DOCSLIB.ORG

External Evaluation Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

UN-OCHA Afar National Regional State Livelihoods-Based Flood Emergency Response Project in Afar Regional State External Evaluation Report A joint Project Implemented by Core evaluation team: Asmelash Kebede, Ermias Mengistu, Mekete Retta External Evaluation Report - LBFER Project – November 2011 UN – OCHA Afar National Regional State Livelihoods-Based Flood Emergency Response Project in Afar Regional State External Evaluation Report Core Evaluation Team: Asmelash Kebede (M.Sc.): Lead Investigator & Team Leader Mekete Retta (M.A.): Rural Livelihoods Advisor/Analyst Ermias Mengistu (B.A.): Agro-Economic Advisor/Analyst Submitted by: ABCON Plc. CONSULTING HOUSE Advancing value-driven & contextually relevant advisory services November 2011 1 External Evaluation Report - LBFER Project – November 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Evaluation Team wishes to thank all implementing agencies of the LBFERP namely, Save the Children – UK, CARE Ethiopia and FARM Africa for giving the team the opportunity to undertake this exercise. And special thanks go to head office and field staff of all implementing agencies for their valuable contributions to this evaluation: Hailekiros Desta, Matebe Fentie, Peter Mohangi (from SC-UK); Dr. Ammanuel Kassie, Charles Hopkins (from CARE), Ato Alawis Ahmed, Ato Kassaye (from FARM Africa). Field office staff of these agencies also deserve our heartfelt appreciation for their all rounded assistance in many ways during field work in their respective woredas: Dr. Ismail Tesema, Jemal Mohammed, Goitom and Dr. Tesfaye (FARM Africa). In addition, we wish to pay special tribute to the numerous beneficiaries who spent their valuable times with the evaluation team/data collectors during the FGDs and HH survey through which they provided invaluable information and data for the evaluation of the LBFER project. We also wish to acknowledge the contributions of all relevant of government offices in the visited woredas (Awash Fentale, Buremudaitu, Assayita and Semera). Asmelash Kebede. Evaluation Consultant 2 External Evaluation Report - LBFER Project – November 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................... 4 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction and Project Background ................................................................................................................................. 10 1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................................. 10 1.2 Project Background .................................................................................................................................................. 11 2. Summary of Project Objectives, Outputs and Components ............................................................................................. 12 2.1 Project Objective ...................................................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Project Components ................................................................................................................................................. 12 3. Evaluation Methodology.................................................................................................................................................... 13 3.1 Objectives of the Evaluation .................................................................................................................................... 13 3.2 Methodology and Approach .................................................................................................................................... 14 4. Findings of the Evaluation ................................................................................................................................................. 16 4.1 Analysis of the Design of the Project ....................................................................................................................... 16 4.2 Efficiency ................................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.3 Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................................................... 26 4.4 Effectiveness and Impact.......................................................................................................................................... 26 4.5 Relevance and Coherence ........................................................................................................................................ 42 4.6 Voucher/Cash Transfer Approach ............................................................................................................................ 44 5. Sustainability ...................................................................................................................................................................... 51 6. Crosscutting Issues ............................................................................................................................................................. 52 7. Lessons Learned ................................................................................................................................................................. 53 8. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 54 9. Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................. 55 9 Bibliography ....................................................................................................................................................................... 58 10. Appendices ........................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Appendix 1: Evaluation Terms of Reference (ToR) ............................................................................................................... 60 Appendix 2: Sample Data Collection Instruments ................................................................................................................ 66 Appendix 3: People and Institutions Contacted/Interviewed .............................................................................................. 71 LIST OF TABLES Table 0-1 implementing agencies by woreda and project component ...................................................................................... 12 Table 2-1 summary of project components and activities ......................................................................................................... 13 Table 4-1 Proportion of Direct Costs (in usd): Planned Vs Actual Expenditure .......................................................................... 24 Table 4-2 Comparison of Direct Costs (Budget in usd) for Animal Health Component among Implementing Agencies ........... 25 Table 4-3Amount of Direct Cost per Household Unit by Implementing Agency ........................................................................ 26 Table 4-4 Number of Beneficiaries of Crop-related Component of the Project ......................................................................... 30 Table 4-5 Land Cultivated by Crop-seed Support in hectares..................................................................................................... 31 Table 4-6 Quantites of Maize and Forage Seed Distributed: Plan Vs Actual .............................................................................. 31 Table 4-7 Number of Beneficiaries of Farm hand-tools .............................................................................................................. 32 Table 4-8 Major Sources of Food before and after the Intervention ......................................................................................... 34 Table 4-9 Number of Disease Related Livestock Deaths per HH Before and After Intervention, (N=145) ................................. 35 Table 4-10 Number of Disease Related Deaths in Milking Animals per hh Before and After Intervention, (N=145) ................. 35 3 External Evaluation Report - LBFER Project – November 2011 Table 4-11 Maize Harvested from Seed Support (Kg) ................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • An Analysis of the Afar-Somali Conflict in Ethiopia and Djibouti

    An Analysis of the Afar-Somali Conflict in Ethiopia and Djibouti

    Regional Dynamics of Inter-ethnic Conflicts in the Horn of Africa: An Analysis of the Afar-Somali Conflict in Ethiopia and Djibouti DISSERTATION ZUR ERLANGUNG DER GRADES DES DOKTORS DER PHILOSOPHIE DER UNIVERSTÄT HAMBURG VORGELEGT VON YASIN MOHAMMED YASIN from Assab, Ethiopia HAMBURG 2010 ii Regional Dynamics of Inter-ethnic Conflicts in the Horn of Africa: An Analysis of the Afar-Somali Conflict in Ethiopia and Djibouti by Yasin Mohammed Yasin Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree PHILOSOPHIAE DOCTOR (POLITICAL SCIENCE) in the FACULITY OF BUSINESS, ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCES at the UNIVERSITY OF HAMBURG Supervisors Prof. Dr. Cord Jakobeit Prof. Dr. Rainer Tetzlaff HAMBURG 15 December 2010 iii Acknowledgments First and foremost, I would like to thank my doctoral fathers Prof. Dr. Cord Jakobeit and Prof. Dr. Rainer Tetzlaff for their critical comments and kindly encouragement that made it possible for me to complete this PhD project. Particularly, Prof. Jakobeit’s invaluable assistance whenever I needed and his academic follow-up enabled me to carry out the work successfully. I therefore ask Prof. Dr. Cord Jakobeit to accept my sincere thanks. I am also grateful to Prof. Dr. Klaus Mummenhoff and the association, Verein zur Förderung äthiopischer Schüler und Studenten e. V., Osnabruck , for the enthusiastic morale and financial support offered to me in my stay in Hamburg as well as during routine travels between Addis and Hamburg. I also owe much to Dr. Wolbert Smidt for his friendly and academic guidance throughout the research and writing of this dissertation. Special thanks are reserved to the Department of Social Sciences at the University of Hamburg and the German Institute for Global and Area Studies (GIGA) that provided me comfortable environment during my research work in Hamburg.
  • Districts of Ethiopia

    Districts of Ethiopia

    Region District or Woredas Zone Remarks Afar Region Argobba Special Woreda -- Independent district/woredas Afar Region Afambo Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Asayita Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Chifra Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Dubti Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Elidar Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Kori Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Mille Zone 1 (Awsi Rasu) Afar Region Abala Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Afdera Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Berhale Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Dallol Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Erebti Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Koneba Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Megale Zone 2 (Kilbet Rasu) Afar Region Amibara Zone 3 (Gabi Rasu) Afar Region Awash Fentale Zone 3 (Gabi Rasu) Afar Region Bure Mudaytu Zone 3 (Gabi Rasu) Afar Region Dulecha Zone 3 (Gabi Rasu) Afar Region Gewane Zone 3 (Gabi Rasu) Afar Region Aura Zone 4 (Fantena Rasu) Afar Region Ewa Zone 4 (Fantena Rasu) Afar Region Gulina Zone 4 (Fantena Rasu) Afar Region Teru Zone 4 (Fantena Rasu) Afar Region Yalo Zone 4 (Fantena Rasu) Afar Region Dalifage (formerly known as Artuma) Zone 5 (Hari Rasu) Afar Region Dewe Zone 5 (Hari Rasu) Afar Region Hadele Ele (formerly known as Fursi) Zone 5 (Hari Rasu) Afar Region Simurobi Gele'alo Zone 5 (Hari Rasu) Afar Region Telalak Zone 5 (Hari Rasu) Amhara Region Achefer -- Defunct district/woredas Amhara Region Angolalla Terana Asagirt -- Defunct district/woredas Amhara Region Artuma Fursina Jile -- Defunct district/woredas Amhara Region Banja -- Defunct district/woredas Amhara Region Belessa --
  • Assessment and Prioritization of Major Camel Diseases in Selected Areas of Afar Regional State, Samara, Ethiopia

    Assessment and Prioritization of Major Camel Diseases in Selected Areas of Afar Regional State, Samara, Ethiopia

    Middle East Journal of Applied Science & Technology (MEJAST) (Peer Reviewed International Journal) Volume 3, Issue 1, Pages 23-32, January-March 2020 Assessment and Prioritization of Major Camel Diseases in Selected Areas of Afar Regional State, Samara, Ethiopia Wossene Negash1*, Nuru Seid1 & Fikru Gizaw1 1College of Veterinary Medicine, Samara University, P.O. Box, 132, Samara, Ethiopia. 1*Email: [email protected] Article Received: 11 December 2019 Article Accepted: 07 February 2020 Article Published: 17 March 2020 ABSTRACT A cross sectional study was carried out from January to July 2014 GC in an attempt to assess and prioritize major camel diseases and identify risk factors in the selected areas of Afar region. Camel owners’ interview and retrospective data analysis were the study methods employed. Relevant collected data were organized, filtered and fed into Microsoft Excel sheet and further analyzed using SPSS statistical tools at P< 0.05. Descriptive statistics was carried to determine frequencies of camel diseases camel. Based on descriptive statistics, the study identified and prioritized 16 camel diseases. Chi-Square analysis was computed to measure the degree of association between disease occurrence and risk factors (age, sex, study area and season). Binomial and multinomial logistic regression analyzes were computed at P<0.05 to measure the significance of associated risk factors on disease occurrence. Statistically significant variations (P<0.05) were observed for sex, seasons, age, and study sites on the occurrence of disease with exception kebeles (P>0.05). Though the study duly has revealed numerous diseases of the camel, the actual existence (laboratory based confirmation) and epidemiology of each disease still demands further investigative studies.
  • The Levels of Utilization of Reproductive, Maternal and Neonatal Health Services Among Women from Pastoralist Communities in Afar, Ethiopia: Across-Sectional Survey

    The Levels of Utilization of Reproductive, Maternal and Neonatal Health Services Among Women from Pastoralist Communities in Afar, Ethiopia: Across-Sectional Survey

    The Levels of utilization of reproductive, maternal and neonatal health services among women from pastoralist communities in Afar, Ethiopia: across-sectional survey Mussie Alemayehu1, Araya Abrha Medhanyie1, Kibrom Berhanu2, Yemane Gebremariam1, Tesfay Hailu1, Selemawit Asfaw Beyene1, Mohammed Ahmed2, Afework Mulugeta1 Abstract Background: Good-quality reproductive, maternal and neonatal health services, as well as their uptake, are key to preventing complications during pregnancy, in childbirth, and after a child is born. However, the uptake of reproductive, maternal and neonatal health services in the Afar region of Ethiopia is low. Objective: The aim of this study to assess the extent to which reproductive, maternal and neonatal services are used by Afar women in pastoralist communities in Ethiopia, and to examine the reasons for the low uptake of these services. Methods: A community-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 1,978 mothers with children up to the age of 24 months. Multistage sampling was employed to recruit the study participants. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify the effect of independent predictors on the utilization of reproductive, maternal and neonatal health services. Results: The number of women who had four or more antenatal care visits, who had institutional deliveries, who had postnatal visits within seven days of giving birth, and who currently use family planning was 443(22.4%), 322(16.7%), 61(3.1%) and 107(5.4%), respectively. About one third of the women, 686 (34.7%),made good use of reproductive, maternal and neonatal health services. The incidence of using reproductive, maternal and neonatal health services was 2.8 times (AOR = 2.8; 95%CI: 2.0, 3.9) higher among educated women.
  • Report on Evaluation of W SH

    Report on Evaluation of W SH

    Report on Evaluation of WASH - Joint Action Plan (JAP) implementation in eight water insecure Woredas in Afar Regional state Submitted to UNICEF – Ethiopia WASH Section/Afar Field office Prepared by Tesfa Aklilu WASH - Consultant (CIPM, BSc, MPH, MSc (pending, AAU) November 13, 2015 Afar – Semera - Ethiopia | P a g e Table of contents Table of figures .............................................................................................................................................. i Tables ............................................................................................................................................................. i Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... ii WASHCOs: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Committees ........................................................... ii Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ ii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ iii 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Objectives of Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 2 2.1. General
  • Hum Ethio Manitar Opia Rian Re Espons E Fund D

    Hum Ethio Manitar Opia Rian Re Espons E Fund D

    Hum anitarian Response Fund Ethiopia OCHA, 2011 OCHA, 2011 Annual Report 2011 Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Humanitarian Response Fund – Ethiopia Annual Report 2011 Table of Contents Note from the Humanitarian Coordinator ................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 3 1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.1 2011 Humanitarian Context ........................................................................................................... 4 1.2 Map - 2011 HRF Supported Projects ............................................................................................. 6 2. Information on Contributors ................................................................................................................ 7 2.1 Donor Contributions to HRF .......................................................................................................... 7 3. Fund Overview .................................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Summary of HRF Allocations in 2011 ............................................................................................ 8 3.1.1 HRF Allocation by Sector .......................................................................................................
  • ETHIOPIA - National Hot Spot Map 31 May 2010

    ETHIOPIA - National Hot Spot Map 31 May 2010

    ETHIOPIA - National Hot Spot Map 31 May 2010 R Legend Eritrea E Tigray R egion !ª D 450 ho uses burned do wn d ue to th e re ce nt International Boundary !ª !ª Ahferom Sudan Tahtay Erob fire incid ent in Keft a hum era woreda. I nhabitan ts Laelay Ahferom !ª Regional Boundary > Mereb Leke " !ª S are repo rted to be lef t out o f sh elter; UNI CEF !ª Adiyabo Adiyabo Gulomekeda W W W 7 Dalul E !Ò Laelay togethe r w ith the regiona l g ove rnm ent is Zonal Boundary North Western A Kafta Humera Maychew Eastern !ª sup portin g the victim s with provision o f wate r Measle Cas es Woreda Boundary Central and oth er imm ediate n eeds Measles co ntinues to b e re ported > Western Berahle with new four cases in Arada Zone 2 Lakes WBN BN Tsel emt !A !ª A! Sub-city,Ad dis Ababa ; and one Addi Arekay> W b Afa r Region N b Afdera Military Operation BeyedaB Ab Ala ! case in Ahfe rom woreda, Tig ray > > bb The re a re d isplaced pe ople from fo ur A Debark > > b o N W b B N Abergele Erebtoi B N W Southern keb eles of Mille and also five kebeles B N Janam ora Moegale Bidu Dabat Wag HiomraW B of Da llol woreda s (400 0 persons) a ff ected Hot Spot Areas AWD C ases N N N > N > B B W Sahl a B W > B N W Raya A zebo due to flo oding from Awash rive r an d ru n Since t he beg in nin g of th e year, Wegera B N No Data/No Humanitarian Concern > Ziquala Sekota B a total of 967 cases of AWD w ith East bb BN > Teru > off fro m Tigray highlands, respective ly.
  • Modelling the Current Fractional Cover of an Invasive Alien Plant and Drivers of Its Invasion in a Dryland Ecosystem

    Modelling the Current Fractional Cover of an Invasive Alien Plant and Drivers of Its Invasion in a Dryland Ecosystem

    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Modelling the current fractional cover of an invasive alien plant and drivers of its invasion in a dryland Received: 23 July 2018 Accepted: 23 November 2018 ecosystem Published: xx xx xxxx Hailu Shiferaw1,3, Urs Schafner 2, Woldeamlak Bewket3, Tena Alamirew1, Gete Zeleke1, Demel Teketay4 & Sandra Eckert5 The development of spatially diferentiated management strategies against invasive alien plant species requires a detailed understanding of their current distribution and of the level of invasion across the invaded range. The objectives of this study were to estimate the current fractional cover gradient of invasive trees of the genus Prosopis in the Afar Region, Ethiopia, and to identify drivers of its invasion. We used seventeen explanatory variables describing Landsat 8 image refectance, topography, climate and landscape structures to model the current cover of Prosopis across the invaded range using the random forest (RF) algorithm. Validation of the RF algorithm confrmed high model performance with an accuracy of 92% and a Kappa-coefcient of 0.8. We found that, within 35 years after its introduction, Prosopis has invaded approximately 1.17 million ha at diferent cover levels in the Afar Region (12.3% of the surface). Normalized diference vegetation index (NDVI) and elevation showed the highest explanatory power among the 17 variables, in terms of both the invader’s overall distribution as well as areas with high cover. Villages and linear landscape structures (rivers and roads) were found to be more important drivers of future Prosopis invasion than environmental variables, such as climate and topography, suggesting that Prosopis is likely to continue spreading and increasing in abundance in the case study area if left uncontrolled.
  • COUNTRY Food Security Update

    COUNTRY Food Security Update

    ETHIOPIA Food Security Outlook Update December 2015 Major food security Emergency expected through 2016 KEY MESSAGES Projected food security outcomes, December 2015 The ongoing El Niño contributing to the worst drought in more than 50 years in Ethiopia has led to well below average Meher harvests in most eastern cropping areas. It has also contributed to massive livestock deaths, poor livestock body conditions and very low livestock production in Afar and northern parts of Somali Region. Between January and March 2016, large populations in the east of the country will experience very significant food consumption gaps. Poor households in pastoral southern Afar and Sitti Zone in Somali Region and in the agricultural lowlands of East and West Hararghe Zones in Oromia are worst-affected by the drought. As many households face extreme difficulty meeting their minimal basic food needs through at least March 2016, these zone are in Emergency (IPC Phase 4) acute food Projected food security outcomes, January to March insecurity. Larger areas of Tigray, Amhara, Afar, Oromia, 2016 Somali and SNNPR will remain in Crisis (IPC Phase 3). Emergency food assistance is required to protect household food consumption. Across much of the west and south of the country, rainfall performance has been much better and near normal harvests are expected for the current season. These areas will be in Minimal (IPC Phase 1) or Stressed (IPC Phased 2) acute food insecurity through March 2016. CURRENT SITUATION The cumulative amount of rainfall in November and December was above average in most parts of Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR).
  • Examining Alternative Livelihoods for Improved Resilience and Transformation in Afar

    Examining Alternative Livelihoods for Improved Resilience and Transformation in Afar

    EXAMINING ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS FOR IMPROVED RESILIENCE AND TRANSFORMATION IN AFAR May 2019 Report photos: Dr. Daniel Temesgen EXAMINING ALTERNATIVE LIVELIHOODS FOR IMPROVED RESILIENCE AND TRANSFORMATION IN AFAR May 2019 This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. The views expressed herein can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Report authors: Daniel Temesga, Amdissa Teshome, Berhanu Admassu Suggested citation: FAO and Tufts University. (2019). Examining Alternative Livelihoods for Improved Resilience and Transformation in Afar. FAO: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Implemented by: Feinstein International Center Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy Tufts University Africa Regional Office www.fic.tufts.edu © FAO TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 6 I. BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................................ 8 The Afar Region: context and livelihoods ................................................................................................... 8 The purpose of the study ............................................................................................................................ 8 The study’s approaches and methods .........................................................................................................
  • 200120 Afar Region Agric Sector Dashboard

    200120 Afar Region Agric Sector Dashboard

    ETHIOPIA: AGRICULTURE SECTOR HRP AFAR REGION MONTHLY DASHBOARD -January 2020 The devastating impact on agriculture following consecutive years of drought in Ethiopia is undisputed. While forecasts for 2019 indicate a probability of normal to above normal rain KEY FIGURES OVERVIEW HOUSEHOLDS REACHED in most parts of Ethiopia, in east, south and southeastern regions, the upcoming rainy season (March to June) is forecasted to be average or below average. In areas where normal to above normal rains are expected, recovery will not be spontaneous, as previous HOUSEHOLDS IN NEED drought-affected households are likely to require sustained humanitarian assistance as a 335,273 result of exhausted coping mechanisms. 62,675 35% The sector will continue to work with pastoralists and agro-pastoralists to restore body conditions of remaining livestock to improve milk production and reproduction success HOUSEHOLDS TARGETED rates through the provision of both feed and health interventions. The establishment of 177,207 feed banks (concentrate and/or fodder production and storage), especially irrigated fodder production along river areas in Afar regions, will enhance the resilience of these communities to future shocks and provide means for local production and storage ofemer- IDP HOUSEHOLDS TARGETED gency livestock feed. 0% 6,173 0m The sector recommends implementing other resilience-building activities such as seed banks, water harvesting and rehabilitation of water points (bore holes, shallow wells, ponds, water cistern, small irrigation schemes). Humanitarian assistance for IDPs and IDP returnees is largely dependent on IDPs’ access to land and the livelihood assets they have been able to maintain during displacement. Emergency feed and animal health interven- Dalul tions are needed to reduce the burden on the resources of the host communities and prevent the spread of diseases,especially for animals displaced across regional borders.
  • The Effect of Community-Based Interventions on Increasing Family

    The Effect of Community-Based Interventions on Increasing Family

    The Effect of Community-Based Interventions on Increasing Family Planning Utilization in Pastoralist Community of Afar Region Ethiopia: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial By: Mussie Alemayehu Gebreselassie (B.SC, MPH/RH) Advisors: Dr.Afework Mulugeta (Ph.D., Associate Professor) Dr.Araya Abrha (Ph.D., Associate Professor) Feb, 2018 Mekelle, Ethiopia i | P a g e Summary Introduction: Pastoralism, practiced on a quarter of the globe’s surface. An estimated 50 million pastoralists live in sub-Saharan Africa. In Ethiopia, pastoralist community contributes to 12-15% of the total population and 60% of the surface area. Based on the report of Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey 2016 (EDHS) report, Ethiopia shows an impressive gain in family planning utilization. However, such gain is not uniformly distributed across the agrarian and pastoralist region. The Afar region was one of the regions with low performance of family planning utilization (11.6%). Therefore, this study aims at quantifying the effect of the community-based intervention which includes male involvement and women education on increasing family planning service utilization in pastoralist community from Afar region. Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial with three arm studies will be employed in 33 clusters of pastoralist community from Afar region. The intervention includes women education and male involvement in family planning utilization and this will be compared with the control group. A total of three data at pre-intervention, midline (follow-up) and post-intervention data will be collected with a four and half months time gap. The data structure will be restructured following collecting the baseline data to enable for follow up of the mother.