ity security through Livestock disease livestock appearance of Review improving livestock Procure and deliver Vaccines investigated maintained livestock. productivity and milk vaccine supply Reports supply and protecting Cash, project Livestock vaccinated Livestock death % increase in their major livelihood Conduct vaccination staff, due to feed animal weight Project assets (livestock) work for livestock community Supplementary shortage meeting through timely volunteers, livestock feed reduced % reduction in minutes Identify target vehicle distributed to 9,000 Concentrated animal mortality community members head of livestock feed available Physical locally observati Procure and deliver on/surve livestock feed Retention of y Distribution of livestock livestock herds feed to target groups Objective 2: Maintenance of Cash, project Pumps at 6 Improved Reduction in damaged pumps, staff, vehicle boreholes in good access to water average walking Field Support 4,144 provide spares and working order for livestock distance to water visit/surv households to cope service engines to Spare parts points ey with current drought rehabilitate 6 boreholes Increased support to Functional conditions and Skilled labour communities water points Reduction in Reports improve their capacity Strengthen/support waiting time at to cope in the future local communities and Community Rehabilitation of 2 Communities water points Commun through immediate government institutions participation ponds/earth dams/ maximise water ity
21 provision of water and that support Cement and storage Number of Review repair and management of water construction functional rehabilitation of points. materials pumps/borehole dysfunctional water Local materials s points Rehabilitate 2 strategic water points Number of (ponds/earth dams) rehabilitated along grazing/migratory ponds/ earth routes. Protect and dams
fence for better water Number of functional earth dams/pans Objective 3 Households trained in small-scale Enhance the capacity irrigation and crop % of pastoralists of 300 vulnerable husbandry Alternative satisfied with pastoralist livelihood extension households to Organise training for Government staff options services prepare for and community members trained in livestock improving food Field withstand drought and government staff emergency guideline security % of target visit through training in and standards and beneficiaries alternative livelihood Identify and select in small-scale Better practicing small- Reports activities, early community members irrigation and crop emergency scale irrigation Commun warning and husbandry preparedness, and crop ity emergency Provide training to improved husbandry discussi preparedness; and community members Community trained linkages to on training of and government staff in early warning and DRR strategies Improved government extension emergency at woreda, practice in staff enabling them to preparedness and zonal and emergency better support linked to Woreda, regional levels preparedness vulnerable zonal and regional households. DRR mechanisms
22 Annex: type and quantity of spare parts purchased and supplied Woreda Water Resource development Office
No Description of goods Specification Unit Quantity 1. GS coupling 3/4 Pcs 40
2. GS coupling 1 1/2 Pcs 10
″ 3. GS union 3 Pcs 15 4. Gate valve 1 ″ Pcs 14 5. Gate valve 2 ″ Pcs 63 6. Gate valve 1 1/2 ″ Pcs 18 7. GS socket 2 ″ Pcs 105
8. GS socket 3 ″ Pcs 15 9. GS socket 3/4 ″ Pcs 20 10. GS socket 1 1/2 ″ Pcs 5 11. GS union 2 ″ Pcs 90
12. GS union 2 1/2 ″ Pcs 30
13. ″ Pcs GS union 1 1/2 50 14. Gate valve 1 1/2 ″ Pcs 16 15. GS Tee 2 ″ Pcs 30 16. Faucet 3/4 Pcs 139 17. GS pipe 2 ″ Pcs 10
18. GS pipe 2 1/2 Pcs 8
″ 19. GS nipples 2 Pcs 8 20. GS nipples 1 1/2 ″ Pcs 28 21. GS nipples 1 1/4 ″ Pcs 10 22. Fibre Kg 5.5
23