ICA Support in Ethiopia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Icelandic CSO Evaluation: ICA Support in Ethiopia Final Report Cecilia M Ljungman Gemeschu Desta With contributions from: Bjarni Gíslason Selma Sif Ísfeld Óskarsdóttir 8 January 2018 Contents Abbreviations and acronyms ................................................................................................................ 3 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Development assistance through Icelandic civil society ......................................................... 7 1.2 Icelandic CSO evaluation ....................................................................................................... 7 1.3 ICA.......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.4 Evaluation process and methodology ..................................................................................... 8 1.5 Limitations .............................................................................................................................. 9 2. The project ................................................................................................................................... 10 3. Outcomes and impact ................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Women’s empowerment and gender relations...................................................................... 13 3.2 Community organisation ....................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Natural resources and environmental management ............................................................. 16 3.4 Agriculture and livestock ....................................................................................................... 16 3.5 Time saving .......................................................................................................................... 17 3.6 Behavioural and attitudinal changes ..................................................................................... 17 3.7 Contributing factors ............................................................................................................... 18 3.8 Constraining factors .............................................................................................................. 20 4. Efficiency ..................................................................................................................................... 21 5. Sustainability ............................................................................................................................... 23 5.1 Maintenance ......................................................................................................................... 23 5.2 Local ownership .................................................................................................................... 24 5.3 Relations with local government ........................................................................................... 24 5.4 Exit strategy and sustainability challenges ........................................................................... 25 6. Relevance of the project ............................................................................................................. 26 6.1 Needs of the target population .............................................................................................. 26 6.2 Relevance to Icelandic development policies ....................................................................... 26 6.3 Government policies ............................................................................................................. 28 7. Relevance and added value of support through ICA ............................................................... 29 Icelandic CSO Evaluation – ICA/Ethiopia 1 8. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 31 8.1 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 31 8.2 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 32 Annex 1 – Evaluation Framework – ICA – Ethiopia and Uganda.................................................. 33 Annex 2 – List of persons met ........................................................................................................ 40 Annex 3 – Documents reviewed ..................................................................................................... 41 CSO Evaluation – ICA/Ethiopia 2 Abbreviations and acronyms CAHW Community Animal Health Workers CDF Community Development Facilitator CSO Civil Society Organisation DRS Developing Regional States ICA Icelandic Church Aid Iceida Iceland International Development Agency IceCross Icelandic Red Cross FGM Female Genital Mutilation FTC Farmer Training Centre LWF Lutheran World Federation MFA Ministry for Foreign Affairs RACOBAO Rural Action Community Based Organisation RBM Results-based Management SÍMAH Association of Icelandic NGOs that work in development cooperation and humanitarian assistance UNU-GEST United Nations University Gender Equality Studies Training Programme UNU-LRT United Nations University Land Restoration Training Programme CSO Evaluation – ICA/Ethiopia 3 Executive Summary Since 2008 ICA have supported LWF’s livelihood project, Jijiga District Integrated Commu- nity Development Project (later the Jijiga District Food Security and Livelihoods Project) in Jijiga, which is in the Somali Regional state of Ethiopia – one of the country’s least developed regions. The support developed out of the recognition that the cyclical pattern of drought, which led to the need for recurrent emergency food assistance, required a response that strengthened the preparedness and resilience of communities. The purpose of the project has generally been to improve the economic and social wellbeing of the targeted communities by enhancing their coping capacity and increasing their access to food and social services. In the current phase, the objective of especially working to empower women through improved control and decision-making power over productive resources has been made explicit. The project is in its third phase, with the fourth phase expected to start in 2018. Each phase has focused on between eight and fourteen kebeles (villages), and catered to between 35,000-75,000 people. Key activities have included: 1. Water development – building of birkas,1 hand-dug wells, sanitation awareness and form- ing of water committees; 2. Crop development – introduction of improved seeds, new vegetables (like onion, peppers, beans), bullocks for the most vulnerable women, donation of mechanical threshers, provi- sion of farm tools, support to district farmers’ training centres; 3. Livestock production – training of Community Animal Health Workers (CAHW), intro- duction of poultry rearing, drug and equipment support to district veterinary services, training in forage development; 4. Income generating activities – establishment of women’s groups who receive access to a revolving fund and training in income generation; 5. Environment protection – training in natural resources & environmental protection, tree seedling production. The ICA-MFA funded LWF project in Jijiga has, during its three phases, made substantial transformational change among the kebeles that were targeted. Clean and closer water, greater food security, improved diets, better sanitation, higher income (and thus better beds, clothing, and kitchen utensils), saved time, and more children attending school have effectively 1 A birka is a surface water fed pond. Icelandic CSO Evaluation – ICA/Ethiopia 4 changed the lives of many people in the 20 kebeles that received support over the years. Fur- thermore, the communities are farming with better tools and using new techniques and crops that have produced better harvests. They have healthier animal stocks and raising poultry for the first time. In addition to making important socioeconomic differences to communities served, the sup- port has also led to psycho-social changes. Many of the women have become self-confident, are active in their communities, have been exposed to the world outside the kebele, and are enjoying an improved status in the communities through the respect they have gained. More- over, community dynamics have changed in a positive way as a result of the support – includ- ing gender roles and democratically-run, well-attended, respected and active community or- ganisations. In terms of sustainability, there is evidence from the kebeles that LWF worked in during the earlier phases that communities continue to organise themselves, maintain assets, and engage in livelihood activities introduced by LWF. The communities feel a strong sense of owner- ship, responsibility, and accountability to one another. The local authorities express signifi- cant moral support for the project, but there is little evidence of them undertaking follow up support after LWF has moved on. The support is relevant in several ways. First, LWF has provided multi-dimensional