Adigrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat Mekelle Branch (ADCS - M)

Terminal Evaluation of Natural Resources Conservation and Livelihoods Innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

By

HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy P.L.C. Contact Person: Bezabih Emana (PhD) P.O. Box 15805 Tel. 091 164 13 45/0911 516578/011 6297260 E-mail: [email protected] Addis Ababa

September, 2011 Addis Ababa

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table of Content

List of Tables ...... iv List of Figures ...... v Acronyms/Abbreviation ...... vi Acknowledgement ...... vii Executive Summary ...... viii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 The project approach ...... 2 1.3 Objectives of the Evaluation ...... 3 1.3.1 Overall objective...... 3 1.3.2 Specific objectives ...... 3 1.4 Methodology ...... 3 2. Project Relevance ...... 6 2.1 Natural Resource Management (NRM) ...... 6 2.2 Production and Income ...... 7 2.3 Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene...... 7 2.4 Institutional Learning ...... 8 3. Effectiveness ...... 9 3.1 Project Contribution to Household Food Security ...... 9 3.2 Increased Productivity of Degraded Land and Reduced Erosion ...... 11 3.2.1 Reducing erosion through treatment of gullies and plots ...... 11 3.2.2 Improving vegetation coverage ...... 12 3.2.3 Fodder development ...... 14 3.2.4. Achievement of project milestones under NRM ...... 15 3.3 Increased Farm Production and Income ...... 16 3.3.1 Crop production ...... 16 3.3.2 Income generation activities...... 18 3.3.3. Achievement of project milestones under production and income ...... 20 3.4 Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene ...... 21 3.4.1 Access to clean water ...... 21 3.4.2 Sanitation and hygiene service ...... 25 3.4.3 Waterborne diseases ...... 26 3.4.4. Achievement of project milestones under water supply, sanitation and hygiene ...... 26

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 ii

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3.5 Institutional Learning ...... 27 3.5.1 Natural resource management ...... 27 3.5.2 Production and income ...... 28 3.5.3 Water supply ...... 28 3.5.4 Gender ...... 28 3.5.5. Achievement of project milestones under institutional learning ...... 29 3.6 Cross Cutting Issues ...... 29 3.6.1 Gender ...... 29 3.6.2 HIV/AIDS ...... 29 4 Project Efficiency ...... 32 5. Project Organization and Management ...... 34 5.1 Project Planning Process ...... 34 5.2 Project Management ...... 34 5.3 Budget Allocation and Utilization ...... 35 6. Project Impacts ...... 37 7. Sustainability ...... 41 8. Strength, Weakness/Challenges and Lessons ...... 44 8.1 Strengths ...... 44 8.2 Weakness/Challenges ...... 45 8.3 Lesson Learned ...... 45 9. Conclusions and Recommendations...... 47 Annexes ...... 48 Annex 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) for Final Evaluation ...... 48 Annex 2. Household questionnaire ...... 55 Annex 3: Checklist for FGD ...... 66 Annex 4: Activity accomplishment rate ...... 71 Annex 7: Project cost and contribution by partners ...... 73

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 iii

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Distribution of per capita income (%) ...... 9 Table 3.2: Average income per household (Birr) ...... 10 Table 3.3: Type and quantity of SWC activities carried out ...... 11 Table 3.4: Estimation of soil losses in the sampled target area ...... 12 Table 3.5: Location of area closures by Tabia in Maizegzeg watershed ...... 13 Table 3.6: Vegetation cover of the watershed ...... 13 Table 3.7: Proportion of sample respondents by source of seedlings planted on private plots (%) ...... 14 Table 3.8: Pasture development in area closure and afforested areas ...... 14 Table 3.9: Productivity of dairy cow due to the project ...... 15 Table 3.10: Achievement of project milestones under outcome one ...... 15 Table 3.11: Change in crop yield during the project period ...... 17 Table 3.12: Fruit and vegetable groups practicing irrigation ...... 17 Table 3.13: Vegetable productivity with and without irrigation ...... 18 Table 3.14: Summary of 15 IGA groups ...... 19 Table 3.15: Average income from IGA activities supported by the project ...... 20 Table 3.16: Achievement of project milestones under outcome two ...... 21 Table 3.17: Water schemes developed by the project and households reached with clean water . 21 Table 3.18: Proportion of sample respondents by source of water supply (%) ...... 22 Table 3.19: Evaluation of current access to water ...... 24 Table 3.20: Access to pit latrine and waste disposal pit in the project Tabia (%) ...... 26 Table 3.21: Achievement of project milestones under outcome two ...... 27 Table 3.22: Achievement of project milestones under outcome four ...... 29 Table 3.23: Knowledge and practices of HIV/AIDS ...... 31 Table 5.1: Budget utilization during the first 3 years (to be revised) ...... 36 Table 6.1: Proportion of respondents stating advantages of area closure (%) ...... 37 Table 6.2: Proportion of respondents stating the impacts of NRM supported by the project (%) 38 Table 6.3: Livestock ownership before and after the project ...... 38 Table 6.4: Proportion of respondents indicating the major benefits obtained from the water supply constructed by the project (%) ...... 40 Table 6.5: Pit latrine ownership and ...... 40 Table 6.6: Changes reported due to water and sanitation interventions of the project ...... 40 Table 7.1 Proportion of sample respondents indicating sustainability of NRM ...... 41 Table 7.2: Significant number of beneficiaries still externalize the management of the area closure ...... 41

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 iv

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

List of Figures

Figure 1: Composition of household income (Average= Birr 15,000) ...... 10 Figure 2: Proportion of respondents attribution improved water supply to agencies ...... 22 Figure 3: Water schemes developed by the project and households reached with clean water .... 23 Figure 4: Budget allocation £807,782 ...... 36

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 v

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Acronyms/Abbreviation

ADCS - Adigrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat CAFOD - Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (Official Relief and Development Agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales) CBPWD - Community based participatory watershed Development CWCs - Community watershed committees DA - Development Agent FHH - Female Headed Household FGD - Focus Group Discussion FSS - Food Security Strategy HEWs - Health Extension Workers HABP - Household Asset Building Programme HH - Household KII - Key Informants Interview IGAs - Income Generating Activities Kg - Kilo gram Lt - Liter MHH - Male Headed Household NGOs - Non-governmental Organizations NRM - Natural Resource Management OFSP - Other Food Security Programme PASDEP - Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to End Poverty PSNP - Productive Safety Net Programme PW - Public Work Activities PHAST - Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation Qt - Quintal (1qt = 100 kg) SILC - Saving and Internal Lending Community T - Ton Trôcaire - Official Relief and Development Agency of the Catholic Church in Ireland

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 vi

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Acknowledgement

This terminal evaluation report would not have been successfully completed without the support of many individuals and institutions. We would particularly wish to acknowledge the support provided by CAFOD/TRÔCAIRE and Adigrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat (ADCS). Teamrat Belai and Joanna Elkington of the Joint Office of CAFOD/ Trôcaire and SCIAF facilitated the process of the assignment and commented the draft report.

The management and staff of ADCS in Mekele and Hagereselam provided full support during the evaluation and facilitated the data collection process. Especial thanks go to Hagos Medhin, and Mizan G/Medhin for timely facilitating the required logistics for the field work and providing the evaluation team with the necessary data. Abraha Girmay and Tekle Assefa accompanied the data collection team in the field and contributed to a successfully completion of data collection.

We earnestly appreciate the valuable contributions of Maizegzeg Project Field Team, the representatives of the Hagereselam Woreda Sector Offices and the community for sparing their valuable time and sharing their opinion and judgments of the project with us.

Bezabih Emana (PhD) General Manager HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy P.L.C. Addis Ababa 25 September 2011

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 vii

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Executive Summary

Adgirat Diocese Catholic Secretariat (ADCS) has implemented an ‘Innovative Livelihoods Learning Initiative Project’ in Maizegezeg watershed in Degua Tembein woreda of Tigray regional state. The project was implemented over four years (2007-2011) and intended to benefit 23,000 people in 7 Tabias of Degua Tembein woreda, namely Amanit, Hagereselam, Michael Abiyi, Mizan Birhan, Aynmbrekinn Endaselassie and Selam. The project aims at improving food security in the target area and the wider community in the target watershed. More specifically, it intended to rehabilitate the natural resources basis within the watershed, improve farm production and income; improve access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene, and promote institutional learning. The financial support of ₤807,782 was provided by UK Big Lottery fund, CAFOD and Trόcaire while the community contributed in kind (local materials and labour). Technical support and monitoring of the implementation was made by CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF Joint Ethiopia Program (JEP). HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC conducted an independent terminal evaluation of the project. The approach and key findings are summarized below.

Methodology: the data required for the evaluation was collected from different sources using different methods. Household survey was conducted in all project Tabias covering 180 households using structured questionnaire given in Annex 2. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were carried out in 6 Tabias to collect information that were not covered by the household survey using checklist given in Annex 3. Key informant interviews, field observation and case studies were also carried out to collect data for triangulation with the household survey.

Relevance: The project goal as well as the specific outcomes are relevant to address local problems and are consistent with government policies and strategies. The development objective of the project, which is improving food security, is consistent with government policies and strategies including PASDEP and Federal Food Security Strategy (FFS). The four outcomes i.e. rehabilitation of 5,500 ha of degraded land to make it productive by reducing soil erosion, increasing production and income 240 farming households by an average of 25%; reducing the incidence of waterborne diseases amongst the 23,000 target population and increasing easy access to potable water and institutional learning are quite important given the needs and priorities.

Project Effectiveness:

Food security: The ultimate purpose of this project is to improve household food security. Household income was measured and compared with benchmark per capita income of Birr 3,000 set by the regional government for graduation out of PSNP. The result indicates that about 33% of the PSNP beneficiaries earned above the minimum benchmark and can meet their annual food requirement. Despite the significant contribution of the project, about 49% of the households in the watershed earned less than Birr 3,000 per capita income indicating that food insecurity remained to be a serious problem in the area.

Natural resources conservation: The evaluation result indicates that the project has brought meaningful improvement in the natural resource basis as well as the livelihoods of the people in

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 viii

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) the area. For instance, the project has treated 8,796 ha of severely degraded areas. This accounts for 72% of the total land within the watershed and 160% of the plan. As a result, there is a reduction in erosion by 44% in gully areas and 28% in treated plots which is mainly attributed to the conservation works of the project. Through the area closure, about 630 ha area closures was made in 12 sites with enrichment plantation of over 200,000 tree seedlings. The conservation efforts increased the overall vegetation coverage by 5% and pasture availability by 62%. The improved access to fodder resulted in improved milk productivity per cow. The project has successfully implemented all milestones and associated activities under the NRM outcome. The key factors underlying the successful implementation of targets and realization of desired results include integration of the project with PSNP, careful selection of conservation measures, timely provision of required technical inputs and industrial materials, active community participation, and coordinated action between the project and woreda Agriculture Office.

Production and income: The project intended to increase crop yield through improved land productivity due to improved soil and water conservation practices for households depending on rainfed agriculture; and provision of irrigation facility, seeds and production techniques for households practicing irrigation. The evaluation result indicates that land treatment measures have led to significant yield improvement of major crops grown in the watershed. For instance, the wheat increased by 20% as compared to the baseline yield. Similarly, the irrigation schemes also increased yield of onion by 100%. About 100 poor community members were organized into three irrigation groups and received 87 kg of various vegetable seeds and 2,504 different fruit seedlings. Besides, the number of vegetable and fruit growers was increased by 12%, from 19% prior to the project to 31% at the end of the project.

The project has organized 270 poor community members into 15 IGA groups (36% female). The groups engaged in different IGAs including dairy, shoat rearing, beekeeping, vegetable and fruit production, apple and other fruits, silk worm and soap production. The field assessment result indicates that the IGA members earned about Birr 1,875 from the IGA activities which is considered as extra income over the IGA baseline income of Birr 2,145 making the increase 87% against the target of 25%. Many of the IGA groups (dairy, vegetable and fruits, shoats) have adequate local demand for their produces. The income of apple is limited since the plant is at a stage of establishment and the limited production was consumed. Local demand for the product is also low compared to the demand in the central market. Silk worm product has not been marketed since the operation started late. Income for soap making is not also significant. Though the innovative aspect of the interventions is admired, market linkage becomes crucial for sustainability of the high value perishable agricultural products.

Water supply, sanitation and hygiene: the project aims to improve access to clean water and sanitation and hygiene practices in the area. To realize this, the project has developed 23 water points. These include 15 hand dug wells, 3 springs, 3 shallow wells and 2 water harvesting structures. The project implementation was successful except one hand dug well. As a result of the project, access to clean water increased by 34% and the quality of water improved. However, distance to water point is still long where only 21% can reach the water points within 30 minutes walk. Households in M/Abiyi, Amanit and Aynmbrekinn Tabias have access to the minimum daily requirement of 20lt per capita. However, is not the case in Mizan Birhan and Endasilassie.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 ix

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

The project has also significantly contributed to improved sanitation and hygiene practices in the area. Government HEWs were capacitated; pit latrine coverage increased by 22%; hand washing practice increased by 22% and about 70% of households utilized waste disposal pit. This along with improved access to clean water has reduced prevalence of water born diseases by 71% from 7.6% to 2.2% and suffering from leech among human and livestock were significantly reduced.

Institutional learning: Developing and sharing of workable development approaches, practices and results with key actors within the woreda and beyond is among the key outcomes of this project. To achieve the target, the project has organized series of learning and experience sharing events and field visits that were attended by key regional bureaus as well as neighboring and the project woreda offices. Key learning identified during these events include: (i) proper application of CBPWSD guideline has led to rehabilitation of degraded land within relatively short period of time; (ii) linking area closure with beekeeping and fodder development has led to significant economic empowerment among the poor community members; (iii) irrigation schemes converted flood into productive water use; (iv) IGA activities like dairy, soap making and apple were innovative and profitable business engagements for the poor and FHHs; (v) improved water supply management practice has significantly contributed to community ownership and sustainability of the schemes; and (vi) organizing women into SILC group is a successful for women economic empowerment.

Cross cutting issues: Gender and HIV/AIDS were well integrated and addressed. IGA activities such as goat/sheep revolving fund and dairy were exclusively provided for poor FHHs; the water supply has significantly reduced women’s workload; people living with HIV were targeted and benefited from IGAs; and community awareness on HIV/AIDS was significantly improved.

Project efficiency: The overall evaluation result indicates that the project milestones and activities were implemented timely and adequately. Most of the planned interventions under NRM were completed timely and up to the required standard. Rehabilitation of degraded areas was above the target by 59%. Similarly, the plan under production and income component was timely and properly accomplished. The implementation of silk production started late and the group could not generate income from the business. Also, the water supply, sanitation and hygiene related milestones and activities were implemented well ahead of time and in cost effective manner. The project spent Birr 90,000 less from construction of 15 hand dug wells compared to the market price. All milestones and activities under institutional learning were timely and adequately accomplished. However, dissemination modality needs to be developed to facilitate the scale-up of best practices and approaches.

Project management and organization: the overall project planning process was guided by Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) approach. This significantly contributed to community ownership of the planned activities and consequent outputs and outcomes. The project activities were fully integrated with PSNP and other ongoing interventions to maximize synergy and impact. The project management was participatory. The management structure put in place was adequate and effective. The project staffs’ commitment, motivation and teamwork sprit were key to project success. The project utilized 88.3% of its budget up to 14th day of September 2011.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 x

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Project impacts: The project interventions brought significant improvement in the natural resource basis as well as the livelihoods of the community. The rehabilitation of degraded areas resulted in increased water discharge rate; improved land productivity through irrigation; reduced flood risk; increased economic and social benefits (erosion reduction, yield increase, milk productivity and vegetation cover); improved road access; and improved the knowledge of the community for sustainable management of watershed. The production and income component of the project has contributed to reduction of household asset disposal to buy food; facilitated household asset creation; improved diet diversification; capacitated poor women to engage in and benefit from IGA activities. Similarly, the water supply, sanitation and hygiene project component were significantly contributed to reduction of water born disease and pests; Women workload reduced; hygiene and sanitation condition improved; community capacity to manage water schemes improved.

Sustainability: Factors that ensure sustainability of the project impacts prevail in this project. About 97% of the sample households feel ownership over the protected areas; 94% feel the conserved area will provide fodder for longer period; 96% indicated the presence of mechanism for fair and sustainable distribution of fodder. Existence of about 38% communal land and 42% of farmland still prone to degradation and lack of adequate implementation of the watershed bylaw makes the sustainability of the NRM vulnerable.

Most of the IGAs groups have proved that their business engagement is lucrative. However, some IGA’s such as apple and silk require strong market linkage to sustain. Besides, only 7 out of 15 IGA groups were legally registered so far. In some cases, even the certified cooperatives lack strong leadership skill while others lack business profitability analysis skill. Sustainable use of the irrigation scheme requires more efforts in gully treatment which implies the need for design and implementation of more conservation measures at upstream to replenish irrigation water downstream. The impacts of the water, sanitation and hygiene component is also likely to continue. A good indicator of sustainability of the water management is the capacity of the water management committees which seems adequate. However, water care takers lack adequate technical capacity and tools to be able to do a minimum maintenance if the system damages.

Recommendation: To ensure continuity of the project benefits and scale-up best practices, the following recommendations are suggested: (i) develop scale-up package or guideline for dissemination of tested and successful technologies and approaches; (ii) rehabilitate areas within the watershed that were not treated during this project period; (iii) capacitate and link IGA groups with market; (iv) build the capacity of WATSAN committees and provide them with set of tools to be able to maintain the water supply structures; and (v) revise community bylaws to improve community ownership over the management of the protected areas.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 xi

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

More than 85% of the Ethiopian population, residing in the rural area, is engaged in agricultural production as a major means of livelihood. However, the agricultural productivity is low due to use of low level of improved agricultural technologies, risks associated with weather conditions, diseases and pests, etc. Moreover, due to the ever increasing population pressure, the land holding per household is declining leading to low level of production to meet the consumption requirement of the households. About 10% of the total population in the country depends on some form of food aids through government and NGOs. To improve this situation, the government of Ethiopia has designed and implemented Food Security Program (FSP) since 2004.

The Diocese of Adigrat was established in February 1961. It covers the whole Tigray Regional State and Zone 2 of Afar Region State. The diocese was involved in various socio- pastoral and development program that address multifaceted problem and critical issues of the local communities. The diocese of Adigrat’s Social and Development intervention traces back to the 1980s famine in the region. At a time, the diocese established ’Catholic Social Action Committee’ to coordinate its emergency programme to save life. The Social and Development intervention of the Church started to expand since then. Adigrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat (ADCS) was replaced the Catholic Social Action Committee in 1987 having it Head Office at Adigrat and branch office at Mekelle, as one of the Diocesan Catholic Secretariat Offices in Ethiopia. ADCS has different units. This include Social and Development Coordinating Office of Adigrat (SDCOA), Pastoral Activities Coordinating Office ( PACO) and Administration and Finance Services Unit. The SDCOA is responsible for initiating, designing, implementing and coordinating social and development program/projects in line with the overall objective and operation guide lines of Ethiopian Catholic Church – Social and Development Commission. For the last several years ECC-SDCOA has implemented various integrated rural development projects/programs – with objectives of enhancing food/livelihood security, and poverty reduction.

ADCS partners with different agancies to implement food security and livelihood projects including CAFOD/Trôcaire/SCIAF. CAFOD/Trôcaire/SCIAF are the official Catholic relief and development agencies of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In Ethiopia, the three agencies work collaboratively through a joint country programme. CAFOD is the lead agency for this project, but through the Joint Ethiopia Programme (JEP) draws on the resources and expertise of Trôcaire and SCIAF.

Diocese Catholic Secretariat (ADCS) with the financial and technical support from CAFOD/Trôcaire/SCIAF Joint Ethiopia Program (JEP), has been contributing to the improvement of the food security situation in Tigray regional state. ADCS and JEP have implemented a pilot project ‘Innovative Livelihoods Learning Initiative’ over small area within the Maizegzeg watershed from 2004-2006. The purpose of this project was to draw key learning that informs the design and implementation of subsequent project in the area. From 2007-2011,

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 1

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) the JEP and ADCS have been implementing ‘Innovative Livelihoods Learning Initiative project’ in Maizegezeg watershed in Degua Tembein woreda of Tigray regional state to scale-up the lessons from the earlier pilot project. The scale-up project intended to benefit 23,000 people living in the 7 Tabias of the target area: Amanit, Hagereselam, Michael Abiyi, Mizan Birhan, Aynmbrekinn Endaselassie and Selam.

The total budget of the project is ₤807,782 and funded by UK Big Lottery fund, CAFOD/Trôcaire. The community also contributed to the project implementation in terms of labour and materials. The project objectives are to increase Natural Resources Management (NRM), increase production and income; access to potable water and institutionalization of learning. The project aims at improving food security in the target area and the wider community in the target watershed. In order to measure changes, a baseline study was conducted at the beginning of the project and mid-term evaluation was conducted in March 2010. The terminal evaluation of the project was commissioned to HEDBEZ Business and Consulting PLC on a competitive bid. The data necessary for the terminal evaluation was collected in August 2011 and the evaluation report has been prepared based on these data and review of relevant reports.

1.2 The Project Approach

The project was designed following community based participatory watershed development (CBPWD). The government of Ethiopia has put in place this approach to guide development planning and implementation, monitoring and evaluation at grassroots level. The approach is particularly relevant in arid and sem-arid areas where natural resource degradation is a key concern limiting rural livelihoods. The key principles underlying this approach include community participation, building on local experience, consideration of watershed logic and potential, flexibility, cost-sharing and local ownership building, integration and complementarily with other food security and rural development intervention, and consideration of cross cutting issues (gender and HIV/AIDS).

In this, project, the CBPWD approach has been applied to create self-supporting system. The planning started with a clear demarcation of manageable watershed based on the hydrological unit. Communities’ desire and priorities led the overall process in CBPWD. Hence, communities within the selected watershed are expected to actively involve in the overall process of the watershed development. The watershed can be further sub divided into sub watersheds. In this project, the community were put at the center of planning and implementation. The fundamental problems of natural resources degradation has been addressed and other interventions benefit from the natural resources rehabilitation.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 2

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

1.3 Objectives of the Evaluation

1.3.1 Overall objective

As indicated in the TOR (see Annex 1), the aim of the final evaluation is to assess to what extent the project outcomes have been achieved and what impacts have been made as well as to identify learning points, issues and the way forward.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this evaluation is to assess the overall project relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the project outcomes with specific focus on the following: i) To provide a full description of the activities carried out and the results achieved according to the project document; ii) To assess the success of the project in achieving the outcomes set out in the project document; iii) To assess the impact of the project on different target groups and how the situation of these groups has changed; iv) To assess the extent to which the impact, if there is one, is due to the project intervention or due to other factors; v) To analyze the cost of the project and assess whether this is reasonable in the context and whether the resources have been used as efficiently as possible; vi) To draw key lessons from the implementation and management processes of the project including analysis of the roles of ADCS, CAFOD/TRÔCAIRE/SCIAF and the UK Big Lottery; and vii) To provide recommendations that can guide learning from experience gained from implementation of this project and how these experiences can be used to influence others in the future course of action or follow up.

1.4 Methodology

The data necessary for the terminal evaluation were collected from different sources. Review of documents, household survey, focus group discussion, key informants interview, case studies and measurement. i) Review: project documents, logframe, annual reports, baseline and midterm review reports, and other project related documents were reviewed. The baseline data were established, as much as available, from the baseline survey and complemented or filled by the midterm review information. Any missing data or new data needed for the

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 3

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

evaluation were collected from primary sources through household survey, focus group discussions, key informants or measurements.

ii) Household survey: The evaluation covered all the project sub-watersheds. A total of 180 households (16.7% female headed) were randomly selected and interviewed using structured questionnaire. The questionnaire included activities related to the project, participation and benefits from the project, impacts due to project interventions, etc. Experienced enumerators who are familiar with the culture of the community were employed and trained prior to the interview. The questionnaire was pretested to check for compatibility and completeness and also enable the enumerators experiment the interview. To ease the understanding of the questionnaire, it was translated into Amharic. The English version of the survey instrument is given in Annex 2.

Photo 1: Training of household survey enumerators

iii) Focus Group Discussion (FGD): The sub-watersheds were mapped in terms of the project components. From clusters of sub-watersheds with similar project activities, 5 samples were selected for the FGDs. Thus, all project components were covered with the FGDs. Accordingly, 6 FGDs were conducted in which 59 project beneficiaries 39% female participated. Checklist was prepared to guide the discussion with the project beneficiaries (Annex 3).

Photo 2: FGD at Rubaksa site

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 4

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

iv) Key Informants Interview (KII): The woreda stakeholders were interviewed to assess their opinion of the project planning, implementation, performance and impacts. A total of 5 woreda stakeholders and 5 project staffs participated in the evaluation.

v) Case Studies: successful cases were interviewed to understand the impact of project intervention.

vi) Observation: The physical structures built by the project such as the natural resources management structure were observed. Income generating groups were visited to assess the extent the project outputs have been adopted and the potential for sustainability.

vii) Measurement: soil erosion variables and vegetation cover were measured with the aim to estimate erosion hazards.

viii) Stakeholders Workshop: the draft report of the terminal evaluation was presented at a stakeholders workshop organized by ADCS in Mekelle on September 19, 2011. The participants were invited from Dagua woreda sector offices, Tigray region relevant Bureaus, ADCS staff and management and CAFOD/Trôcaire representatives. The consultants presented the approach and the findings of the terminal evaluation. The participants reviewed the findings and provided comments. The comments of the workshop have been incorporated into this report.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 5

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

2. Project Relevance

This part discusses the relevance of the project. Validity of the project objectives and consistency of project activities with the objectives as well as anticipated results or impacts are considered when analyzing the project relevance.

The goal of the project is ‘improving food security of target households and the wider community in Maizegzeg watershed in Degua Tembien woreda, Tigray Regional State.’ This development objective is consistence with Plan for Accelerated and Sustainable Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) and Federal Food Security Strategy (FFS). In both cases, the federal government has put forward ensuring food security as key development priority. Besides, the FFS has given due emphasis to the chronically food insecure population in moisture deficit areas. Furthermore, the New Coalition for Food Security Programme document is the first comprehensive document that was put forward to implement the FFS. This document has three components: PSNP, OFSP/HABP and resettlement. PSNP intend to smoothen household food consumption. While the Official Fund for Food Security (OFSP) or the Household Asset Building Programme (HABP) intends to build household asset for chronically food insecure families. The Maizegzeg Natural resources conservation and livelihoods innovation project can be considered as OFSP/HABP that provides asset building and income generation opportunities for the chronically food insecure households in the area. This implies that the overall purpose of the project is in line with the government development strategy and programme. Relevance of the project result areas are described as follow.

2.1 Natural Resource Management (NRM)

The project outcome under this theme states: ‘rehabilitation of 5,500ha of degraded land will become more productive enabling a 50% increase in fodder production on communal areas and reduced soil erosion in plots and gullies.’ This intends to ensure sustainable use of the land resource to improve the living situation of the population in the area. Project activities that were intended to implement to realize this outcome include support communities to develop and agree on land use plans and management arrangements (including by-laws), establish 550 ha area closure, document indigenous methods of soil and water conservation practices, and rehabilitate 5,500 ha degraded land.

Natural resource degradation is a serious concern in the area. The area was highly affected by flood erosion due to its undulating landscape. This coupled with high population pressure and unsustainable use of the land resource for human and livestock has led to degradation of significant proportion of land in the area. Big gullies, bare lands, deforestation, and limited production and productivity characterize Maizegzeg watershed before the project. In order to address these challenges, the project intended to rehabilitate 5,500 ha of degraded land to enable a 50% increase in area coverage under fodder production on communal areas and reduce soil erosion in plots and gullies within the watershed. The project has given specific attention to treatment of gullies and plots, improved vegetation and pasture development. Watershed logic and interdependencies were fully considered when developing and implementing natural resource development interventions.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 6

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Discussions conducted with the government partners indicate that this outcome is relevant and consistent with FFS. As noted above, the FFS gives due attention to the chronically food insecure and moisture deficit areas like Degua Tembien. Rehabilitation of degraded area to reverse the current trend of degradation is the key priority of FFS which also this project intended to realize. All of the proposed activities are also in line with the objective and the intended impact of the project.

The survey result also shows that almost all of the sample households indicated the seriousness of soil erosion, gully formation and feed shortage threatening their livelihood. Thus, the NRM component addresses the felt needs of the community.

2.2 Production and Income

The second outcome of the project is improving land productivity and income increase. This outcome has two aspects. The first is land productivity aspect, which is much related to outcome one discussed above. The second aspect relates to income increase through improving access to income earning opportunities. This second aspect is closely related to the OFSP/HABP component of the New Coalition for Food Security Programme. Discussions conducted with the government sector offices also indicated that the income generation element of this result is much relevant and in line with the federal and regional priorities.

Discussions conducted with communities also indicated the relevance of project activities planned to ensure improved productivity and income. These activities include organizing IGA groups, prepare market plan for the groups, pilot high value cash crops by at least three groups, document innovative and indigenous methods of high productivity crop production, facilitate market linkage for the Income Generating (IGA) groups, provide productive inputs (irrigation and seeds) and training. The communities further noted that these activities are relevant to improve yield and farm income. Despite this, some IGA groups like the vegetable and silk worm group was unable to reap benefits during the project period due to the limited scale of the engagement and late start of the activity.

2.3 Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

Improved access to clean water, and sanitation and hygiene practices is another key outcome area of the project. This outcome is in line with the MDGs goal of ensuring safe water for all. The key activities planned to realize this outcome include construction of 21 water points plus 2 roof water harvestings structures, establishing and training 21 Water and Sanitation Committees (WATSAN committees), providing refresher training and support for water committees and caretakers in organizational and financial management and technical issues (repairs), hand washing facility and vent pipe supply for construction of pit latrine, providing hygiene and sanitation training, and documenting best practices. The discussions conducted with communities and government officials indicate all of these activities are relevant and consistent with woreda and community priorities.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 7

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

2.4 Institutional Learning

The project intended to draw key programme learning from its engagements under the above three outcome areas for scale-up within the project woreda and beyond. This outcome is consistent with the government’s scale-up programmes to promote the wider use of tested and proven technologies and practices by the rural communities to ensure sustainable livelihoods. Along this, the project has put in place relevant and series of experience sharing forums and documentation of best practices.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 8

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3. Effectiveness

Effectiveness measures the extent to which the project objectives are attained. In this section, the extent to which the project outcomes are achieved are discussed.

3.1 Project Contribution to Household Food Security

The ultimate purpose of the project was to improve household food security situation. Household income was measured to analyze household food security status in the area (Table 3.1). The income is compared with the benchmark per capita income (i.e. Birr 3,000), which was set by the Regional Agriculture Bureau of Tigray for the beneficiaries to graduate out of PSNP. The result indicates that about 33% of the PSNP beneficiaries are earned above the minimum benchmark and can meet their annual food requirement. The baseline result indicates that all PSNP beneficiaries were below the per capita income of Birr 3,000 at the beginning of the project. Key factors underling this improvement include provision of income earning opportunities for the poor, and improved land productivity due to better soil and water conservation practices. Furthermore, the project was integrated with PSNP and other woreda interventions to improve the food security situation.

Table 3.1: Distribution of per capita income (%) Income range Non-PSNP (Birr/Capita) PSNP beneficiaries beneficiaries MHH FHH Total ≤ 1000 18.4 2.9 9.3 10.0 9.4 1001-2000 26.3 8.7 14.0 26.7 16.1 2001-3000 22.4 24.0 20.7 36.7 23.3 3001-4000 11.8 20.2 18.0 10.0 16.7 4001-5000 7.9 8.7 8.0 10.0 8.3 5001-6000 5.3 12.5 10.0 6.7 9.4 6001-7000 5.8 4.0 3.3 7001-8000 2.6 3.8 4.0 3.3 > 8000 5.3 13.5 12.0 10.0 Mean 2,830 5,207 4,530 2,568 4,203 Source: Survey result 2011

Despite this improvement, about 67% of the PSNP beneficiaries and 36% of the non-PSNP beneficiary households earn per capita income of less than Birr 3,000 which signifies the extent of food insecurity in the watershed area. The problem is worse in the case of female headed households since 73% of them encountered food insecurity. Overall, about 51% of the watershed population can achieve the benchmark while the remaining 49% fall below it.

The composition of the household income shows that crop production is a dominant source of income for all social groups (PSNP and non-PSNP beneficiaries, male and female headed households) as shown in Table 3.2. It accounts for 62% of the current household income followed by livestock (Figure 1). Fruits and vegetables account for 8% of the household income while off-farm income accounts for 12%. Female headed households earned the least per capita

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 9

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) income compared to the male counter parts while the PSNP beneficiaries earned less than the average earnings of the non-PSNP households.

Table 3.2: Average income per household (Birr)

PSNP Non-PSNP MHH FHH Total Income source beneficiaries beneficiaries N Income N Income N Income N Income N income Field crops 75 8,160 103 11,464 150 10,929 28 5,478 178 10,072 Fruits and vegetables 17 2,779 40 4,387 53 4,109 4 1,236 57 3,907 Livestock 50 2,545 84 4,714 117 4,216 17 1,762 134 3,905 Off-farm 36 2,342 48 5,409 65 4,898 19 1,344 84 4,094 Total (weighted) 76 10,920 104 17,976 150 16,600 30 6,983 180 14,997 Per capita income (Birr/annum) 2,830 5,207 4,530 2,568 4,203 Source: Survey result (2011 )

Figure 1: Composition of household income (Average= Birr 15,000)

Off farm 12%

Livestock 18% Crop production 62%

Fruits and vegetables 8%

Source: Own survey (2011)

The performance of the project in regard to the four result areas is described as follow:

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 10

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3.2 Increased Productivity of Degraded Land and Reduced Erosion

This is the first major outcome with the following indicator: “by the end of the project, 5,500 hectares of degraded land will become more productive enabling a 50% increase in area coverage under fodder production on communal areas and reduced soil erosion in plots and gullies.” In order to address the core problem of the watershed, the project planned and accomplished different interrelated and mutually supportive activities. The achievements are discussed under sections 3.2.1 to 3.2.3 and the achievements of the milestones under this outcome are summarized in section 3.2.4.

3.2.1 Reducing erosion through treatment of gullies and plots

Reduction of erosion from gullies and vulnerable plots is one of the priority targets of the project. To address this, the project has identified affected areas and carried out various physical and biological soil and water conservation measures (Table 3.3). The implemented physical conservation measures include stone bunds and hillside traces constructed on communal and farmlands while check dams and deep trench were constructed in gully areas. Moreover, 229,712 tree seedlings with soil conservation and economic values (fodder) were planted in collaboration with the woreda Agriculture Office. Overall, 8,796 ha of severely degraded areas were treated as a result. This accounts for 72% of the total land within the watershed and 160% of the plan.

Table 3.3: Type and quantity of SWC activities carried out No Types of structures Unit Quantity /size Area treated (ha) 1 Different types of Stone bund with trench km 667.5 and traces, half moon 825 3 Deep trench M 15986 21 4 Percolation tanks M3 14414 61 5 Single and double check dams with stone M3 and gabion 139380 7,890 6 Total area treated (communal & plots) 8,796 Proportion of land treated of total area 72% Proportion of land treated of farmland 58% Source: Project report and field assessment result (2011)

The impact of these activities is a reduction in soil erosion. Sample sediment formation was taken from two treated gully areas (1ha from each) and two treated communal lands to analyze the level of erosion in the areas. The result shows that the soil and water conservation efforts resulted in a significant reduction of erosion in gully and non-gully areas within the watershed (Table 3.4). Soil erosion declined by 44% in gully areas and 28% in treated plots which is mainly attributed to the conservation works of the project. This has contributed to increased yield as discussed in the next section.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 11

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 3.4: Estimation of soil losses in the sampled target area Areas Baseline data After the project Reduction (ton/ha/yr) (ton/ha/yr) (%) Gully areas 9.1 5.14 44 Treated plots 7.1 5.11 28 Source: Field assessment result (2011)

Photo 3: Rehabilitated gully treatment in Mizan Birhan site

Integration of the NRM activities with PSNP and willingness of the community to provide free labor were among the key factors which contributed to the achievement. The community of the watershed has provided 40days free labor annually to implement the activities. The PSNP PW (public work) labor was fully utilized for implementation of the soil and water conservation activities. Woreda Agriculture Office has played a key role in supplying materials like Gabion and in facilitating the use of PSNP PW labor for the watershed development. The project resource was used only to cover expenses for associated community capacity building, skilled labor and industrial material supply. This means that the project has benefited from the PSNP and free labor contribution which is a significant in terms of non-financial cost of the project.

Careful selection of conservation measures, timely provision of required technical inputs and industrial materials, active community participation, coordinated action between the project and Woreda Agriculture Offices were among the key factors underling the success. Community watershed committees (CWCs) were capacitated to ensure active community involvement in identification of appropriate conservation measures based on comprehensive analysis of the major and sub watershed hydrological units. This has ensured that effort to develop particular watershed area will not undermine other locations including the downstream. The project staffs were also closely working with Woreda Agriculture Office to improve community awareness and required technical inputs. The project has provided required industrial materials like tools and gabion timely. As a result, the constructed physical conservation structures were up to standard and effective in reducing erosion in the project area.

3.2.2 Improving vegetation coverage

The project has intended to improve vegetation cover within the watershed. This was planned to achieve primarily through establishing additional area closures in the area. Accordingly, the project has supported the establishment of about 630 ha area closures in 12 sites. This has

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 12

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) increased the overall area closure by 45% in the watershed (Table 3.5). Moreover, the project has also supported plantation of over 200,000 tree seedlings within the area closures in collaboration with the Woreda Agriculture Office. According to the Woreda Agriculture Office, 84% of the planted seedlings survived. Discussions conducted with communities as well as the assessment team’s field observation indicated that the area closures were well established and protected resulting in vegetation regeneration and improved coverage.

Beyond their conservation values, the area closures have economic values. The beneficiary communities started earning income from the area closure through beekeeping and fodder harvesting. Honey producers cooperatives were organized and started to benefit from the conserved sites. Furthermore, mechanisms were put in place through which the community benefits from pasture development in area closures. This has been effective in some sites while in some areas, these mechanisms have to be strengthened.

Table 3.5: Location of area closures by Tabia in Maizegzeg watershed Sub watershed Area closure Additional Area prior to the closure Increment Area closure sites project (ha) established (ha) (%) Mizanebrhan A/Haitema, G/ mai-beati, Merhib, G/Amokuti 95 116 122 Amanit Giram Melhis, Hamhamo 60 70 117 Aynmbrekinn Mihmas Afras, Adikolkul 138 126 91 Endasilasie Adi-Maeles 605 130 21 Michael Abiyi Tsetsen, Sewhi, Gogon 513 188 37 Total 1,411 630 45 Source: Field assessment result (2011)

Areas where some vegetation exist or likely to exist include Area closures, shrub lands, plantation sites and other forests (e.g. forest around church compound). Existing secondary data and the field assessment result indicate that the overall vegetation coverage in these areas increased by 5%, from 29% to 34% (Table 3.6). The increment was mainly due to increased size of area closure. The vegetation cover is not, however, dense to call it forest except in pocket areas like churches.

Table 3.6: Vegetation cover of the watershed Baseline Baseline End of project End of Vegetation coverage (ha) (%) (ha) project % Area closure 1797.4 15 2427.4 20 Shrub lands 930.4 8 930.4 8 Re/afforestation/plantation 686.3 6 686.3 6 Other forest 94.1 1 94.1 1 Total 3,508.2 29 4,138.2 34 Source: Secondary data and field assessment (2011)

The major credit to the biological conservation goes to the woreda agriculture office which provides the major share of the seedlings. As shown in Table 3.7, about 11% of the surveyed households attributed the seedling sources to the project (through ADCS).

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 13

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 3.7: Proportion of sample respondents by source of seedlings planted on private plots (%) Source of seedling Extension Research Relatives/ Trees/ fodder plants service/BOA ACDS center Markets Neighbor Total Acacia 2.2 1.7 0.6 - 1.1 5.6 Eucalyptus 22.8 3.3 - 0.6 - 26.7 Suspania 2.2 4.4 - - - 6.7 Total 27.8 10.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 40.6 Source: Field assessment result (2011)

3.2.3 Fodder development

Limited fodder availability is one of the key challenges of livestock production in the project area. The project aimed to address this challenge through enclosing and protecting degraded areas to regenerate and plantation of fodder crops and trees within these protected areas. Different fodder trees were planted within the area closures at the 12 sites. Fodder crops like Alfalfa were also planted in selected gullies as biological stabilization measures. The focus group discussions result indicates that these efforts have led to improved fodder availability in the area. During the FGDs, attendants were asked to estimate the size of land from which they can harvest one bundle of grass within the area closure. The result indicates that pasture availability increased by 62%, from the baseline of 1.32ton/ha to 2.18ton/ha (Table 3.8).

Table 3.8: Pasture development in area closure and afforested areas Beneficiary HHs Sample area Kebeles measured ton/ha MHHs FHHs Total HHs Aynmbrekinn 35m2 4.3 675 86 761 M/Berhan 125m2 1.3 325 44 369 Amanit 125m2 1.3 125 35 160 M/Abiy 118m2 1.8 540 80 620 Endasilase 125m2 1.3 362 108 470 Average for all 106m2 2.18 2,027 353 2,380 Source: Field data (2011)

Communities have already started to benefit from the pasture developed in the area closures. Pasture is harvested twice a year, in September and November. This was decided by the host communities based on local potential. About 2,380 families have been benefiting from the grass harvest for animal feed and roof thatch. Cattle owners harvest the pasture and feed their animals on cut and carry system. Households that don’t have animals use the grass for roof covering.

The current productivity of livestock is shown in Table 3.9. The survey respondents indicated that the average milk yield of local cow was about 1.3 lt/day before the project period which is now increased to 2.7 lt per cow per day, an increase of more than 100%. The FDG participants also estimated the increment at 200%. The main reason for the increase is improved access to livestock feed which was a critical factor affecting livestock production.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 14

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 3.9: Productivity of dairy cow due to the project Particulars MHH FHH Total Daily milk per cow, before project (lt) 1.3 1.3 1.3 Daily milk per cow, now (lt) 2.7 2.4 2.7 Increment (%) 111 90 108 N 124 19 143 Source: Household survey (2011)

3.2.4. Achievement of project milestones under NRM

The achievement of project milestones under outcome one is summarized in Table 3.10.

Table 3.10: Achievement of project milestones under outcome one No Milestone plan Acheivement % 1. Land use plans and management arrangements 7 sub 7 sub 100 (including by-laws) have been developed in watersheds watersheds consultation with the community 2. Communal land has been enclosed and is naturally 5,500ha 8,796ha regenerating 160 3. Indigenous methods of soil and water conservation 1 1 100 have been documented 4. Rehabilitated land is providing forage and other 1.98 ton/ha 2.18ton/ha 110 resources to the community 5. Rehabilitation of 5,500 hectares is complete 5,500ha 8,796ha 160 6. Community management arrangements for the 7 sub 7 sub 100 rehabilitated areas have been reviewed by the watersheds watersheds beneficiaries Source: Field assessment result (2011)

The evaluation result indicates that all milestones under this outcome were fully achieved during the project period. More than 8,790 ha communal land rehabilitated and started to provide forage and other resources to the communities; indigenous soil and water conservation methods documented and shared; and resource use plan and management arrangements were developed and reviewed in consultation with community members. The evaluation result also indicates that the resource use plan and management arrangement should be enforced to ensure sustainable use of the protected areas. Furthermore, the watershed technical committees have limited capacity and power to enforce the bylaws.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 15

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Case 1: Area closure contributed to livelihood improvement of households in Amanit

Farmer Giday Abreha is a resident of Amanit Tabia and a member of beekeepers cooperative. He says: “the cooperative was organized by the Maizegzeg project with 14 poor community members (21% female). The project has facilitated the protection of the area closure in our Tabia and provided 28 improved beehives, training and tools to the cooperative. The area closure was well protected and produced flowers for bees enabling production of more honey than before. We harvested 200 kg of honey in two rounds within the year. We (the members) shared the honey for consumption and sales. In turn, each of us contributed Birr 100 for bee colony purchase to expand the business in the near future. Besides, the grass harvested from the area closure has helped the community to engage in fattening and also producer more milk. We harvested the grass twice in a year and used it for animal feeding. This has also helped us to bridge animal feed gap during the dry season, and contributed to reduction of weight or life lose of animals due to feed shortage .”

3.3 Increased Farm Production and Income

The second major outcome of the project states “by the end of the project the value of production per hectare will increase across the watershed and 240 farming households will increase their income by an average of 25%”. The effectiveness in achieving this outcome is discussed under sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 while the milestones are summarized under section 3.3.3.

3.3.1 Crop production

The project intended to increase crop yield through improved land productivity due to improved soil and water conservation practices for households depending on rain fed agriculture; and provision of irrigation facility, seeds and production techniques for households practicing irrigation.

Rain fed farming

The evaluation result indicates that land treatment on communal land, gully areas and farmlands have led to significant yield improvement of major crops grown using rain fed farming. For instance, the wheat yield, which is one of the dominant cereal crops in the area, increased by 20% as compared to the baseline yield (Table 3.11). Communities noted that significant proportion of this yield increment is mainly due to land productivity improvement. The different soil and water conservation practices on communal areas as well as farmlands have enabled them to improve their crop yields. Improvement of farm management practices such as restriction of cattle from grazing on farmland has also contributed to the yield improvement.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 16

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

The project has provided series of community awareness creation programs that would enable them to manage their livestock through cut and carry system. The Woreda Agriculture Office has also further noted that crop yields within Maizegzeg watershed have significantly improved as compared to other watersheds within the woreda.

Table 3.11: Change in crop yield during the project period HHs involved (%) Baseline yield End of project Increment, Crop type (qt/ha) yield (qt/ha) % Barely 100 14 21 48 Wheat 93 15 17 20 Teff 81 8 10 26 Lentils 39 8 10 20 Maize 25 14 23 61 Beans 38 9 11 21 Source: Field data collected in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

Despite this achievement, the actual yield level is far less than the potential. Key informants indicated that wheat yield can reach up to 25qt/ha in the watershed. However, this potential wasn’t realized due to limited utilization of improved seeds and fertilizer in the area.

Irrigated cropping The project has promoted vegetable and fruits production using irrigation. It has organized three vegetable producing groups in three sub watersheds namely Dingilet, Ruwaksa and Maibeati. Water harvesting structures (ponds) were constructed for Dingilet and Maibeati sub watersheds while diversion cannel was constructed for Ruwaksa (Table 3.12).

Table 3.12: Fruit and vegetable groups practicing irrigation Irrigation Irrigation groups Members Vegetables seed Fruit seedlings supplied Structure supplied (kg) & survived (No) Diversion canal Ruwaksa Vegetable and 40 24.5 808 (flood and river) fruit producer group Pond Dingilet vegetable and 30 22 812 apple producer group Pond Maibeati Vegetable and 20 31.75 779 fruit producer group Pump irrigation Ruwaksa women group 10 - 105 Total 100 78.25 2,504 Source: Field exercise in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

The project has provided vegetable seeds, fruit seedling including apple to irrigation users. The vegetable seeds provided include cabbage, tomato, onion, carrot, Swiss chard and lettuce. The fruit seedlings provided include apple, orange, guava, coffee, papaya and banana. Members were given the seeds and seedlings on individual basis while the irrigation schemes belong to the groups. The group members were also provided with trainings on appropriate agronomic practices and post harvest handling.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 17

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

The survey result shows significant vegetable yield variation due to irrigation (Table 3.13). The irrigation users were able to produce up to three times a year. Besides, the number of households growing vegetables and fruits outside the irrigation scheme is also increasing due to sharing of inputs and experience from the project supported groups. For instance, the number of vegetable and fruit growers increased by 12%, from 19% prior to the project to 31% at the end of the project. This indicates an increasing share of fruit and vegetable in the household food availability, diet diversity and income.

Table 3.13: Vegetable productivity with and without irrigation Irrigated yield Non-Irrigated Increase due to Irrigation users Area irrigated (qt/ha) yield (qt/ha) irrigation (%) Vegetables Red onion 100m2 100 50 100 While onion 900m2 33 15 120 Source: FGD in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

The irrigation schemes are innovative engagements. Significant proportion of the irrigation water has come from diverted flood from different locations. The Rubaska diversion is particularly important in this regard. However, this irrigation facility was completed recently. Only 15ha is irrigated so far though the potential is 60ha. This was because of the delayed completion of the scheme and limited water availability. The project constructed 7km access road to facilitate the construction of Rubksa diversion and this has also contributed to the delay.

FGD result indicates that water is available within the canal from April- October only. Though the effort to conserve the upper hydrological units (Dingillet & Ayinberkek sub watersheds) was encouraging, this is not enough to ensure continued use and benefits of the scheme.

Photo 4: Rubaksa irrigation scheme

3.3.2 Income generation activities

The project established its own definition of Income Generation Activities (IGA) which includes off-farm and high value farm activities1. Accordingly, it supported 15 IGAs groups

1 Usual definition of IGA excludes farm activities. The definition followed by the project is not mutually exclusive and cannot lead to conclusive evidence of change in terms of IGA since households involve in By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 18

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) with the aim to increase their income. The groups comprise of 270 poor community members of which 36% is female. Type, location and membership size of the IGA groups are summarized in Table 3.14.

Table 3.14: Summary of 15 IGA groups Type Number and location of Members Product/service type associations Total % Female Vegetable & apple group 1(M/Abiyi) 30 17 Vegetable & apple Vegetable & fruit group 2 (M/Abiyi, Aynbrekekin) 60 28 Vegetable & fruits Beekeeping 3 (Aynbrekekin, M/Abiyi, 55 5 Honey Amanit) Diary association 1 (H/selam & M/abiyi) 12 33 Milk (row and processed) Shoat production 3 (Amanit , Endasilasie. 51 100 Shoats, credit & saving M/berhan) service Soap making 1 (H/Selam) 12 50 Soup

Vegetable and silk worm 1 (Ayinberkakin) 20 5 Silk worm, vegetables, group credit & saving service Groundnut production 2 (M/Abiyi, Amanit) 20 5 Groundnut Apple production 1 (Ayinberkakin) 10 100 Apple Total 15 270 36 Source: Field exercise in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

The income of the 15 IGA groups is summarized in Table 3.15. On average, the IGA members earned about Birr 1,875 from the IGA activities which is considered as extra income over the IGA baseline income of Birr 2,145 making the increase 87% against the target of 25%. Although the constituents of the baseline IGA is not clearly indicated, the evaluation team feels that there is controversy in the meaning of the IGA against the classical definition of it. The survey result reveals that income generation activities (excluding agriculture) include household enterprises, beekeeping, petty trading, wage and employment, handcrafts, etc. of which the participants earned an average income of Birr 4,000.00 during the last one year.

Dairy group members earned the highest income followed by vegetable producers. Dairy members sell about 84% their milk, bee keeping groups (80%), Soap (100%), and groundnut (83%). Different reasons were identified for this. Most of the fruit trees provided by the project are yet to start producing. The vegetable and silk worm group started lately and the quantity of silk produced so far was very limited. Silk worm groups earned from saving and credit engagement and not from sales of silkworm. Apple yield was significantly affected by birds and frost, and what was harvested was also consumed by the household members due to lack of market.

multiple of non-farm income generation activities. Thus, we take as if the baseline is still valid and the income from these activities are extra to the usual IGA income. By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 19

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 3.15: Average income from IGA activities supported by the project Production Income (Birr/HH Coops/Groups Products/services /HH/yr % Sold /year) Dairy Milk 931 lt. 84 4,655 Bee keeping Honey 7 kg 80 1,251 Shoat Shoat, petty trade 3 heads - 905 Vegetables & Vegetables & apple apple 994 kg 44 3,001 Vegetables & fruit Vegetable & fruit 526 kg 71 3,657 Apple group Apple 5 kg 15 123 Soap Soap - 100 225 Vegetable and silk worm group Petty trade - - 255 Groundnut Groundnut 32 kg 83 662 Extra average a income of IGA members (270hhs) from IGA activities supported by the project 1,875 Average income of IGA members from IGA activities (baseline) 2,145 IGAs members’ income increment (%) 87 Source: Household survey and FGDs result in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

Photo 5: Vegetable production (Rubaksa) Photo 6: Soap production (Selam) Photo 7: Dairy (Dingilet)

Photo 8: Goat rearing (M/Berhan) Photo 9: Beekeeping (Aynmbrekinn) Photo 10: Apple (Aynmbrekinn)

3.3.3. Achievement of project milestones under production and income

The achievement of the project milestones under outcome two is summarized in Table 3.16.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 20

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 3.16: Achievement of project milestones under outcome two No Milestones Plan Acheivement % 1. 12 farmer groups have been identified 12 12 100 2. High value cash crops have been planted by the three new 3 3 100 farmer groups 3. Marketing plans for the 13 farmer groups have been 13 12 92 developed 4. Innovative and indigenous methods of high productivity 1 1 100 crop production have been documented 5. Farmers groups are able to sell at least 70% of their produce 70% 68% 97 6. Three irrigation schemes are operational 3 3 100 7. 3 additional farmer groups have been identified from within 3 3 100 8. the most vulnerable communities Source: Field Assessment result (2011)

All the milestones planned under outcome two were fully achieved. Fifteen farmers groups were organized, capacitated and engaged in IGA activities. Three of these groups are engaging in irrigated cropping to produce high value crops. Market plan was developed for 12 farmers groups. Most of the products produced by the IGA groups are locally demanded and there is not significant marketing problem at the moment. However, market linkage can be a major concern as the production scale increases especially for honey, apple and vegetables. Currently, Silk worm product has not been marketed.

3.4 Water Supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

The third outcome is stated as: “the incidence of waterborne diseases amongst the 23,000 target population will be reduced and there will be a minimum 30% increase in the number of people with easier access to potable water”. The extent to which this outcome was achieved is discussed under sections 3.4.1 to 3.4.3 while the milestones are summarized under section 3.4.4.

3.4.1 Access to clean water

The project has developed 23 water points to improve access to clear water within the watershed. These include 15 hand dug wells, 3springs, 3 shallow wells and 2 water harvesting structures (Table 3.17). Woreda Water Office fully participated in the planning and implementation of these water schemes. Similarly, communities also actively participated in the overall process of the schemes and covered 10% of the budget through labor provision and local material supply.

Table 3.17: Water schemes developed by the project and households reached with clean water Kebeles Hand dug well Spring Shallow well Water harvesting Total M/Berhan 2 1 0 0 3 M/Abiy 7 1 0 0 8 A/Berkekin 5 1 1 1 8 Amanit 0 0 2 1 3 Endasilasie 1 0 0 0 1 Total 15 3 3 2 23 Source: Project data and field exercise in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 21

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Water supply in the watershed has improved significantly. As show in Table 3.18, the percentage of households fetching water from river and pond declined and the proportion of households using safe water source has increased significantly. The improvement in water supply has been largely attributed to the project (72%) followed by the water office of the woreda (20%) (see Figure 2).

Table 3.18: Proportion of sample respondents by source of water supply (%) Now % Source of water Baseline (%)* MHH FHH Total change River 12 1.3 1.1 (91) Unprotected spring 23.3 25.3 13.3 23.3 0 Pond 14 11.3 6.7 10.6 (25) Hand dug well 23.8 43.3 43.3 43.3 82 Protected spring 6.2 7.3 10.0 7.8 25 Deep well 15.5 17.3 23.3 18.3 18 Tap water 5.7 23.3 3.3 20.0 251 * Source: Goitom G/Medhin (2008)2

Figure 2: Proportion of respondents attribution improved water supply to agencies Other Community NGOs 7% 1% Government 20%

ADCS 72%

The 20 water points supported by the project has created access to clean water for 1,660 households (Figure 3). One of the hand dug well had quality problem and the 2 roof water harvesting structures were excluded from analysis of access to clean water estimation. The roof water harvesting structures can be used for washing and cleaning. But, these don’t meet the required quality standard for human consumption (drinking). The project has increased access

2 Goitom G/Medhin (2008). Waterborne Diseases Prevalence of Mai-zegzeg Watershed Area, Degua Tembien, Mekelle By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 22

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) to clean water by 34% from the baseline situation of 26.5%. Hence, access to clean water has reached 60%. Communities and woreda stakeholders have witnessed this as remarkable achievement. However, the distribution was not equitable. For instance, access to clean water is very limited in Endasilasie. Besides, nearly 39% of the population still lacks access to clean water in these rural Tabias.

Figure 3: Water schemes developed by the project and households reached with clean water

HHs Coverage (%)

2000 1660

1500

1000 570 500 370 500 170 53% 70% 63% 100% 5037% 60% 0 M/Berhan M/Abiy A/Berkekin Amanit Endasilasie Total

Source: Project data and field exercise in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

Livestock were also benefited from the developed schemes. This is particularly important during dry season when animals face water shortage. For instance, up to 900 cattle were benefiting from the water schemes during the current season in Dingelet site.

Water quality: The FGDs results indicate that water users were satisfied with the water quality of all water points (hand dug well, spring and shallow wells) except the one hand dug well that was constructed at Ruwaksa site. The community noted that the water from this hand dug well has bad odor and this was identified early, before the scheme was sealed. The woreda health office, which bears responsibility for water quality test, had limited human resource and logistics to carry out water quality analysis at the time. Maizegzeg project finalized the contruction of the scheme and handed over to the community before ensuring the quality. As a result, the community members were not using this water point for consumption. Overall, 80% of the sample households rated the quality of water provided by the project as good.

Distance from water points: Distance from the water sources is a problem in the project areas. The survey result shows that a singly trip to water source averages at 17 minutes which means about 35 minutes travel in a round trip. Among those that have access to clean water, only 21% can reach the water points within 30 minutes walk, 30-60 minutes (19%) and above 1 hour (20%). This finding contradicts the report by Goitom G/Medhin (2008) which states that 60% of the sample respondents fetch water within less than 30 minutes walk. The following graph summarizes walking distance from water points in the 5 project Tabias.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 23

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Figure 3: Distance from clean water schemes by Tabia

80 60 40 20 0 M/Abiy A/Berkek Amanit M/Berhan Endas Total 30 minute 24 21 34 18 13 21 30-60 minute 23 20 32 17 12 19 >1hr 23 21 33 18 12 20 No access 30 37 0 47 63 40

Source: Project data and field exercise in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

The result shows that even in Amanit Tabia where access to clean water is fully met, about 33% of the households are required to walk for over an hour to reach the water points. This is particularly important as it impact on women’s workload in the area.

Water quantity: On average, the population in the watershed accesses 19 lt of water per day per adult person (Table 3.19). However, access to required volume of water varies across the project Tabias. For instance, households in M/Abiyi, Amanit and Aynmbrekinn have access to the minimum daily requirement of 20lt per capita. However, it is a serious concern in M/Berhan where households can access 20lt/ per HH in November, December-March (20lt every three days) and April-June (20 lt per week). This implies that a significant proportion of families is still using water from unprotected sources in this Tabia. Lack of water is also a key challenge to improved sanitation and hygiene in the area.

Table 3.19: Evaluation of current access to water Parameters Magnitude Distance to water supply source (minutes per single trip) 17 Queuing time (Minutes) 23 Quantity of water supply evaluated as good (%) 80 Quality of water supply evaluated as good (%) 99 Average water supply (lt/HH) 74 Average per capita water supply (lt) 19 Source: Survey result (2011)

Water committee capacity building: WATSAN committees were established and capacitated for all water points. Each committee has six members (3 male and 3female). All members were provided with series of trainings on improved water management and sanitation and hygiene practices. The FGD results as well as evaluation team’s own observation indicates that the water points were well fenced and protected; users were paying annually for the water maintenance; and member’s contribution and fees deposited in bank using the account opened for this

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 24

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) purpose; community ownership over the water facilities was significantly improved. According to the Woreda Water Office, the water schemes in Maizegzeg watershed are well managed as compared to water schemes in other watersheds within the woreda.

Photo 11: Hand dug well at Rubaksa site Photo 12: WATSAN committee training at H/Selam

Case 2: Access to clean water has reduced women’s workload, contributed to girl’s education and livelihood improvement

Muluberhan Aragay is a resident of Mizan Berhan Tabia. Muluberhan is a mother of children. Muluberhan noted that access to clean water was her major problem prior to Maizegzeg project. She said “We used to travel up to 3hours (round trip) to fetch water from a river. This was a serious challenge for me and other women in my vicinity. Girls missed classes to help their mothers to fetch water. Our children used to suffer from diarrhea and leech infection. The productivity of our animals was also

significantly low due to leech. But, this situation has improved now due to the development of new water scheme in our village. Maizegzeg project has developed the hand dug well and this helped us to access clean water within 30 minutes

walking distance. The health of our children improved. Women workload reduced and girls are freed to attend their school. Suffering of animals reduced and milk productivity improved.”

3.4.2 Sanitation and hygiene service

The project has contributed to improved sanitation and hygiene practices in the area by building the capacity of Health Extension Workers (HEWs) on PHAST (Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation) approach. The project staffs and trained HEWs participated in a

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 25

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) series of awareness creation programs for families, men and women to ensure sanitation of their homes, homestead as well as their personal hygiene. The project has also provided facilities like vent pipe and hand washing devices to 400 selected model households. The FGD results indicate that these efforts resulted in significant improvement of sanitation and hygiene practices and behavior within the watershed. For instance, pit latrine coverage has increased by 22% from the baseline situation of 69% (Table 3.20).

Table 3.20: Access to pit latrine and waste disposal pit in the project Tabia (%) Land use type Ayinberkek M/Berhan Amanit M/Abiyi Endasilasie Average HHs with toilet 91 90 93 91 91 91 HHs with toilet & users 59 80 59 38 59 59 HHs that wash hands after toilet 36 48 37 23 36 36 Access to waste disposal pit and use 72 52 92 72 72 72 Source: Project data and field exercise in Maizegzeg watershed (2011)

Similarly, hand washing practice was increased by 22% from the 14% at the beginning of the project. Besides, more than 70% of are currently utilizing waste disposal pit. The Woreda Health Office has indicated that sanitation and hygiene practices have shown significant improvement among households in Maizegzeg watershed as compared to other watersheds within the woreda. The office further indicated that it was possible to reach more households with health package and graduate them out of the program in Maizegzeg as compared to other watersheds.

3.4.3 Waterborne diseases

Diseases such as diarrhea, scabies, helements and intestinal parasites and pests like leech, were key problems in the area. However, these were significantly reduced as a result of project intervention. For instance, the prevalence of water born disease reduced by 71% i.e. from baseline 7.6% to 2.2%. Scabies is rarely observed in some Tabias like Amanit. Significant number of children and animals were suffering from leech prior to the project. About 3-5 children were reported to be affected by leech per month in some communities like Dingilet and Aynmbrekinn in the past. Similarly, up to five animals die of leech during dry season when a large number of cattle converges at the rivers. They further noted that leech also significantly reduced milk yield. Participants of the FGD indicated that the water schemes developed by the project have helped them to save the lives of their children. Similarly, the schemes have reduced the suffering of their animals and improved productivity.

3.4.4. Achievement of project milestones under water supply, sanitation and hygiene

The evaluation result indicates all milestones under this outcome were achieved during the project period. For instance, 95% of the planned water points (hand dug, spring and shallow wells) were successfully completed and functional; all WATSAN committees trained; water users were paying fees in all locations; water points management arrangement developed in

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 26

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) consultation with water users; and water resource potential technical study conducted and report produced in collaboration with the Woreda Water Office. The achievement of project milestones under this outcome is summarized in Table 3.21.

Table 3.21: Achievement of project milestones under outcome two Milestones Plan Acheivement % 1. 12 water points complete, training in maintenance and 12 12 100 management carried out 2. 9 water points complete, training in maintenance and 9 9 100 management carried out 3. All systems are operational and user fees are being paid 21 20 95 4. Case studies written up on the most successful 1 1 100 community management arrangements and successfully communicated to other development actors 5. Hygiene and Sanitation training carried out and 400 400 100 6. demonstration latrines installed 7. Management arrangements for water points are agreed 21 20 95 (e.g. new committees or existing structures) 8. Production of a technical study 1 1 100 9. Water resource plans (including where to locate water 21 21 100 points) have been agreed by the community Source: Field Assessment result (2011)

3.5 Institutional Learning

Developing and sharing of workable development approaches, practices and results with key actors within the woreda and beyond is among the key priorities of this project. Along this, the project has organized series of learning and experience sharing events and field visits that were attended by key regional bureaus as well as neighboring and the project woreda offices. During these events, the following innovative practices were identified for scale-up within and beyond the project woreda (see Annex 4 for list of executed activities under this result).

3.5.1 Natural resource management Watershed approach: the appropriate application of CBPWSD guideline has led to rehabilitation of degraded land within relatively short period of time. The natural resource interventions were planned based on watershed principles and logics. That is, Maizegzeg watershed was sub divided into sub watersheds. Degraded areas treatment measures were planned by taken into account the interdependencies among the sub watersheds and also in a way that contribute to the treatment of the overall watershed. This has resulted in reaping of multiple benefits during this project period. Moreover, the planning process was led by community aspiration and priorities and this has laid basis for creating self-supporting system. Regional and woreda officials have indicated this as a remarkable achievement and recommended for scale-up. The use of CBPWSD has also helped the project to integrate effectively with PSNP and other interventions to maximize impact.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 27

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Linking area closure with tangible economic benefits to communities: The project has linked some activities like Area Closure with beekeeping and pasture development. Three beekeeping groups were organized and started to use the area closures for honey production. Communities were also benefiting from the pasture harvest from area closures and this has improved productivity of their livestock. The regional and woreda officials noted this as exemplary practice and recommended for scale-up.

3.5.2 Production and income Crop production: The irrigation initiatives were found to be innovative. This is because the flood water that used to damage crops is now changed into productive water that supports crop development. All of the irrigation schemes were flood diversions that were used for fruit and vegetable production. This water was used in different forms (surface irrigation, pump irrigation or drip irrigation) based on the local potential and resource availability. This has helped significant proportion of food insecure households to generate income, diversify their diet and improve nutrition. IGAs: Some IGA activities like dairy, soap making and Apple were identified as innovative practices that should go beyond the project area. The Holstein Friesian dairy cows introduced have adapted to the local environment and able to produce up to 10 lt milk per day under the local management. Different woredas within the region have significant potential for Aloe tree production which is used as raw material for soap production. Apple crop was also proved adaptable and productive under improved crop management practice. These innovative IGAs were found to be profitable business engagements for the poor and FHHs, and hence identified for wider scale-up.

3.5.3 Water supply

Water supply management practice: The project has established separate water management committees for each water point. Women make about 50% of the committee. These committees were capacitated to ensure project sustainability. The improved water supply management practice has significantly contributed to community ownership and sustainability of the schemes, and was identified as key learning for scale-up.

3.5.4 Gender

SILC (Saving and Internal Lending Community) approach: Organizing women into SILC group was identified as successful engagement for women economic empowerment. The process has helped significant proportion of poor FHHs to engage in business activities and generate income.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 28

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3.5.5. Achievement of project milestones under institutional learning

All milestones planned under this outcome were achieved. The project has successfully organized first, second and third visits for the key woreda and regional development actors; training provided and project best practices documented. The project has also organized an event to develop modalities for dissemination of project best practices within and beyond the woreda. However, this milestone was not fully achieved. Further effort is required to clearly identify specific and tested practices for scale-up and mode of their dissemination. The achievement of project milestones under this outcome is summarized in Table 3.22.

Table 3.22: Achievement of project milestones under outcome four Milestones Plan Acheivement % 1. First visit to the project site for key development actors 1 1 100 2. organised 3. Meeting with key development stakeholders has agreed 1 1 100 modalities for coordination/dissemination project results 4. Methodology for documenting project case studies 1 1 100 developed and training carried out 5. Second and third visits to the project site for key 2 2 100 development actors organised 6. 12case studies developed 2 6 300 Source: Field Assessment result (2011)

3.6 Cross Cutting Issues

3.6.1 Gender

The project has set specific targeting criteria that have ensured the inclusion and benefit of poor FHHs and women in MHHs. For instance, IGA activities such as goat/sheep revolving fund and dairy were exclusively provided for the poor FHHs while other IGAs were also provided to male and female farmers. Overall, women members account for 36% in IGAs groups. This has helped FHHs to generate adequate income and avoid renting of their farmland which they used to rent due to input shortage. Besides, women were organized into SILC groups and share their common concerns. Furthermore, the water supply has also significantly reduced women’s workload.

3.6.2 HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is key development concern in the project area. The problem is mainly prevalent among households with ex-soldiers. These households are often among the poor of the poorest in the area and were given priority by the Maizegzeg project. Some of these households benefited from the dairy and vegetable and fruit production interventions of the project. Series of capacity building and trainings were given to the positive living people and other community members to address stigma and discrimination. Furthermore, the sanitation and hygiene education of the project has also included HIV/AIDS messages that have reached significant number of project beneficiaries in the area.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 29

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Case 3: Project support built confidence

Yohanis Hailu lives in Dingillet kushet of M/Abiyi Tabia. He is tested positive. Yohanis is married and a father of 4 children (all under 15 years of age). Yohanis said, “I contracted HIV/AIDS when I was providing a military service. I left the military and joined my family in 2002 at time when the government reduced the military size. I used to support my family through daily labor and cropping on 0.5 ha of land. But, as time passes, I started to get weaker and weaker and finally become sick of HIV/AIDS and unable support my family.

My children were unable to continue schooling due to food shortage and lack of educational materials. It was amidst of this that my family was selected to benefit from the project dairy intervention. I was given one improved dairy cow. The cow calved twice so far, and produced up to 10 lt of milk per day. I drank the milk and this has helped me to revive and withstand the impact of the virus. Also, we earned Birr 40-50 per day from milk sales which enabled us to access enough food and cover school fee for my children. Maizegezeg project has saved my life and helped my kids to attend school.” Photo 13: Yohanis with his wife and cow

Besides, series of capacity building and trainings were given to the persons living with HIV and other community members to address stigma and discrimination. Furthermore, the sanitation and hygiene education of the project has also included HIV/AIDS messages that have reached significant number of project beneficiaries in the area

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 30

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Photo 14: Positive living people training

The survey result shows that about 95% of the sample respondents are aware of HIV/AIDS (Table 3.23). Health Extension workers are the major sources of information while some 63% of the respondents gave credit to the project.

Table 3.23: Knowledge and practices of HIV/AIDS Particulars Frequency Percent No. of persons aware of HIV/AIDS 171 95 Source of information: Health workers 159 93 Mass media like radio & Television 157 92 Training by ADCS project 108 63 Training by other NGOs 39 23 From Community members/neighbors 75 44

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 31

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

4 Project Efficiency

The overall evaluation result indicates that the designed project activities were timely implemented commencing in October, 2007 immediately after finalization of the project agreement with concerned regional bureaus and woreda offices. The implementation began with familiarization of the project purposes and area of intervention at woreda level. The implementation performance under each project outcome is given in Annex 4 and described as follow:

Natural resource management: Most of the planned interventions under this outcome were properly implemented and timely completed. The implementation status of some activities was above the planned target. For instance, the project planned to rehabilitate 5,500 ha of degraded land. Similarly, it was planned to establish 550 ha area closure. In both cases, the accomplishment was above the target by 59% and 14%, respectively. Furthermore, the implementation of these activities was fully integrated with PSNP and other government interventions to maximize impacts and avoid redundancies. Physical conservation structures were properly implemented due to timely provision of the required industrial materials like Gabion and other tools and technical backstopping from the project staffs and concerned woreda sector offices. PSNP PW labor and free labor provision by the communities were the major inputs for execution of the natural resource conservation activities. The project has built strong relationship and trust within the community and this has helped in community mobilization. The project budget went only to the procurement of industrial materials and training for capacity building. This implies that the project implementation was cost effective.

Some quality problem was observed in developing community management institutions to ensure continuity of the rehabilitated communal areas and area closures. The evaluation result indicates that host communities have played limited role during the formulation of these arrangements. In some cases, the watershed committees are also not clear about their duties and have limited power to manage the conserved communal area.

Production and income: The majority of the activities planned under this outcome was completed within the project period. The key project activities under this result include provision of farm inputs such as vegetable seeds and fruit seedlings and trainings to selected farmers, developing irrigation schemes, and organization of IGA groups and provision of trainings and inputs. The overall evaluation result indicates 99% of the plan accomplished. The project planned to organize 15 IGAs groups and accomplished 25% more than the plan. This was because three IGA groups were included as a substitute for risk insurance fund which was originally planned but later rejected by the woreda government due to fear of dependency.

Mixed results have been observed regard the capacity of the cooperatives and groups. All cooperatives/groups developed their own business plan. All of them were provided with relevant technical trainings and inputs related to their business. The coops/groups that were engaged in on-farm activities (fruit, vegetable, and groundnut) were trained on agronomic and post harvest handling practices. Other groups that are engaged in livestock business (dairy, shoat, beekeeping) were also provided with the required husbandry practices and inputs. All groups/coops were also linked with Woreda Cooperative Desk for continued follow-up and

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 32

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report) technical backstopping. All these imply that the planning and implementation were efficient in the sense that integrated approaches to ensure sustainability were considered.

However, silk production started late and the production was too little to enter the market though there is no good indicator of local demand. Similarly, the Ruwaksa irrigation facility was completed lately as it was not part of the original project plan but was included later based on community request and constructed using the budget leftover from other project activities. Only 25% of the members of the irrigation group used the irrigation water to irrigate 27% of the potential land irrigated during the project period. This implies that adequate time was not allocated to ensure the feasibility of the silk worm business and functionality of the irrigation scheme. Woreda Water Office has also contributed budget for implementation of the scheme. This implies that the project was cost effective activities under result two.

Water supply, sanitation and hygiene: Like other results, the project has also timely implemented key activities planned under this outcome. These include the construction of 21 water points, 2 water harvesting structures, organizing WATSAN committees, provision of slab for 400 households and trainings. These activities were fully completed well ahead of the project end. Hence, the project achievement was 100% in this regard. The activities were also implemented in cost effective manner. For instance, the project has developed one hand dug well at cost Birr 24,000. However, the Woreda Water Office develops similar hand dug well at cost of Birr 30,000. This means the project paid Birr 90,000 less for the 15 hand dug wells it developed. Similarly, other water development activities and input provision under this result were accomplished with limited expenses as compared to what the Woreda Water Offices can accomplish with same resource.

Institutional learning: All activities under this outcome were timely and properly accomplished. Series of experience sharing events were organized for regional and woreda stakeholders; cases of successful interventions were documented and shared; and workshop organized to discuss how to take forward and scale-up the best practices. The project has fully met what it sets to achieve under this outcome. However, the identified best practices were not translated into package t facilitates the scale-up process.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 33

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

5. Project Organization and Management

5.1 Project Planning Process

Community Based Participatory Watershed Development (CBPWD) approach guided the overall planning process. The project begun with demarcation of major and sub watersheds. Watershed committees were established and capacitated to carry out the planning process in each sub watershed. The watershed committees and other community representatives identified the problems, socio-economic and bio-physical mapping, prioritized and ranked possible interventions, defined community and other stakeholders’ role and prepared development map of their respective sub watershed based on CBPWD guideline. Woreda sector offices as well as the project staffs facilitated the community level planning process. The process was participatory and this significantly contributed to community ownership of the planned activities and the outputs. Majority of the activities implemented by the project were identified during this community level planning exercises. Other project activities were also identified from ADCS’s earlier pilot learning within Maizegzeg watershed as well as from available best experiences within the region. Furthermore, the project was well fitted within PSNP and other on-going government interventions in such a way they complement one another and maximize synergy.

The project also capitalized on the lessons learned from ADCS’s earlier pilot project within Maizegzeg watershed. ADCS implemented a three years innovative livelihoods learning initiative in collaboration with CAFOD/Trôcaire and Mekelle University which benefited from the research conducted by Mekelle and Belgium universities. The pilot was implemented over small area within the Maizegzeg watershed. The innovative practices and approaches identified from the pilot project were fed into the new project. Similarly, ADCS organized regional level learning workshop to identify available best practices and workable approaches of other development actors within the region. Key regional government bureaus, Mekelle University, regional research office, NGOs and other development actors attended the workshop and contributed to the process which imputed into the project. Furthermore, the project was integrated with PSNP and other on-going government interventions to maximize synergy and impact.

5.2 Project Management

The project designed a management structure at different levels. CAFOD signed the grant contract with the UK Big Lottery Fund, so the CAFOD/Trôcaire/SCIAF JEP in Addis Ababa takes the overall responsibility for overseeing the project implementation. The Senior Livelihoods Programme Officer and the Co-financing Coordinator bear the prime responsibility for overseeing the project. JEP staffs have made regular monitoring and support visits to the project, including two financial management support visits during the project period. There was also a monitoring visit from CAFOD HQ staff in the second year of the project. The ADCS branch in Mekelle was fully involved in the project implementation and supervision.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 34

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

At the woreda level, a project steering committee composed of the JEP, ADCS and woreda stakeholders was formed as key project decision making body over the project activities and resources. The steering committee meets quarterly to discuss on project performance and plan for the subsequent quarter. The steering committee meets at woreda level and this has created opportunities for the relevant sector offices to participate. This process has improved work relationship between the project and other stakeholders as well as project accountability and transparency.

At project level, a team of project staff was setup for the day to day project implementation, and technical and managerial backstopping. The project field staffs include 11 technical staffs: field coordinator, 5 experts, 1 field supervisor and 4 Development Agents (DAs). The composition of the experts covered the major project results including natural resources and agriculture, water engineer, health/sanitarian, capacity building and gender, and monitoring and evaluation. ADCS has constructed field office in Hagereselam to facilitate close supervision and follow –up on the project implementation. Staff turnover was a key challenge to the project. For instance, the former project coordinator quitted at the mid of the project. Monitoring and evaluation, water engineer and one DA positions were vacant since couple of months. Despite this, the existing project staffs are motivated and committed to accomplish the remaining tasks. They were able to reach and provide frequent technical back-up to communities, despite the unsuitable road access and difficult landscape. Some locations like Ruwaksa where the project has several interventions, is difficult to access even by vehicle. Hence, the project staffs were traveling on foot to reach these difficult locations and bring about improvement in the life of the poor. Besides, the staffs were also closely working with woreda government officials and experts.

At watershed and sub-watershed levels, watershed management committees, Water management committees, group leaders and the community at large are responsible for the implementation of the projects with the technical backstopping of the project DAs.

The project established baseline through a study commissioned for the purpose, conducted peer review and mid-term evaluation and responded to the comments. The project management is adequate and produced annual and bi-annual reports. For instance, ADCS and the JEP have prepared and submitted detailed narrative and financial reports to the Big Lottery bi-annually, in October and April each year.

5.3 Budget Allocation and Utilization

The project budget is £807,782 funded by UK Big Lottery (£532,269) and CAFOD/Trôcaire (£275,513) (see Annex 7). Assessing the nature of budget allocation shows that project inputs defined under results has been allocated 41% of the total budget (Figure 5.1) of which the NRM was allocated only 3% of the total budget indicating the major contribution from the community. The second largest budget (36%) was allocated to project running cost which is actually shared by the project results. Overhead accounts for 5% of the budget which is reasonable. Of the total budget, 88.3% was utilized up to the 14th day of September 2011 (Table 5.1). A balance of about Birr 1.8 million (£ 67,000 at a current exchange rate) is available.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 35

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Figure 4: Budget allocation £807,782 Capacity Overhead NRM Production building- 5% 3% and income training 6% 10% WASH 22%

Project running cost Field (field office) office, Capital 36% 15%

Institutional learning 3%

Table 5.1: Budget utilization until September 14, 2011 (Birr) Budget (4 Expenditure Utilized Components years) (4 years) Balance (%) DIRECT PROJECT COSTS Total salaries and benefits 3,311,289 2,807,599 503,690 84.8 Office Expenses (field office) 385,907 384,256 1,650 99.6 Travel and monitoring expenses 327,936 317,868 10,068 96.9 Training of ADCS staff 357,070 315,017 42,053 88.2 Vehicle insurance and running costs 500,173 528,889 (28,716) 105.7 Survey and studies 392,687 421,105 (28,418) 107.2 Training of beneficiaries 1,115,477 941,914 173,563 84.4 Rent, electricity, water maintenance (ADCS Mekelle office) 393,611 390,845 2,767 99.3 Audit and legal fees 92,891 - 92,891 Networking and conferences 52,673 35,654 17,019 67.7 Project outcome one: Degraded land sustainably rehabilitated 468,681 415,851 52,830 88.7 Project outcome two: Increased agricultural income 904,482 949,279 (44,797) 105.0 Project outcome three: Improved health through access to water and sanitation 3,588,155 3,600,082 (11,927) 100.3 Project outcome four: Institutionalization of successful project approaches 573,791 365,842 207,949 63.8 Sub-total 12,464,821 11,474,200 990,621 92.1 CAPITAL COSTS Site office construction 366,961 224,242 142,719 61.1 Equipment and material purchase 1,043,105 1,019,262 23,843 97.7 Purchase of vehicle and motorbikes 1,486,356 846,062 640,294 56.9 Sub-total 2,896,422 2,089,566 806,856 72.1 Total 15,361,242 13,563,766 1,797,477 88.3

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 36

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

6. Project Impacts

The project has shown significant potential impacts that if sustainably managed can result in improved livelihood. The following are the major impacts:

i) Natural Resource Management:

 Water supply discharge rate and irrigation potential has increased due to improved treatment of the upper catchment by the project. Communities indicated that water supply discharge rate is improving over time. New springs have started flowing at some locations. Irrigation users also indicated that the amount of water available for irrigation is increasing (See also Table 6.1).

 Degraded areas and gullies rehabilitated and became productive land. The rehabilitated land started to produce grass. The grass harvested from area closures is reported to contribute to increased milk productivity. Area closures also became source of bee forage which is said to increase honey production. About 91% of the surveyed households also indicated that the vegetation has been rehabilitated (Table 6.1).

 Flood risk reduced: Flood risk was one of the major problems in the area. Flood was causes for crop damage and population displacement in the area. However, this problem is reduced due to the construction of various flood diversion canals and gully treatment. This benefit has also been confirmed by 94% of the sample households (Table 6.2.)

Table 6.1: Proportion of respondents stating advantages of area closure (%) Advantages MHH FHH Total Vegetation rehabilitated 91 96 91 Springs discharge increased 79 75 78 Bee forage/flowers increased 89 93 89 Livestock feed made available 73 86 75 Wood made available for construction and firewood 77 86 78 The climate improved 35 43 36 Gully rehabilitated 82 71 80 Grass made available for house construction 5 4 5 N 147 28 175

 Increased economic and social benefits: The quantitative study is also consistent with the beneficiaries’ observation of the impacts that have been experienced in the watershed. Table 6.2 shows the proportion of the respondents that state the impacts of the NRM implemented by the project. The result shows that the largest proportion of the respondents indicated positive impact of NRM on erosion reduction, yield increase, milk productivity and vegetation cover.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 37

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 6.2: Proportion of respondents stating the impacts of NRM supported by the project (%) Impacts MHH FHH Total Reduced erosion hazard, social stability 97 83 94 Increased crop yield 78 70 76 Increased milk productivity 89 82 88 N 148 30 178

 Road access improved: Access road damage due to flood and gully formation was key challenge in the past but this has been partly reduced due to the gully treatment and overall conservation within the watershed. Thus, communication between villages in the different sub-watersheds increased.  Distance travelled to collect firewood reduced by 35% from about 1.5 hr before the project to half an hour after the project.

 Knowledge gained: the training and exposure visits facilitated by the project created good knowledge base for sustainable management of watershed.

ii) Production and income:

 Household asset disposal to buy food reduced: Households used to sell their livestock to buy food during food gap period. But, now this has significantly reduced as poor households are able to produce enough food to feed their family. Also, the increased income due to IGAs has helped poor families to access food from the market.

 Household asset creation: The income generation activities have helped project beneficiaries to earn better income and create productive assets that will further improve their productivity. This was particularly observed among the IGA group members. The result of the survey indicates that the proportion of the households who own livestock increased by 11% compared to the situation before the project. The average livestock holding increased only for the PSNP beneficiaries (by 17%) and the female headed households (by about 40%) while the livestock holding of the non-PSNP beneficiaries declined by about 13% (Table 6.3). This indicates that the project targeting the poor may result in food security but not necessarily result in economic growth.

Table 6.3: Livestock ownership before and after the project Types of livestock own PSNP Non-PSNP MHH FHH Total Households owning livestock (%) Before the project 66 72 33 250 69 Now 70 83 35 287 77 Change (%) 6 15 6 15 11 Average holding (TLU/HH) Before the project 1.9 4.6 3.8 1.5 3.5 Now 2.2 4.0 3.5 2.2 3.3 Increase in livestock holding (%) 16.9 (12.9) (8.7) 39.7 (5.5)

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 38

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

The case 4 below also exemplify the extent of the asset building impact of the project.

Case 4: Impacts of vegetable production

Mezgebu G/Michael lives in Dingelet Kushet. He is one of the poor farmers. Produce vegetables of different type using irrigation, three times a year and earned about Birr 9,000 per year. The income helped him to cover education costs for his children, enabled him to buy an ox, 4 sheep and donkey; hence, created asset he did not have before the project.

He also benefited from the sanitation and hygiene education which helped his family to take preventive measures and live a healthy life.

 Diet diversification: Generally, the project woreda is not known for production of fruits and vegetables. Hence, households rarely consumed fruits and vegetables in the area. This situation has currently changed due to the project intervention. The population of the watershed is increasingly including vegetables into their food consumption menu.  Improved gender empowerment: The project involved female headed households and women in the income generation activities. Thus, women are now involved in income generation activities and the decision on the income generated.

iii) Water supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

 Water born disease reduced: Water born diseases such as diarrhea and scabies and leech are commonly known in the area. Limited access to clean water was the major problem prior to this project. Currently, this situation has significantly improved as the project has enabled most of the communities to access clean water.

 Livestock suffering and death reduced: This is mainly due to reduction of the risk of leech, which was a threat to livestock production and productivity. Communities indicated that their cattle not only suffered but also died due to leech unless timely treated. Livestock milk productivity significantly reduced when affected by leech. This situation has improved due to improved access to clean water from which cattle were also benefited.

 Women workload reduced: According the FGD results, women used to travel up to 3 hrs to fetch water from rivers in the past. Girls used to miss school to support their mothers to fetch water. Currently, this situation was improved as significant proportion of women are able to access water within relatively a shorter distance. This has also facilitated girls education. Table 6.4 shows the proportion of the respondents who indicated the impacts of water supply intervention.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 39

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Table 6.4: Proportion of respondents indicating the major benefits obtained from the water supply constructed by the project (%) Impacts % of respondents Distance reduced 86 Quality improved 89 Water born disease reduced 90 Queuing time reduced 76 Personal hygiene improved 91 Time for other work available 72 Children got time to go to school and study 62 Child care increased 58

 Improved hygiene and sanitation: As shown in Table 6.5, about 97% of the sample respondents won pit latrine, most of which was constructed during the project period. As a result, incidence of water born disease is low. Table 6.6 also reveal positive change in attitude which has been attributed to the project.

Table 6.5: Pit latrine ownership and Items Frequency Percent No. of HHs having pit latrine 174 97 Average number of years since the pit latrine was constructed 3 Proportion of pit latrine constructed during the last 4 years 90 Proportion using the pit latrine 172 99 Incidence of diarrhea last 12 months 4 2

Table 6.6: Changes reported due to water and sanitation interventions of the project Impacts Frequency % Livestock and human do not live in the same house 145 81 Improved personal hygiene 165 91 Improved housing hygiene 165 92 Hand washing during critical times 141 78 Keeping food and drinking water clean 138 77

 Community capacity built: One of the major impact of the project is the capacity it created through institutional learning. The knowledge created is a major cause for the positive impacts in NRM, income generation and water resources management.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 40

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

7. Sustainability

Sustainability of the project is affected by the economic, social and environmental benefits the project brings about. Moreover, technological feasibility and affordability also matter. For income generation activities, market and financial institutions determine the extent to which the intervention sustains. In all these aspects, except with the silk, honey and apple which require a stronger market linkage to sustain, factors that ensure sustainability of most of the project impacts prevail. These include:

 Interventions are demand driven and addressed critical challenges in the watershed;  The planning and implementation are participatory which ensures ownership and cost sharing with the beneficiary communities;  Market demand for most of the project exist e.g. dairy, fruits and vegetables.  Institutional linkage is strong through involvement of the woreda stakeholders and establishing and strengthening community institutions; and  Capacity building through training and experience sharing created local knowledge.

i) Natural Resource Management

Natural resource conservation activities brought multiple benefits to the community which fulfill the needs of the community. These include improved land productivity, better access to fodder, honey yield increased and access between communities facilitated. Table 7.1 shows some of the indicators of sustainability of the NRM.

Table 7.1 Proportion of sample respondents indicating sustainability of NRM Sustainability indicators MHH FHH Total Ownership (feels belongs to the farmer) 97 100 97 Feels the conserved area will provide fodder for longer period 94 90 94 Mechanism for fair and sustainable distribution of fodder in place 97 93 96 Source: Own survey (2011)

Only a small proportion of the respondents externalize the ownership of the area conserved and attribute it to other bodies like the government, ADCS and the community. This has implication on sustainability. Although most of the respondents feel that the area closed belongs to them, a significant proportion also externalizes management of the area closure (Table 7.2). Only 28% of the respondents expect the community to manage it while 54% expect the watershed committee to manage it. The rest expects non-community institutions to take the management responsibility. These are not a good indicator for sustainability of the area closure.

Table 7.2: Significant number of beneficiaries still externalize the management of the area closure Who should manage area closure? N % Woreda Agriculture Office 21 12 Watershed committees 98 54 ADCS 42 23 The community 51 28

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 41

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Increase impact of the NRM also depends on the scale of the intervention. About 38% communal land and 42% of farmland still require further treatment. Treatment of this area is crucial as all sub watershed areas are interrelated. For instance, only 50% of the gullies were treated in Amanit sub watershed. In other locations, only the upstream of gullies were treated. The impacts of the NRM may be reversed if parts of the watershed which is not treated is timely conserved as the sub watersheds within the project area are interacting and interdependent.

Moreover, ensuring continuity of the benefits of the NRM requires strengthening the watershed committees and addressing gaps in community ownership (area closure bylaws). For instance, some communities didn’t put in place clearly defined mechanisms to ensure continuity of the area closures and equitable distribution of benefits thereof (e.g. M/berhan, Amanit, Rubaksa). Even when there are bylaws, the communities have limited role as DAs and Tabia administration have given significant power to decide over the resource. The overall management is not strong because community members have limited involvement in developing the bylaws. In most of the cases, area closures were handed over to Tabia Administration and watershed committees. However, the watershed committee has limited capacity to enforce the bylaws and manage the area closures.

ii) Production and income

The income generation component of the project also intended to improve income through product development and improved market linkage. Along this, the project has provided technical capacity building and the required inputs. The project has also linked some groups such as the beekeeping cooperatives with other honey producing cooperatives to enable them get better price for their products. This engagement has enabled some groups like vegetable and fruit producers to get better prices for their produce. These groups have been selling tomato for up to Birr 6 per kg or papaya for up to Birr 10 per piece. Market is also not a problem for the dairy, shoat or groundnuts as the existing demand within the woreda is far more than the supply. The project attempted to link the honey producing cooperatives to buyers which sell the product to the regional market without value addition. As a result, the coops opted to sell the honey in the local market or sell it in Mekelle town by their own, which a good marketing strategy. Other IGA groups like apple and silk worm producing groups also need appropriate market linkage to benefit from their business engagement.

Benefits observed under this result are likely to continue after the project. Most of the IGAs groups have proved that their business engagement is lucrative. Besides, only 7 out of 15 IGA groups were legally registered so far. In some cases, even the certified cooperatives lack strong leadership skill (e.g. dairy cooperatives, vegetable & fruit group in Rubaksa) while others lack business profitability analysis skill (e.g. soup group).

Sustainable use of the irrigation scheme requires more efforts in gully treatment which implies the need for design and implementation of more conservation measures at upstream to replenish irrigation water downstream.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 42

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

iii) Water supply, Sanitation and Hygiene

As noted under NRM above, sustainability of the project constructed water supplies is contingent on level of moisture replenishment and conservation within Maizegzeg watershed. This entails efforts to protect all affected areas as well as maintenance of conserved areas is necessary. A good indicator of sustainability of the water management is the capacity of the water management committees which seems adequate at the moment. About 64% of the surveyed households indicated that they participated in training on water management for 5 days in two rounds. However, water care takers lack adequate technical capacity and tools to ensure continuity of the resources. Almost all of the respondents (99%) feel that the water structure belongs to them and 96% feel that the water supply will serve for longer period. Moreover, 92% of the sample respondents indicated that they pay for the water they use while the remaining 8% are fetching water from other sources.

A point of concern affecting sustainability is the beneficiaries expectation of maintaining the water supply facilities in the case of damage. It appears that most of the survey respondents (69%) expect the ADCS to make the maintenance (Table 7.3). This response emerges from lack specifically assigned and capacitated body for maintenance. The project has provided water maintenance training for the WATSAN committees. However, the trained committee members have limited skill to carry out maintenance activities at times of scheme failures. Besides, few WATSANs were provided with water maintenance tools while other committees were not. This implies the need to build the capacity of WATSAN committees to properly carry out maintenance activities and link them with Woreda Water Resource Development Office for continued technical, material and managerial support.

Table 7.3: Expectation on who should maintain the water supply constructed by the project Responsible institution % of respondents Woreda water office 12 Trained community members 38 ADCS 69 Trained workers employed by the community 12 Community members 18

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 43

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

8. Strength, Weakness/Challenges and Lessons

8.1 Strengths

The project has important strong elements that contributed to its effective implementation. The following are the major ones.

i) Watershed approach was fully implemented. This has contributed to improved productivity and environmental conservation. The project components within the watershed are complementary.

ii) The project planning and implementation processes are participatory which significantly contributed to community ownership of the development process and outcomes.

iii) The project was strongly integrated with PSNP to reduce cost and maximize synergy. The PSNP PW labor was fully utilized for rehabilitation and conservation of the natural resource base of the area. While the project has provide capacity building for the PSNP (e.g. DAs and Forman trained, industrial materials supplied, etc). The woreda sector offices have learnt from the approach how to integrate other development works with PSNP.

iv) Area closures were linked with meaningful economic benefits (honey production, pasture) and this has contributed to sustainability.

v) ADCS has also built strong partnership and alliance with government offices and communities. This has helped the project to easily mobilize community members to actively involve in the overall project processes. For instance, about 123,630 persons days were mobilized for the soil and water conservation works freely. This roughly equals to Birr 2,225,340 (£85,590) if paid in cash at the local labor rate of Birr 18 per person day. This shows that the community members have built confidence and trust over the project. Similarly, sector offices were closely involving and contributing to the project. Government contribution to the project was not limited to technical matters but also includes in kind (e.g. gabion) (e.g. Rubaksa irrigation scheme).

vi) The project has given due attention to the vulnerable social groups such as the poor FHHs and PSNP beneficiaries resulting in increased income and empowerment.

vii) The project management was participatory, responsive and flexible. For instance, the project has removed the risk insurance fund originally planned based on the recommendation from the woreda government, and replaced this with cash crops production support, which resulted in a significant income improvement for those involved.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 44

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

viii) The project has introduced innovative income generating activities and approaches like high value cash crops that have significant potential for improving household income in the area.

ix) Poor FHHs and positive living people were benefited from the project.

8.2 Weakness/Challenges

i) Limited attention was given to plantation to rehabilitate the degraded areas. For instance, Area closures were enclosed and protected to regenerate naturally. Efforts to introduce additional tree plantation in these areas were very limited.

ii) Limited community involvement and ownership over the developed bylaws for management of the protected areas. Area closures were transferred to Tabia Administrations and watershed management committees. However, the watershed committees have limited capacity to enforce these bylaws.

iii) Only 7 out of 15 IGA groups were formally registered as cooperatives during the project period. Though the law to register the SILC groups is not in place, other cooperatives should be registered. iv) Effort to link the IGA groups with market was limited for some of the groups such as apple and silk worm groups.

v) Water care takers have limited capacity and tools to ensure minimum maintenance of the water supply. vi) Although many of the water supply facilities were successful, the hand dug in Rubaksa failed to supply potable water.

8.3 Lesson Learned

i) Watershed approach if properly implemented would led to improved farm productivity and income, improved water discharge rate, and harnessed irrigation potential.

ii) Degraded lands and gullies can be changed into productive land resource if rehabilitated and properly management. This requires commitment and ownership by all stakeholders.

iii) Community can improve the livelihoods of its people and the local environment if it is well mobilized and given the chance to fully involve in the overall development process.

iv) The project integration with PSNP and other ongoing interventions has improved impact and synergy.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 45

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

v) WATSAN committees have sufficient capacity to ensure sustainability of the water supply sources. In addition to training and technical support, demand driven intervention has better chance for uptake and sustainability.

vi) ADCS’s strong partnership, trust and confidence with the communities and other stakeholders has led to the project success. vii) IGA activities such as fruit and vegetables, dairy, apple, goat/sheep revolving funds, groundnut production and beekeeping are all feasible business activities that can be scaled up within and beyond the project woreda. This implies that market demand driven intervention has higher chances for success.

viii) Capacity building as an integral element of project activities is essential.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 46

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

9. Conclusions and Recommendations

It can be concluded that the project has attained its overall objectives. It is, however, far from concluding that the problem of natural resources degradation and food insecurity can be achieved in such a short project life. It is apparent that a good proportion of the households in the watershed still live under poverty. Therefore, a more concerted effort is needed to bring the community of the watershed out of poverty. The following major recommendations are suggested.

i) Develop scale-up package: Prepare scale-up package or guide for the tested and successful technologies and approaches identified by the woreda stakeholders for dissemination within and beyond the project woreda (for detail on these see 3.5 institutional learning).

ii) More rehabilitation works: give due focus to rehabilitate and treat areas within the watershed that were not treated during this project period. The FGD estimate indicated that only 62% of communal areas and 58% of farmlands were treated so far. According to the woreda Agriculture Office, about 70% of the degraded areas within Maizegzeg watershed were treated so far. In both cases, the watershed was not fully covered. The benefits observed so far is likely to be reversed if action is not taken timely to rehabilitate those pocket areas so that the negative effect will not ruin the positive results and sustain the impact. Equal emphasis should be given to plantation of multipurpose trees in the protected areas including area closures.

iii) Revise community bylaws: Revise community bylaws to improve community ownership over the management of the protected areas. Also, build the capacity of the watershed committees and link them with appropriate structure to ensure sustainability of the protected areas.

iv) Water supply structure maintenance: Build the capacity of WATSAN committees, provide them with required set of tools to ensure maintenance of the water supply sources, and link them with Woreda Water Resource Development Office to ensure continued support.

v) Capacitate and link IGA groups with market: Support the IGA groups to attain legal entity. Conduct value chain analysis for the selected commodities and develop value chain development strategy. This will enable appropriate linkage of the groups with market and support providers for technical and managerial back stopping.

vi) Ensure proper functioning of Rubaksa irrigation scheme before handing over to the community and the government.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 47

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Annexes

Annex 1: Terms of Reference (TOR) for Final Evaluation

Project title: Natural resources conservation and livelihoods innovation Lead agency: Catholic Agency for Overseas Development (CAFOD) Project reference: ICB-1010248993 Country: Ethiopia Local partner: Adigrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat (ADCS)

1. Introduction Adigrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat (ADCS), with financial and technical support from CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF Joint Ethiopia Programme (JEP3), is implementing the Natural Resources Conservation and Livelihoods Innovation Project with a total budget of £807,782. The project is co-financed as follows:

Funding source Amount % contribution UK Big Lottery (original grant) £ 479,489 59% Additional Funds (2009) £ 20,000 3% Exchange gain on Big Lottery Y3 funds £ 10,526 1% Exchange gain on Big Lottery Y4 funds £ 22,254 3% Trόcaire/CAFOD £272,446 34% Exchange gain on CAFOD Y4 funds £ 3,067 Less than 0% Total £ 807,782 100%

The project is designed to benefit 23,000 beneficiary households in Maizegzeg watershed in Degua Tembien woreda, Tigray Regional State. The project covers seven Tabias: Amanit; Hagereselam; Michael Abiyi; Mizan Brhan; Aynmbrkekinn; Endaselassie; and Selam. The goal of the project is improved food security of target households and the wider community in Maizegzeg watershed and the project has adopted an integrated watershed management approach.

The four project outcomes are: 1. By the end of the project, 5,500 hectares of degraded land will become more productive, enabling a 50% increase in area coverage under fodder production on communal areas and reduced soil erosion in plots and gullies. 2. By the end of the project, the value of production per hectare will increase across the watershed and 240 farming households will increase their income by an average of 25%.

3 Trόcaire, CAFOD and SCIAF are the official Catholic relief and development agencies of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. In Ethiopia the three agencies work collaboratively through a joint country programme. CAFOD is the lead agency for this project, but through the Joint Ethiopia Programme (JEP) draws on the resources and expertise of Trόcaire and SCIAF. By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 48

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3. The incidence of waterborne diseases amongst the 23,000 target population will be reduced and there will be a minimum 30% increase in the number of people with easier access to potable water. 4. Maizegzeg watershed becomes a showcase of learning to influence government and other development actors within and beyond Tigray region, with at least two aspects from that learning taken up on a wider scale within the lifetime of the project.

The main activities in each of the four components are: 1. Natural resource management  Rehabilitation of 5,500 hectares and enclosure of 550 hectares of communal land, providing forage and other resources to the community  Establish community management arrangements for the rehabilitated areas  Document indigenous methods of soil and water conservation  Develop participatory community land use plans and management arrangements

2. Increased production and income  Establish 15 farmers groups producing and marketing high value products  Support farmers with business and marketing planning  Document innovative and indigenous methods of high productivity crop production  Support groups in establishing savings and internal lending communities  Construct three irrigation schemes

3. Access to potable water  Develop participatory community water resource plans  Construct 21 water points and put in place community management arrangements  Provide training on hygiene and sanitation and instal demonstration latrines  Undertake a technical study

4. Institutionalisation of learning  Organise visits to project sites for key development actors  Agree modalities for information and learning exchange with key development actors  Provide training on the documentation of case studies  Develop case studies in each component of the project

Each project outcome has a number of related milestones and measurable indicators that can be found in the detailed project document.

Implementation of the four-year project began in October 2007 and the project will be terminated at the end of September 2011. In February/March 2010 the project underwent a participatory mid-term evaluation. The evaluation, led by an independent local consultant, revealed a number of findings and related recommendations. The recommendations and management response to these are included in Annex 1.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 49

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

As the project draws to a conclusion, ADCS and their partners, CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF Joint Ethiopia Programme and the UK Big Lottery, want to conduct a final project evaluation by an independent body.

2. Objectives of the evaluation In summary, the evaluation will assess to what extent the project outcomes have been achieved and what impacts have been made, and it will identify the learning points, issues/challenges and the way forward. Specifically, the evaluation will assess the overall project relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

The evaluation will assess to what extent the four project outcomes have been achieved and what impacts have been made, and it will identify the good practices, learning points and challenges. This will include but not be limited to:  Providing a full description of the activities carried out and the results achieved according to the project documents;  Making an assessment of the success of the project in achieving the outcomes set out in the project documents;  Assessing the impact of the project on different target groups and how the situation of these groups has changed;  Assessing the extent to which the impact, if there is one, is due to the project intervention or due to other factors;  Analyzing the cost of the project and assessing whether this is reasonable in the context and whether the resources have been used as efficiently as possible;  Drawing key lessons from the implementation and management processes of the project including an analysis of the roles of ADCS, CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF and the UK Big Lottery;  Providing recommendations that can guide learning from the experiences gained as a result of implementing this project, and how these experiences can be used to influence others in the future course of action or follow up

2.1 Relevance  To what extent are the project’s outcomes responding to the needs and priorities of stakeholders, particularly the beneficiaries and the wider communities living in the watershed?  To what extent is the project design aligned to regional and national priorities and strategies?  To what extent will achievement of the project outcomes address the issues identified in the problem analysis?

2.2 Efficiency  How well have the activities transformed the available resources into the intended results, in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness?  To what extent have the necessary resources been made available to the project as planned and on time?  To what extent has the project been implemented in a timely and cost-effective manner?

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 50

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

 Do the quality and quantity of the achievements (milestones and outcomes) justify the resources used?  How does the utilization of resources compare to the plan and budget?

2.3 Effectiveness  To what extent have the activities contributed to the achievement of milestones and to what extent have these contributed to the realization of the outcomes?  Have all the planned activities been implemented?  Where changes have been made to activities, have these been effectively planned and implemented?  Has the project achieved the four outcomes?  Which factors have contributed to the effectiveness of the project or have proven to be a constraint?

2.4 Impact  What wider effects and changes have been caused by the project?  The review will analyze the perception of the beneficiaries concerning the impact of the project components.  Has there been any unexpected outcome or impact?

2.5 Sustainability  Is it likely that the project’s positive effects will continue after support of the project is withdrawn?  To what extent have the beneficiaries been involved during the different stages of the project? What is the analysis of the level of beneficiary ownership of project activities and achievements and whether this will contribute to sustainability?  To what extent have the local authorities and other stakeholders been involved during implementation and monitoring of the project, and will this continue after the project phases out?

2.6 Cross-cutting issues

2.6.1 Gender  To what extent and how have the planning, implementation and monitoring of activities demonstrated gender sensitivity?  What is the gender disaggregation of project staff, committee members and beneficiaries?  How successful have the gender mainstreaming initiatives been? It is important to be clear on what gender mainstreaming is, and to give examples of how this has been done and what has been the result/impact.

2.6.2 HIV and AIDS  How successful have been the efforts to integrate and mainstream HIV and AIDS into the project? It is important to be clear on what HIV mainstreaming is and to give examples of how this has been done and what has been the result/impact.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 51

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

2.6.3 Environment  What specific activities have targeted environmental issues? What has been the result/impact of these?  How sustainable are the environmental results/impacts?

3. Methodology

The consultant, in consultation with ADCS and CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF, will develop the evaluation methodology. The evaluation team will be led by an independent consultant, accompanied by a team comprising staff from the monitoring and evaluation unit of ADCS, programme staff from CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF and expertise from relevant government sector offices. The approach will be multi-disciplinary, participatory and interactive. The consultant will use primary and secondary data collection methods. Primary data will be collected through questionnaire, interview, focus group discussion and observation. Secondary data will be collected by reviewing documentation from the project office and the offices of key stakeholders. A checklist of topics for participatory review will be agreed with ADCS and CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF staff at the start of the evaluation.

Assessment of the technical merit and appropriateness of the intervention will be made through a series of field visits to the watershed during the evaluation period. The key informants of project progress will be the formal and informal institutions with which the project has worked. For the purposes of the evaluation, these will be divided between local, woreda and regional partner government institutions both technical and administrative, and the beneficiaries as individuals and as members of watershed committees, cooperatives, farmers groups, women’s associations, WATSAN committees and other organised groups. The methodology and sample size will be detailed in the inception report and agreed with ADCS before the field work commences. The consultant will ensure that women are fully represented. The project staff will be asked to arrange, with the local groups concerned, the necessary focus group discussions to allow progress to be assessed.

4. Activities to be undertaken by the consultant 4.1 Document review The consultant will carry out an in-depth review of documents relating to the project, which will be provided at the start of the assignment. The documents will include, but not be limited to:  project proposal (including documentation of revisions to milestones)  project budget (including documentation of major budget revisions)  Project agreement with the funding partners, local partners and concerned regional bureaus, local authorities  mid-year and end of year reports to the UK Big Lottery  mid-term evaluation report and management response  studies undertaken by the project

An inception report will be submitted by the consultant with details of proposed methodologies, questionnaires, checklists, etc for the evaluation exercise.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 52

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

4.2 Field work This will include visits to key project sites to observe activities and outputs. The consultant will submit a work plan with an indicative list of people to be interviewed, dates of visit, itinerary and names of team members. The consultant will hold a briefing meeting with project staff and management at the start of the field mission, and will conduct focus group and/or bilateral discussions with community members, staff from government sector offices, ADCS Maizegzeg project staff and other development actors in the area. The consultant will ensure adequate consultation with, and involvement of, the stakeholders, in keeping with the interactive evaluation approach being taken. The consultant will summarize the field work at the end of the mission and present preliminary findings in a meeting with project staff, management and government stakeholders.

4.3 Reports The consultant will provide reports, in English, as follows:  An inception report of maximum 12 pages to be produced after 40 days from the start of the consultancy and before the field work commences. In the report the consultant shall describe in detail the proposed methodology of the evaluation exercise, the first finding of the study, the foreseen degree of difficulty in collecting data, other foreseen difficulties in addition to the programme of work and staff mobilisation.  A draft report of maximum 25 pages with four hard copies and electronic copy no later than one week after the end of the field mission. The findings and recommendations need to take into account the outcomes of the workshop with stakeholders.  A final report of maximum 25 pages (excluding annexes) with four hard copies including all annexes and one electronic copy, taking into account the comments of ADCS and CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF within six days of receiving the comments. The final report should include an executive summary synthesizing the key findings and recommendations in the report and should also include the sources of all data and materials provided.

The main sections of the evaluation report shall be as follows:  Executive Summary: No more than two pages, this should focus only on the key issues including the validity of the relevance of the action, outline the main analytical points, and clearly indicate the main conclusions, lessons learned and specific recommendations. Cross-references should be made to the corresponding page or paragraph numbers in the main text that follows.  Main Text: The main text should start with an introduction describing all relevant background information in relation to the project intervention and the evaluation objectives. The body or core of the report should follow the standard evaluation criteria, describing the facts and analyzing them in accordance with the criteria. The report will describe the findings of the evaluation, focusing on the activities undertaken in the form of an inventory and structured according to the four major components of the project set out in the contract and results achieved in comparison with those foreseen in the contract. The main text will include an assessment of the success of the project in achieving the stated overall and specific objectives and a summary of any important lessons for learning and sharing.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 53

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

 Conclusions and Recommendations: These should be the subject of a separate final chapter and wherever possible, for each key conclusion there should be a corresponding recommendation. The key points of the conclusion will vary in nature but will often cover aspects of the key evaluation criteria including performance ratings.  Annexes: These should include, inter alia, all relevant hard data collected, methodologies applied for the study and terms of reference, map of the project watershed, list of persons/organizations consulted, list of abbreviations and nomenclature, documents reviewed, and other technical annexes as appropriate.

4.4 Presentation of the findings A one-day feedback workshop will be organized and the findings of the final evaluation will be presented by the consultant and discussed with all project stakeholders comprising ADCS, CAFOD/Trόcaire/SCIAF, local government partners at regional and woreda levels, leaders of the respective beneficiary communities, and other actors including NGOs implementing similar actions in the intervention woredas.

5. Timetable The final report must be submitted 40 days from day one of signing the agreement. This allows: - 7 days for document review and submission of inception report - 15 days for field work - 10 days for organizing, analysis and draft report writing - 8 days for workshop and final report submission

Due to donor contract requirements, the latest date for submission of the final evaluation report is 30 September 2011.

6. Requirements for the evaluation team The lead consultant (Team Leader) must have a Masters degree with at least 5 years experience in agriculture, food security, rural development or related fields. S/he should have a good consultancy reputation in similar areas. S/he is expected to have experience in community- based development projects, planning, implementation and review/evaluation of rural development projects. S/he needs to be well acquainted with cross cutting issues such as gender and HIV/AIDS. S/he should be analytical and also have outstanding skill in report-writing. The consultant will employ experts with a professional background in sectors such as natural resource management, water and sanitation and agriculture. All team members must have a good understanding and experience of mainstreaming gender and HIV.

A detailed outline of the methodology to be used as well as an action plan will be drafted by the consultant who proposes to take the lead in the evaluation. Technical and financial proposals should be submitted within five days of receiving these terms of reference. The proposals will form part of the package to be submitted to ADCS for consideration in the award of the consultancy.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 54

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Annex 2. Household questionnaire

Remark: The survey aims to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impacts of the project implemented by ADCS. The information you give will be kept confidential by the consultants and will not have any negative consequence on you. Please provide us with genuine responses to the following questions.

1. General Information:

1.1. Date of the Interview: ______1.2. Name of the Enumerator: ______1.3. PA of the respondent ______1.4. Name of the respondents: ______; ______1.5. Age of the respondent: [ ______] years 1.6. Sex of the respondent (√): 1. [ ] Male 2. [ ] Female 1.7. Educational level of the respondent (√): ____Grade [ ] No formal education [ ] Religious education 1.8. Marital status (√) 1. [ ] Married 2. [ ] Unmarried 3. [ ] Divorce 4. [ ] Widowed 1.9. Occupation of the respondent (√): 1. [ ] Farmer 2. [ ] Merchant 3. [ ] Government employee 4. [ ] Non- Government employee 5. [ ] Private employee 6. [ ] Others (specify)______1.10. Religion? 1. [ ] Orthodox 2. [ ] Islam 3. [ ] Protestant 4. [ ] Others (specify)______1.11. Total number of family members in the household _____Total; _____Male; ____ Female 1.12. Do you currently participating in PSNP? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 1.13. If yes, how do you involved? 1. [] Public work 2.[] Direct support

PART I: Evaluation Related Questions 2. Participation in the Project Planning and Implementation 2.1. Do you know the project implemented by Adgrat Diocese Catholic Secretariat? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 2.2. If yes, which activities? 1. [ ] Natural resource management 2. [ ] Increased production and income 3. [ ] Potable water 4. [ ] Experience sharing 5. [ ] HIV/AIDs 6. [ ] Sanitation and hygiene 7 [ ] others, specify______

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 55

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

2.3. Did you participate in the planning of activities of the project? 1.[ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 2.4. In which planning activities did you participate? 1. [ ] Natural resource management 2. [ ] Increased production and income 3. [ ] Potable water 4. [ ] Experience sharing 5. [ ] HIV/AIDs

6. [ ] Sanitation and hygiene 7. [ ] others, specify______2.5. Did you benefit from the project? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 2.6. If yes, from which activities? 1. [ ] Natural resource management 2. [ ] Increased production and income 3. [ ] Potable water 4. [ ] Experience sharing 5. [ ] HIV/AIDs

6. [ ] Sanitation and hygiene 7. [ ] others, specify______2.7. Did you participate in the project implementation? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 2.8. If yes, how? 1. [ ] Contributed labour (construction, material transporting, unloading, etc.) 2. [ ] Contributed money 3. [ ] Material supply (wood, stone, sand, etc.) 4. [ ] Facilitation/coordination 5. [ ] Others (specify) ______3. Natural Resources Conservation (Improving the environment) 3.1. Is soil erosion a problem on your farmland? 1)Yes 2) No 3.2. Are you practicing conservation activities on your farmland? 1)Yes 2) No 3.3. If yes, tell us which of the following conservation measures you accomplished in the last four years:

Table: Natural resource conservation activities carried out in the last four years Activities Unit Amount Which organization Survival Qty of fodder Area accomplish provided you with rate harvested treated ed technical (heap/tree per (ha) support/inputs* annum Soil bund, area Timad conserved Check dam, area Timad conserved Terracing, area Timad conserved Flood diversion canal Meter Micro basin Number Grass planting to Timad protect soil erosion Type of tree planted on private land: Acacia Number Eucalyptus Number Others * 1= Woreda agriculture Office; 2= ACDS; 3=Research; 4=Market; 5=Relatives/neighbor; 6=Other specify

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 56

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3.4. Was livestock feed a problem to you before the project? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.5. If yes, How did you manage it now? 1. [ ] Planted fodder tree 2. [ ] Allocated some plot for forage development from own land 3. [ ] graze on the rehabilitated area 4. [ ] others, specify: ______3.6. How long did it take the household member to collect fire wood before the project? ______hrs 3.7. How long does it take the household member to collect fire wood now? ______hrs 3.8. Is there shortage of firewood now? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.9. Do you know area closure in your Tabia? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.10. If yes, does it have advantage? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ]No 3.11. If yes, what are the advantages? 1. [ ] Vegetation rehabilitated 2. [ ] Springs discharge increased

3. [ ] Bee forage/flowers increased 4. [ ] Livestock feed made available

5. [ ] Wood made available for construction and firewood 6. [ ] The climate improved 7. [ ] Others (specify)______

3.12. If area closure doesn't have advantage, why? 1.[ ] Restricted free grazing 2.[ ] Wild animals population increases affecting crop and livestock 3.[ ] Creates conflict due to communal ownership 4.[ ] Reduces cropland 5.[ ] Others (specify) ______3.13. Did you participate on communal land conservation activities? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.14. If yes, on which activity did you participated? 1. [ ] Conservation Work planning 2. [ ] Conservation work implementation 3. [ ] Monitoring of the Conservation works performance 4. [ ] others, specify.

3.15. Did you participate in any training on NRM? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.16. If yes, for how many times? ______3.17. What was the number of days you participated in the training? ______days 3.18. What are the impacts of the NRM supported by the project? 1. [ ] Reduced erosion 2. [ ] Increased crop yield 3. [ ] Increased milk productivity 4. [ ] Increased vegetation cover 5. [ ] Others (specify) ______3.19. Have the productivity of your animals improved due to the project? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 57

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

3.20. If yes, by how much did the milk production increased per cow per day? Before the project: _____ lt per day; Now, ______lt/day

NRM sustainability issues 3.21. Do you feel that the conserved communal land belongs to you? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.22. If No, whom does it belong to? 1. [ ] Community 2. [ ] Government 3. [ ] Adgrate DCS 4. [ ] Other NGOs 5. [ ] Others (specify)______3.23. Who should look after the land closure areas? [ ] 1. Woreda Agriculture office [ ] 2. Watershed committees [ ] 3. Adgrate DCS [ ] 4. Others specify______3.24. Do you think the communal land conserved through the project can provide forage to the community for longer period? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.25. If No, why not? 1. [ ] lack of community bylaw 2. [ ] Lack of enforcement of community bylaw, 3. [ ] There is no good management 4. [ ] Limited area protected 5. [] Other reasons (specify) ______3.26. Is there a rule through which the fodder produced over the communal land is used fairly and sustainably by the community members? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 3.27. If no, why not? ______

4. Increased production and Income 4.1. Did you engaged in crop production last year? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 4.2. If yes, tell us the type of crops produced, area cultivated and amount produced? Table 2: Crop production, income and damage during the last production year: Type of Area planted with Area planted Production from Production from Source of crop local seed with improved local seed (qt) improved seed improved inputs* produced (Timad) seed (Timmad) (qt) Improved Irrigation seed Irrig**. Not Irrig. Not Irrig. Not irrig Irrig Not irrig irrig irrig . Staple crops Maize Sorghum/ Teff Oil crops Sesame Niger seed/Noug/

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 58

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Type of Area planted with Area planted Production from Production from Source of crop local seed with improved local seed (qt) improved seed improved inputs* produced (Timad) seed (Timmad) (qt) Improved Irrigation seed Groundnuts Flax (Telba) Saflower (suf) Pulse Haricot bean Horse bean Pea Vegetables Carrot Beet roots Cabbage- local Cabbage- exotic Onion Tomato *Source of improved seeds : 1= Extension service/BoA; 2=ADCS; 3=Research center; 4=Market; 5= fellow farmers; 6) Other NGO Source of Irrigation: 1= Extension service/BoA; 2=ADCS; 3=Research center; 4=Market; 5= fellow farmers; 6) Other NGO

4.3. How do you evaluate the yield of crops last year with yield before 4 years? 1. [ ] The same 2. [ ] Higher 3. [ ] Below 4.4. If the yield is higher now, why? 1. [ ] Input supply from the project 2. [ ] Improved soil fertility due to the project 3. [ ] Good rainfall 4. [ ] Own effort 5. [ ] Effort of the extension system 4.5. Did you applied fertilizer to your crop last year? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 4.6. If yes, tell the quantity used: ______qt 4.7. Do you own fruit trees? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 4.8. If yes to the above question, please tell us the following (Table 3):

Table 3: Production and income from perennial crops during the last four years Type of crop No. of trees/ Produc Amount Income from Estimated fruits not Sources of produced bushes tion sold (qt) sales (Birr) harvested yet (qt) perennial owned (qt) crops* Apple Mango Banana Papaya

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 59

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Others specify * 1= Extension service; 2= ADCS; 3=Research; 4=Market; 5=Relatives/neighbor; 6=others, specify

Livestock production

4.9. Do you own livestock? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 4.10. If yes to the above question, please tell us the following Table 4: Livestock/beehives holding now, sales and income during the last 1 year Livestock type Livestock/beehive number Number sold during Income earned available last 1 year from sales (birr) Before 4 years Now Oxen/adult bull Cow Heifer Yung bull Calf Sheep, adult Sheep, kids Goats, adult Goats, kids Chicken Donkey Horse Mule No. Traditional beehives No. improved hives

4.11. Livestock production during the last 1 year and household income earned from sales of livestock by-products the last 1 year. Table 5: Product type, No. of animals involved, unit of product, quantity produced, price Livestock by- #animals Unit Qty Average price per unit Who decides on the products involved during the last one year income?* (birr/unit) Egg produced Number Cow milk Litre. Butter produced Kg. Hides and skin ------No Honey kg

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 60

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Participation in Off-farm income Participation in SILC:

4.12. Are you a member of Saving and Internal Lending (SILC) group? 1) Yes, 2) No 4.13. If Yes, how much did you save since you started? ____Birr 4.14. How much did you borrow from the group? ______Birr 4.15. How much profit did you make from the borrowing? ______Birr Other IGA activities:

4.16. Do you or any of your household member participated in non-farm income generation? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 4.17. In which of the following IGAs have your household members involved the last 1 year and how much you earned? (Answer in the following Table 6) Table 6: Household income earned from non-farm income sources during last 1 year Type of income generation Participation (√) Income/Profit (Birr)

Household enterprise/selling drink, food, etc Handcraft Sales of firewood/charcoal Beekeeping and sale of honey Collecting forest honey and selling Employment (wage and salary) Grain trading (buying and selling) Livestock trading Petty trading (salt, soap, sugar, etc.) Others (specify)

4.18. What was the role of the ADCS project in these income generation activities? 1. [ ] Provided capital 2. [ ] Training 3. [ ] Organizing groups

4. [ ] Created linkage with market 5. [ ] Provided beehives and bee equipment 6. [ ] Others (specify): ______

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 61

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

5. Water supply 5.1 What is the source of drinking water for your family now? Code Source of drinking water Check as appropriate Since how many years?* 1 River 2 Unprotected spring 3 Pond 4 Hand dug well 5 Protected spring 6 Deep well 7 Tap water 8 Others (specify) * If it is less than a year, write it in a fraction of 12 (x/12 where x is months).

5.2. If the water source you use is from protected sources (Hand dug well, Protected spring, Deep well, Tap water), who constructed it? 1. [ ] ADCS 2. [ ] Government 3. [ ] Other NGOs 4. [ ] Community 5. [ ] Others (specify) ______

5.3. Distance to water point to fetch water? ______hrs (single trip) 5.4. How long do you queue to fetch water (now)? ______minutes 5.5. How do you evaluate the quantity water developed by the project? 1. [ ] Good 2. [ ] Poor 5.6. How do you evaluate the quality water developed by the project? 1. [ ] Good 2. [ ] Dirty 5.7. Average amount of water used per day by the HH: ______Litre 5.8. Means of transporting water from water point to home now? (√) Sr. Means of transporting Who transports water by the means? No. water Men Women Young boys Young girls 1 By person 2 Donkey (back) 3 Cart (using animal craft) 4 Others (specify) ______

5.9. What major benefits have been obtained from the water supply constructed by the project? [ ] 1. Distance reduced [ ] 2. Quality improved [ ] 3. Water born disease reduced [ ] 4 Queuing time reduced [ ] 5. Personal hygiene improved [ ] 6. Time for other work available [ ] 7. Children got time to go to school and study [ ] 8. Child care increased [ ] 9. Others specify ______

5.10. Did you participate in water use/management training? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 5.11. How many times did you participate in water related training? ______5.12. How long was the training given at a time? ______days for all trainings

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 62

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

5.13. If you participated in the training, could you apply the knowledge gained? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 5.14. If No, what was the problem? 1. [ ] It was difficult to understand 2. [ ] Time allocated for training was too short 3. [ ] Language barrier 4. [ ] It was not relevant 5. [ ] Others (specify) ______

Water supply sustainability issues

5.15. Do you feel that the water supply source belongs to you? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 5.16. If No, whom does it belong to? 1. [ ] Community 2. [ ] Government 3. [ ] Adgrate DCS 4. [ ] Other NGOs 5. [ ] Others (specify)______5.17. Who should maintain the water point constructed by Adgrate DCS? [ ] 1. Woreda water office [ ] 2. Trained community members [ ] 3. Adgrate DCS [ ] 4. Others specify______5.18. Do you think the water supply constructed by the project can serve the community for longer period? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 5.19. If No, why not? 1. [ ] The construction is poor 2. [ ] The water source is not dependable 3. [ ] There is no good management 4. [ ] Other reasons (specify) ______

5.20. Do you/your household pay for the use of water constructed by the project? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No

5.21. If no, why not? 1. [ ] It is expensive 2. [ ] I do not have money 3. [ ] I can fetch water freely, no need to pay 4. [ ] Other reasons (specify) ______

6. Sanitation and Hygiene 6.2. Did you participate in training by Adgrate DCS on hygiene and sanitation? 1. [ ]Yes 2.[ ] No 6.3. If Yes, what are they? 1.[ ] Training on wet waste disposal 2. [ ] Training on solid waste disposal 3. [ ] Training on water borne diseases 4. [ ] Training on personal hygiene 5. [ ] Technical support in construction of pit latrine 6. [ ] Training on HIV/AIDS 7 [ ] Others (specify) ______6.4. If yes to Q6.1 , how many times? ______6.5. How many days? ______

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 63

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

6.6. Do you have pit/ latrine for your family? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 6.7. If yes, when did you construct it? ______years ago 6.8. What was the role of the project in latrine construction? [ ] 1. Training on how to construct it [ ] 2. Provision of material/slab [ ] 3. Awareness raising on the benefit [ ] 4. Others (specify): ______6.9. If the household has latrine, does every household member use the latrine? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 6.10. If No, what is the reason? 1. [ ] The construction is poor 2. [ ] We are not accustomed to it 3. [ ] Lacks sheltering 4. Other reasons (specify) ______6.11. Has somebody at a household ill from diarrhoea within the last 12 months? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 6.12. If yes, the No. of persons : ______6.13. Has somebody at a household died from diarrhoea within the last 12 months? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 6.14. If yes, the No. of persons : ______6.15. What actions did you take when children face diarrhea? 1. [ ] Taken to clinic/health post 2. [ ] Taken to traditional healer

3. [ ] Treated with traditional medicine at home 4. [ ] Given ORS 5. [ ] Did nothing 6. [ ] Others (specify) ______6.16. Have some of children experienced Scabies during the last one year? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 6.17. If Yes, how many children? ______6.18. What actions did you take when children acquired Scabies? 1. [ ] Taken to clinic/health post 2. [ ] Taken to traditional healer

3. [ ] Treated with traditional medicine at home 4. [ ] Using special soap for washing 5. [ ] Did nothing 6. [ ] Other reasons (specify) ______6.19. What are the changes which occurred due to water and sanitation interventions of the project? 1. [ ] Livestock and human do not live in the same house 2. [ ] Improved personal hygiene 3. [ ] Improved housing hygiene 4. [ ] Hand washing during critical times 5. [ ] Keeping food and drinking water clean 6. [ ] Others (specify) ______

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 64

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

7. HIV/AIDS 7.2. Are you aware of HIV/AIDS? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 7.3. What are the sources of information for such knowledge?

1. [ ] Health workers 2. [ ] Mass media like radio & Television 3. [ ] Training by ADCS project 4. [ ] Training by other NGOs 5. [ ] From Community members/neighbors 6. [ ] Others (specify) ______7.4. If he/she is aware of HIV/AIDS, what are the modes of HIV/AIDS transmission? 1. [ ] Mother to child 6. [ ] Unprotected sex 2. [ ] Injection with contaminated needles 7. [ ] Blood transfusion 3. [ ] Contact with infected persons blood 8. [ ] Sharing tooth brush 4. [ ] Sharing razor blades; 9. [ ] Eating together 5. [ ] Sitting together 10. [ ] Others (specify): ______7.5. How can HIV/AIDS be prevented? 1. [ ] Abstinence 2. [ ] Faithfulness to marriage 3. [ ] Using condoms 4. [ ] Avoiding sex with commercial sex workers 5. [ ] Pray to God 6. [ ] I don't know 7.6. Do you know the importance of VCT? 1.[ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 7.7. Did someone in your household visit VCT center during the last one year? 1. [ ] Yes 2. [ ] No 7.8.If yes, how many persons? Male: ______Female: ______

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 65

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Annex 3: Checklist for FGD

A: Checklist for Community FGDs

FGD participants: 10-15 persons, male and female project beneficiaries (2-3 from each component, Water committee, SILC groups, irrigation management committee, etc).

1. Participation in the project:  What do you know about the ADCS project?  In which project activity did you participated? Community contribution? 2. Project effectiveness

Result one: 5,500 hectares of degraded land will become more productive enabling a 50% increase in area coverage under fodder production on communal areas and reduced soil erosion in plots and gullies  What was done to improve fodder availability on communal land? Size of communal area protected or planted with fodder crops to regenerate (ha)?  Estimated piles of grass harvest per hectare on communal land? # heaps of grass per pile? Kg per heap?  #HHs planted fodder trees? #fodder trees planted per household? #Heap of fodder produced per tree?  Total protected areas by Tabia (ha)?  Protected areas where forest/bushes regenerated or planted with trees by Tabiya (ha)?  Availability of protected area management and use plan?  Community capacity to implement the plan, gaps?  Area of gullies treated (ha)?  #MT of soil erosion halted as a result of gully treatment over an hectare (from Mekelle university or estimate from secondary source),

Result two: the value of production per hectare will increase across the watershed and 240 farming households will increase their income by an average of 25%  #of farmers groups organized by the project? Their membership by gender? Business type?  Inputs/services received from the project? E.g. Market guarantee scheme, business skill? Linkage with market?  Group members’ annual income (“birr/member)?  Improvements observed on the members as a result? Gaps?  Improvement in market prices of key crops, livestock/bi-products over the last years (+ or -)? Reasons? Project contribution in this regard?

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 66

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Result three: The incidence of waterborne diseases amongst the 23,000 target population will be reduced and there will be a minimum 30% increase in the number of people with easier access to potable water.  Commonly known water born diseases in the area?  Prevalence of the commonly waterborne diseases?  %HHs using Pit latrine with/without slabs?  Community perception of the prevalence of waterborne diseases, improvements, reasons & project contribution?  %Hand washing practice after toilet among those who have Pit latrine?  Sources of water for the households?  % HHs access to water by source type?  #water schemes constructed by the project? # Water points? Functionality of schemes/water points?  #water committees? Members by gender? Water management Capacity? SWOT analysis  Distance travelled to fetch water from potable source round trip?

Result four: Maizegzeg watershed becomes a showcase of learning to influence government and other development actors within and beyond Tigray region, with at least two aspects from that learning taken up on a wider scale within the lifetime of the project.  What best practices are there under different project components?  Which of these has the potential to go beyond the project boundary and beneficiaries?  Which of these are already taken by communities beyond the project boundary and beneficiaries? Who are most benefited (men or women)? Why? X-cutting: Gender mainstreamed into all the project activities  what are the benefits of this project to Women? Which project components contributed to this? Proportion of women benefits as a result? X-cutting: HIV/AIDS mainstreamed into all the project activities  -Knowledge about HIV/AIDS? Source of information?  --#men and women trained on HIV/AIDS?  -%FGD attendants that are willing permit HIV/AIDS positive person to pass night at their home? Why and why not?

3. Project long term results or Impacts:  NRM: Impacts of communal resource conservation including area closure; impacts of private land conservation; any negative impacts? Impact of graduation from PSNP?  Impacts of water supply: Impact on women, health condition, productivity,  Impacts of the farm production and income: improved production and productivity, market linkage, innovative and diversified sources of income?

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 67

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

 Institutional learning: improved capacity of government community institutions, best practices for scale-up,

4. Project Sustainability:  What are the elements or changes brought by the project that are sustainable and that are not, why? o Natural resource conservation, e.g. watershed committees, o Water development, e.g. WATSAN committees, water technicians, water fees, o Production and income, e.g. market linkage, innovative practice. 5. Key project strengths, weakness, challenges, 6. Recommendation for future intervention.

B: Checklist for key Partner Offices

1. Participation in the project:  What do you know about the ADCS project?  In which project activity did you participated? 2. Relevance of the project (capacity building, integration/synergy/complementarities with other programmes/policies), evidence by project objectives? 3. How far the project has moved in terms of achieving its stated objectives, evidences for changes/improvements by project objectives?

3.1. Natural resource management  Total land size of the watershed, Ha?  #Nurseries in the woreda and the watershed?  #seedlings produced? #seedling planted in the last four years?  Size of area planted by the seedlings (ha)?  Area of gullies treated (ha)?  #MT of soil erosion halted as a result of gully treatment over an hectare (from Mekelle university or estimate from secondary source),  How do you evaluate the accomplishment of the project and the impacts?

3.2. Production and income  Crop, livestock and livestock bi-products market price data,  #of farmers groups organized by the project? Their membership by gender? Business type?  Inputs/services received from the project? E.g. Market guarantee scheme, business skill? Linkage with market?  Group members’ annual income (“birr/member)?  Improvements observed on the members as a result? Gaps?  Improvement in market prices of key crops, livestock/bi-products over the last years (+/-)? Reasons? Project contribution in this regard?  How do you evaluate the accomplishment of the project and the impacts?

3.3. Water supply

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 68

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

 Commonly known water born diseases in the area?  Prevalence of the commonly waterborne diseases?  %HHs using Pit latrine with/without slabs?  #water schemes constructed by the project? # Water points? Functionality of schemes/water points?  #water committees? Members by gender? Water management Capacity? SWOT analysis  Access to clean water in the woreda? And watershed?  How do you evaluate the accomplishment of the project and the impacts?  What are the top 10 diseases in the woreda? Ask for No. of patients registered during the last one year by disease type (ask from health office)

Institutional learning  What best practices are there under different project components?  Which of these has the potential could go beyond the project boundary and beneficiaries?  Which of these are already taken by communities beyond the project boundary and beneficiaries? Who are most benefited (men or women)? Why?

X-cutting: Gender mainstreamed into all the project activities  What are the benefits of this project to women?  Which project components contributed to this?  Proportion of women benefits as a result?

4. Project organization and management? How accountable, responsive, transparent & capacitating? Evidences if available 5. Implementation, cost efficiency? Evidence for better performance? 6. Project long term results or Impacts:  NRM: Impacts of communal resource conservation including area closure; impacts of private land conservation; any negative impacts? Impact of graduation from PSNP?  Impacts of water supply: Impact on women, health condition, productivity,  Impacts of the farm production and income: improved production and productivity, market linkage, innovative and diversified sources of income?  Institutional learning: improved capacity of government community institutions, best practices for scale-up,  What is the added value of this project? 7. Project Sustainability:  What are the elements or changes brought by the project that are sustainable and that are not, why? o Natural resource conservation, e.g. watershed committees, o Water development, e.g. WATSAN committees, water technicians, water fees, o Production and income, e.g. market linkage, innovative practice. 8. Key project strengths, weakness, challenges, 9. Recommendation for future intervention.

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 69

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

C: Checklist for Project Office

1. Relevance of the project (capacity building, responding to local priorities, integration, synergy & complementarities with others/GOs programmes/policies), evidence by project objectives? 2. How far the project has moved in terms of achieving its stated objectives & evidences for changes/ improvements?  Total land size of the watershed, Ha?  #Nurseries per Tabia?  #seedlings produced?  #seedling planted in the last four years?  Size of area planted by the seedlings (ha)?-Area of gullies treated (ha)?  #MT of soil erosion halted as a result of gully treatment over an hectare (from Mekelle university or estimate from secondary

3. Project organization and management? How accountable, responsive, transparent & capacitating? Evidences if available 4. Integration/synergy with others programmes/sectors (e.g. PSNP)? 5. Sustainability of benefits/improvements, evidences? 6. Number of beneficiaries: total______by Kebele______by Woreda___ 7. End Project Outputs report by beneficiary? 8. Key weakness, challenges, strengths, lessons, recommendations for improvement/scale up? 9. If you redesign the project, how would you like it to be? What should be the focus?

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 70

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Annex 4: Activity accomplishment rate Project activities (milestones) Unit Four Four years Percent years achievement accomplish plan ment Component one Land use plans and management arrangements (including by-laws) have been developed and agreed No 1 1 by the community. 100 550 hectares of communal land has been enclosed and is naturally regenerating hectare 550 630 115 Indigenous methods of soil and water conservation have been documented No 1 1 100 Rehabilitated land is providing forage and other resources to the community Ton/Ha/yr

Rehabilitation of 5,500 hectares complete hectare 5,500 8,796 160 Community management arrangements for the rehabilitated areas have been reviewed by No 1 3 beneficiaries 300 Total 155 Component two Farmer groups have been identified No 12 15 125 Marketing plans for the 12 farmer groups have been developed No 12 12 100 Pilot high value cash crops have been planted by at least three groups No 3 3 100 Innovative and indigenous methods of high productivity crop production have been documented No 1 1 100 Farmers groups are able to sell at least 70% of their produce for the requested asking price No 6 6 100 Training will be provided to the farmers beneficiaries No 350 367 105 Three Irrigation schemes are operational to irrigate 104 hectares of land No 3 3 100 hectares 180 110 61 Total 99

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 71

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Project activities (milestones) Unit Four Four years Percent years achievement accomplish plan ment Component three Conduct a detailed technical study on potential potable water sources drawing on exiting local No 1 1 authority data (district water office). 100 Baseline survey on the current extent of water born diseases No 1 1 100 Water resource plans (including where to locate the water points) have been agreed by the No 21+2 21+2 community 100 Construction of 21 water points plus 2 Roof water harvestings No 21+2 21+2 100 Establishment of 21 water and sanitation committees (WATSAN committees) No 21 21 100 Training for 21 community WATSAN committees (147 members) in organization and management No 21 21 100 Refresher training and support will be provided for water committees and caretakers in organisational No 147 147 and financial management and technical issues (repairs). 100 Production of 400 slabs using locally available materials to make household dry pit latrines. No 400 400 (310 male HH, 90 female HH) 100 Hygiene and sanitation training carried out No 883 883 100 All systems (21 water points) are operational and user fees are being paid No 21 21 100 Case studies written up of the most successful community management arrangements and No 2 2 successfully communicated to other actors documents 100 Total 100 Component four Meeting with key development stakeholder has agreed modalities for coordination/dissemination of No 1 1 project results 100 Methodology for documenting project case studies developed and training carried out No 1 1 100 First visit to the project site for key development actors organized No 1 1 100 Two case studies developed No 2 6 300 Second and third visits to the project site for key development actors organized. No 2 2 100 Total 140

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 72

Terminal Evaluation of NR conservation and livelihoods innovation in Maizegzeg (Final Report)

Annex 7: Project cost and contribution by partners Total project Grant requested from Grant from CAFOD

cost Big Lottery Fund and Trôcaire I DIRECT REVENUE COSTS 1 Total salaries and benefits 161,210 116,580 44,630 2 Office expenses (field office) 20,854 20,853 1 3 Travel and monitoring expenses 17,904 17,904 0 4 Training of ADCS staff and interns working on the project 18,710 18,456 254 5 Vehicle insurance and running costs 27,371 26,501 870 6 Survey and studies (including midterm review and final evaluation) 24,102 10,911 13,191 7 Training of beneficiaries 52,866 51,163 1,703 8 Rent, electricity, water maintenance (ADCS Mekelle office) 21,748 21,197 551 9 Audit and legal fees 2,117 2,013 104 10 Networking and conferences 2,425 2,243 182 11 Project outcome one: Degraded land sustainably rehabilitated 22,604 21,354 1,250 12 Project outcome two: Increased agricultural income 53,901 43,807 10,094 13 Project outcome three: Improved health through access to water and sanitation 194,890 137,777 57,113 14 Project outcome four: Institutionalization of successful project approaches 25,553 15,213 10,340 Sub-total Direct Revenue Costs 646,253 505,971 140,282 II DIRECT CAPITAL COSTS 0 0 15 Site office construction 14,949 0 14,949 16 Equipment and material purchase 57,189 0 57,189 17 Purchase of vehicle and motorbikes 51,822 0 51,822 Sub-total Direct Capital Costs 123,960 0 123,960 III OVERHEADS 18 CAFOD administration and coordination cost 37,569 26,298 11,271 Sub-total Overheads 37,569 26,298 11,271 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS 807,782 532,269 275,513

By HEDBEZ Business & Consultancy PLC For ADCS Sept. 2011 73