Write up process of outcome process

Document Sample
Write up process of outcome process Powered By Docstoc
					  Sustainable Resource Management Program in North Gondar
                        (SRMP-NG)




                    Outcomes Assessment Study
                       Second Round Report




An internal outcomes assessment conducted by the program coordinating unit




                               Oct, 2012
                            Gondar, Ethiopia
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS




                            i
                                                 TABLE OF CONTENT

ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS............................................................................ I
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................................... II
LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................VI
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................VI
LIST OF TABLES IN THE ANNEXE ..........................................................................VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... VII
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
   1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 1
   1.2 Objectives of the outcome assessment ............................................................................... 2
   1.3. Organization of the report ................................................................................................ 2
2. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................ 3
   2.1 Types and sources of data and method of data collection ............................................... 3
   2.2. Selection of sample woredas and sample size .................................................................. 3
   2.3. Data analysis ....................................................................................................................... 5
   2.4. Composition of the team involved in the outcome assessment ...................................... 6
3. FINDINGS OF THE OUTCOME ASSESSMENT .................................................... 7
   3.1 Characteristics of respondent households ........................................................................ 7
   3.2 Changes in livelihoods of targeted households ................................................................. 8
      3.2.1. Improvement in crop productivity ................................................................................ 8
      3.2.2. Subsistence income ....................................................................................................... 8
        a. Crop production .............................................................................................................. 8
        b. Livestock development ................................................................................................... 8
        c. Use of Natural resources ................................................................................................. 9
      3.2.3. Cash income .................................................................................................................. 9
          3.2.3.1. Cash income from livestock farming ..................................................................... 9
             a. Cash income from animals sold .................................................................................. 9
             b. Fattening ..................................................................................................................... 9
             c. Beekeeping .................................................................................................................. 9
             d. Feed development ..................................................................................................... 10
             e. Breed animals ............................................................................................................ 10
             f. Animal products ........................................................................................................ 10
             g. Summary of livestock cash income .......................................................................... 10
          3.2.3.2. Cash income from crop production...................................................................... 12


                                                                      ii
        a. Cash income from crop production ........................................................................... 12
        b. Cash income from fruit (trees) production................................................................ 12
        c. Cash income from Irrigation development ............................................................... 12
     3.2.3.3. Cash income from Natural Resources.................................................................. 14
        a) Cash income from sealing of wood ...................................................................... 14
        b) Cash income from sealing of seedling .................................................................. 14
        c) Cash income from Natural resource products ....................................................... 15
     3.2.3.4. Cash income from tourism Development ............................................................ 15
     3.2.3.5. Alternative Livelihood Promotion ...................................................................... 18
     3.2.3.6. Cash income from off-farm and , non-farm and stove production activities ....... 19
     3.3.3.7. Summary of total cash income ............................................................................. 20
   3.2.4. Asset building, saving and investment........................................................................ 21
     3.2.4.1. Assets created fully attributed to the program ..................................................... 21
        a. Livestock development ............................................................................................. 21
        b. Fruit trees (apple) ...................................................................................................... 22
        c. Assets created from developed plantations ............................................................... 22
        d. Summary of assets created ........................................................................................ 23
     3.2.4.2. (Re-) investment and savings with contribution of the program ......................... 24
        a. Housing and investment in urban residence.............................................................. 24
        b) Educational level ...................................................................................................... 24
        c) Saving status ............................................................................................................. 25
        d. Input utilization ......................................................................................................... 25
   3.2.5. Reducing food insecurity ............................................................................................ 26
3.3. Natural resources management ...................................................................................... 27
   3.3.1. Integrated watershed development ............................................................................. 27
   3.3.2. Area under improved land management ..................................................................... 27
     a) Area planted with trees ................................................................................................. 27
     b) Area under soil and water conservation measures........................................................ 27
     c) Volume of compost prepared and applied ................................................................... 28
     d) Area closure .................................................................................................................. 28
     e) Natural forest demarcation and protection.................................................................... 28
   3.3.3. Utilization of biomass energy saving technologies .................................................... 29
   3.3.4. Land administration and management ........................................................................ 30
     a) Land certification .......................................................................................................... 30
     b). Land transaction .......................................................................................................... 31
     c) Perceived benefits of certification by the communities ................................................ 31
   3.3.5. Enhancing tourism, park infrastructure and management .......................................... 33
     a) Park infrastructure and endemic wild animals .............................................................. 33
     b) Community participation in park management ............................................................ 34
     c) Tourism development ................................................................................................... 34
     d) Attitude towards SMNP................................................................................................ 35
3.4. Different services provided to the wider community.................................................... 37



                                                                 iii
  3.4.1. Artificial insemination and Animal health service ..................................................... 37
    a) Artificial insemination .................................................................................................. 37
    b) Animal health service ................................................................................................... 37
  3.4.2. Establishment of open nucleus breeding center .......................................................... 38
  3.4.3. Establishment of feed processing plant....................................................................... 38
  3.4.4. Credit service .............................................................................................................. 38
    a) Credit access from different financial institutions ........................................................ 38
    b) Credit access from program .......................................................................................... 39
  3.4.5. Cooperative support .................................................................................................... 39
    3.4.5.1. Overall support to cooperatives ........................................................................... 39
    3.4.5.2. Status of fattening cooperatives ........................................................................... 39
    3.4.5.3. Status of milk delivery to cooperatives ................................................................ 39
  3.4.6. Market facilitation and promoting legal livestock export ........................................... 40
3.5. Capacity development and program management ....................................................... 41
  3.5.1 Training and experience sharing .................................................................................. 41
    3.5.1.1. Short and long term trainings .............................................................................. 41
       a) Long-term Training: ................................................................................................. 41
       b) Short-Term Training: /Per each result/ ..................................................................... 42
    3.5.1.2. Farmers’ Participation in Training ....................................................................... 43
    3.5.1.3 Experience sharing study tours ............................................................................. 44
  3.5.2. Development fund ....................................................................................................... 44
  3.5.3. Action research ........................................................................................................... 45
    3.5.3.1. Crop Development ............................................................................................... 45
    3.5.3.2. Natural resourse ................................................................................................... 46
    3.5.3.3 Livestock development ......................................................................................... 46
  3.5.4. Technology and equipment provisions ....................................................................... 46
    a) For beneficiaries /per each results/ ........................................................................... 46
    b) For institution /per each results/ ................................................................................... 48
  3.5.5. Summary and total beneficiaries /per each result/ ...................................................... 48
       3.5.5.1. Benefited directly from income generating technologies ................................ 48
       3.5.5.2. Overall beneficiary........................................................................................... 49
  3.5.6. Achievements in Knowledge Management and Communication .............................. 49
  3.5.7. Program support on gender, HIV/AIDS and environment issue ................................ 51
    3.5.7.1. Strategic support on gender ................................................................................. 51
    3.5.7. 2. HIV/AIDS infected and affected groups Support .............................................. 51
    3.5.7. 3. Environmental Issue........................................................................................... 52
  3.5.8. Program management ................................................................................................. 52
     3.5.8.1. Steering committee involvement ......................................................................... 52
     3.5.8.2. Management Information system ........................................................................ 53


                                                                iv
        3.5.8.3. Status of Progress/ performance reports .............................................................. 53
   3.6. Development trend and livelihood options in the intervention area ........................... 54
      3.6.1. Development trend in the past five years .................................................................... 54
      3.6.2. Gender development in the past ten year .................................................................... 54
      3.6.3. Livelihood options in the last ten year ........................................................................ 55
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 56
   4.1. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 56
   4.2. Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 57
ANNEXES ........................................................................................................................ 59
   1. Survey finding /per each result/ ......................................................................................... 59
   Table: Participation in Training and Experience Sharing ................................................ 78
   2. Five years (2008 – 2012) activity achievement /per each result/ ..................................... 80
   3. Secondary data from different institution /per each result/............................................ 80
   4. Five year program indicator (Log frame matrix) /per each result/ ............................... 87
   5. Five year program beneficiaries /per each result/ ........................................................... 88
   6. List of documents produced by external consultants /per each result/ .......................... 88
   7. Other data /per each result/ ............................................................................................... 88




                                                                     v
LIST OF TABLES


LIST OF FIGURES



LIST OF TABLES IN THE ANNEXE




                               vi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the finding of the outcome assessment survey conducted at the end of the
program, Jan 2008- Dec 2012, of Sustainable Resource Management Program in North Gondar
(SRMP-NG). The program is implemented in North Gondar Zone (NGZ) and covers 19 woredas
and 43 watersheds, and benefited over 180,000 households either in direct income generating
activities and improved natural resource management practices or indirectly from improved
access to artificial insemination, veterinary services and access to potable water. The main focus
of this end-of-first phase survey was to assess and document the achievements of the program in
terms of livelihoods improvement of targeted households and improvements of natural resource
management. The survey generated data and information based on which the achievement and
limitations of the program were reviewed. The findings are expected to reveal achievements of
outputs and outcomes with the contribution of the program along the three major intervention
areas during the last five years intervention. Consequently the information so generated will
provide feedback for terminal evaluation and new Austrian supported project/program document
preparation through the trucking of changes observed during the last five years intervention
besides documenting and sharing the lessons learned to planners and development practitioners.

The outcome survey was conducted on a sample of 229 beneficiary households selected from 4
of the 19 program woredas (Alefa, Debark, Lay-armachiho and Tach-armachiho). The woredas
and households were selected using a multistage sampling procedure that allows the sample to be
representative. Both primary and secondary data were collected and analyzed to adequately
assess to what extent the program support has contributed to (i) improvements in income of
households; (ii) creation of additional assets and investment in children’s education, (iii)
improvement in agricultural productivity (crop yield), (iv) reduction in households’ food
insecurity status and in food gap months and (v) improvements in land and natural resource
management.

Outcome 1: Improvements in household income
The result of second outcome assessment survey shows that 82.1% of the sample beneficiary
households were supported by the program to engage in various income generating activities
such as rearing (and fattening) of sheep and goats, fattening of cattle, dairy production, bee
keeping, feed development, using improved crop varieties and management, irrigation
development, seedling raising and establishment of own plantations, etc. On the average these
beneficiary households increased their annual income by 138.9% compared to their baseline
average. or before the program intervention. The effect of overall cash income increment on
women participants was more when we compare to men, i.e 206.6% increase. Before a year
during the first outcome assessment 60% of the sample beneficiary households were supported
by the program and their income increased by 28%. Therefore, beneficiary households supported
by the program to engage in various income generating activates has been increases in terms of
beneficiary number and income increment within the second assessment.

Outcome 2: Creation of additional assets and investment in children’s education
Out of the total sample beneficiaries, 74.2% households has been supported by the program and
created additional asset value of 8962 Birr. On average the program contributed 41.9% of
additional asset creation from their baseline. The number of direct beneficiaries from income


                                               vii
generating activities is estimated to be over 55,456 households. Based on the program five years
plan, it was planed to assist 8000 participant households in asset creation. The asset generating
activates with the support of program were apple production, different live animals and private
forest/wood plantations. Before a year during the first outcome assessment, 66% of respondents
were created asset with the program support and the estimated increment of additional asset
created were 39%.

The survey result revealed that, among school aged children, the proportion of children attending
school increased from 59.7% to 72.8%. Before a year, during the last outcome assessment,
children attending school was increased to 66.46%. Among school aged children (7-18), the
number of children not attending school reduced from 40.3% to 27.2% before and after the
program intervention respectively. At the time of the last outcome assessment, children not
attending school were reduced to 33.5%. Therefore, the result clearly indicates that, the majority
of younger generation is found on the track of education program including the head of the HHs
and the HHs are investing on education to improve the wellbeing of the famil

Outcome 3: Improvement in crop yield
In the last five year the program had introduced different improved crop varieties such as teff,
maize, wheat, rice, millet, chickpea, lentil, sorghum, field pea, fababean, and soybean. These
crops are introduced due to their high productivity in order to meet the farmers’ food demand
and to increase their income based on the farmers needs, but also are easily marketable. In the
five year program plan, the productivity of major field crops was to increase by 30 percent.
According to the yield data gathered from 692 participant households in tef, wheat and maize
and the finding of the 2012 PCU outcome survey, due to the program intervention, the average
yield increment of major crops was 66% (141% for teff, 71% for wheat and 228% for maize}
higher than the baseline.

Outcome 4: Reduction in food insecurity status of households
With in the program life, the proportion of households facing food insecurity was reduced from
48.5% to 41.5%. The survey reveals that among the previous food insecure HHs, 7% of them
totally shifted to food secured and able to feed the family through out the year. But regarding
mean number of food gap in months reduce for those remain food insecure HHs was from 2.98
month before intervention to 2.42 month after intervention. However, reduction in food gaps for
women beneficiaries only showed relatively higher change (3.10 month to 2.36 months).
Therefore, in the intervention area, data reveals that the number of food insecure households was
reduced in the program life, but mean food gap in month declined only marginally for specific
group of people. Therefore, severities of food insecurity remain the same for those some
chronically food insecure groups.

Outcome 5: Improvement in land and other natural resources management
Bringing land under improved land management was one of the major objectives of the program.
This includes area under different soil and water conservation, forestry and agro-forestry, area
closure and rehabilitation and natural forest demarcation and protection. The total area brought
under improved management practices under these use system for the past five years is 324113
hectares which is 282% of the five years program target (115000 hectares).



                                               viii
Other major findings



Previous
The survey provided important information on the characteristics of targeted households,
prevailing livelihoods options and trends, extent of adoption of improved natural resource
management practices. The average family size is 6.9. Of all program beneficiaries, 70% were
male and 30% female.

The main livelihood options in their order of importance for household income both before and
after intervention were crop production, livestock, and natural resources (e.g. own plantations
and forests), and off-farm and non-farm activities.

The program facilitated women beneficiaries’ access to credit which in turn helped them to
engage in (additional) income generating activities. Women received more income from
irrigation and selling of fuel wood and other natural resource products as compared to male
beneficiaries. Over 90% of the respondents have indicated that currently the gender related issues
such as participation of women at community level decision making process, their roles in
productive activities, and their right to use and decide on their land had improved.

The program invested considerable amount of money to develop SMNP and make it attractive to
tourists and thereby to increase their number and duration of stay within and around the park.
Over the past three years, the number of tourists and income earned rose sharply. But the benefit
accrued to the local communities remains low. Thus closer examination of options to increasing
the income going to communities must be explored. Support to issuance of land certificates
enabled the line offices to issue 89,563 primary and 1,857 secondary certificates. As a result,
compared to the base line, land related conflicts were reduced by 75%. Besides, improved sense
of ownership encouraged farmers to invest more in their land (e.g. conduct soil and water
conservation measures, and plant trees). The following table provides a summary of the
outcomes/achievements of the first phase of the program against plans.


NRM Summery
Compilation of physical activity performance report, field visit and analysis of sample survey
data have been used for outcome assessment in integrated watershed development. Most
activities of the result area are performed as planned in the last five years and they also met the
required standards. For the past five years, 43 watersheds are identified and delineated. From the
identified and delineated 43 watersheds, 36 of them (103% from 5 years program target) have
been successfully developed as per the community watershed guideline, i.e. have watershed
committees working regularly, development plan, and rules and regulations. A total of 14644
households (10665 male and 3979 female) live in and benefit in different activities of the
program in these 36 watersheds .Many degraded areas are recovering because of this
intervention. To facilitate watershed based development, training of development agents and
experts and farmers is crucial and hence 498 development agents and experts and 5668 farmers


                                                ix
had received appropriate training. In addition to trainings experience sharing tours executed to
get experience from similar undertakings. Based on these trainings and experience sharing,
different activities were performed, 15162 hectares of different soil and water conservation
structures (253% of 5 years program target) constructed, about 37230 hectares (286% of five
years plan) of land have been demarcated and rehabilitated , 44 springs to secure safe drinking
water and reduce women’s work load (122% of target for five years of the program) developed
,33 small scale irrigation schemes (330% of five years target) were developed and 246 hectares
of land brought under irrigation , 4568 hectares of different types of forests (91.36 of five years
target) have been developed, 266881 hectares of natural forests (98%of plan) are protected by
local communities, 5820 energy saving stoves (108% of five years target ) are distributed for
1153 men and 4667 women households, 323492 m3 of compost which is 107.8% have been
achieved up to the end of 2012 third quarter and in relation to promotion of cultural practices.
129 field days (86%) have been conducted for 10798 households while the target for five years
was 150 and 7500 respectively for the last five years. Most activities in integrated watershed
development are achieved even over plan due to current government special attention and high
public mobilization towards natural resources development and conservation.
Some activities have been upscaled to non program watersheds. The activities include degraded
area closure and rehabilitation and integration of this with animal science (bee keeping, fodder),
development of eucalyptus woodlots and others. In area closure and rehabilitation, the program
has achieved good results in different woredas, Alefa,Dabat,Debark , Debark
Ketema,Taqusa,Gondar ketema are some to mention. Many degraded areas are recovering and
become productive because of this activity.
Even though most activities of integrated watershed development are expected to be
environmental friendly, two environmental monitoring studies were planed and one study
executed and the report submitted to the program and the second study is going on. The report
from the conducted study highlighted that there is more environmental rehabilitation and positive
impact.
There are 148,900 total beneficiaries in integrated watershed development result area from which
37969 are female participants (26%).The baseline data (data taken when watersheds are
delineated) shows that there are only 27% of women households and this information can be
applied to total participants. From this premises, result area level gender participation is well
addressed.
There are favorable conditions for Sustainability of results, first of all most of the interventions
are private undertakings and others have economic benefits to the beneficiaries (developed
springs, irrigation schemes, developed woodlots, rehabilitated degraded lands, natural forests
etc).The second suitable situation for sustainability is that, besides the economic rewards of the
results, the program used the existing government structure at implementation level for the last
five years with participation of local communities and relevant line offices know what was going
on by the program (they were implementers).




Outcome 1: Improvements in household income




                                                 x
Outcome 2: Creation of additional assets and investment in children’s education




Outcome 3: Improvement in crop yield




Outcome 4: Reduction in food insecurity status of households




Outcome 5: Improvement in land and other natural resources management




Other major findings




                                           xi
Table 1 Outcome/achievement in the program life (2008-2012)


                                                                                         Up to      Achieveme                       Remark
                                                                          Benchmar
              Outcome Indicator                   Unit        Baseline                   end of         nt
                                                                              k
                                                                                          2012         (%)

     25% of direct beneficiary
1    participant households
     involved in income generating
     activities increase their income
     by 50%
      Proportion of beneficiaries income                                                                               Based on second round outcome
                                                   %
       increased                                                                 25       49.3         197.2          assessment finding, among the 229
      49.3% of samples Income increment                                                                               samples,113 (49.3%) HH increased
                                                   %                                                                income by 146.9%. Among them 25%
                                                                                 50       146.9        293.8         HH increased their income by 203%
2    8000 participant households
     have created assets/invested in
     children education or
     productive tool
          Participant HHs created assest                                                                           From Natural resource 46,217 HHs &
                                                                                        55,4561
          wth the program support (As a            No                                                               from Livestock development 9239
                     program)                                                   8000                               HHs created asset in different forms.
        Participant HHs created assest                                                                              Among the sample beneficiaries74.2%
        wth the program support (sample)                                                                            has been found created asset with the
                                                                                                        74.2                  program support
        Value of asset created (increment                                                                           Value of additional asset created with the
        over baseline)                             birr                                                41.9
                                                               21,365                    30,328                         program support was birr 8962
        Number of children attending                                                                                 3.5% Increment of children attending
                                                   No
        school per HH                                           2.8                       2.9           3.5                    school per HH
        Percent of school aged children in         %            59.7                      72.8          21.9       21.9% Increment of school aged children

1
 Farm boundary plantations 15469, homestead plantation 26406, private wood lots 4227, motor pump 115, Cross Heifer Distribution 358, Sheep Production
1021, Goat Production 827, Bee Hive Distribution 759, Artificial Insemination 6222, Jack Ass Service 52 HHs created asset in different forms.


                                                                            i
                                                                                            Up to    Achieveme                    Remark
                                                                            Benchmar
              Outcome Indicator                     Unit        Baseline                    end of       nt
                                                                                k
                                                                                             2012       (%)
        school                                                                                                                    in school
3    30% increase in yield of 3
     major crops; and animals
     productivity
            Number of major crops                    No                            3           4
            Productivity increment2                  %
                                                                                                                 It Was Planed To Increase Productivity By 30%.
                                                                                   30          66       220          But 66% Productivity Increment archived
4    Food gaps reduced by 1/3 for
     50% of households among food
     insecure direct beneficiaries
     compared to baseline
              Proportion of food insecure                                                                          7% sample HHs food secured after
              households reduced3                     %
                                                                  48.5                        41.5       7                     intervention
              Reducing food gap of food                                                                          The food gaps was reduced by 0.56
              insecure HHs 4                       months
                                                                  2.98                        2.42     18.8      month (18.8%) from the base year
5                                                                                                                  This includes: area under forestry,
                                                                                                                 area closure, area under different soil
                                                                                                                 and water conservation activities and
                                                                                                                        area of natural forest under
                                                     ha                                                              protection. These activities has
                                                                                                                      increased in the second phase
     115,000 hectares of land                                                                                      because of experience gained from
     brought under improved land                                                                                     first phase and relatively higher
     management practices                                                     115,000       324113     281.8     attention was given by Gov’t to NRM




2
  Yield increments are teff= 22qtls/ha, Maize=52qtls/ha, wheat=38qtls/ha
3
  For those households who are now food secured from the overall sample, that were food insecure
4
  For those who remained as food insecure


                                                                              ii
In summary, the results of the outcome assessment show that program has significantly improved income of program beneficiaries,
but the number of program participants needs to increase significantly. Overall the program has brought a positive change to the
beneficiary households by supporting them to engage in different income gearing activities, by introducing high yielding crop varieties
that have significantly improved yield and income of farmers. Tens of thousands of households also benefited from improved access
to services (potable water, veterinary and AI services, natural forests protection). The adoption and implementation of integrated
watershed management practices and protection of forests had improved natural resource management. Over time this will facilitate
recovery of degraded lands and improve productivity of the land and availability of water and wood and other forest and tree resources
for societal use.




                                                                  iii
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
North Gondar zone is one of the ten Administrative Zones of Amhara National Regional State
(ANRS). It is subdivided into 20 rural woredas and 4 urban/town administrations. The rural areas
of the Zone in particular are exposed to natural resource degradation. Also, rapid population
growth adds pressure on already deteriorating natural resource base as people’s needs for farm
land and for wood also increases, which in turn results in high rate of conversion of forest and
marginal lands to crop fields. The cultivation of such lands often aggravates soil erosion and land
degradation. Coupled with erratic rainfall and more frequent draughts, these lead to declining
agricultural production and household income. For poor households with limited asset, declining
agricultural production aggravates food insecurity, and in some cases leads to famine. To combat
these problems and reversing the prevailing vicious circle of land degradation and worsening
state of poverty, the Sustainable Resources Management Program in North Gondar (SRMP-NG)
was launched in 2008 established with the support of Austrian Embassy Development
Cooperation (AEDC) in line with the national framework of the government for Sustainable
Development and Poverty Reduction. SRMP-NG was designed also as the follow up and
continuation of the previously planned executed Austrian supported projects in the Zone. It
attempted to incorporate the lesson learnt from the previous projects. It also includes new
dimensions like rural land administration and action research to further expands the benefit of the
program. The program also envisages to link extension, education, and research, which are the
three pillars of economic development and poverty reduction.

The overall objective of the program is to contribute to sustainable rural development and
improvement of food security in North Gondar through rational use and conservation of natural
resources. Its main purpose is to increase the income of households as a result of adoption of
sustainable resource management practices. The program works on 16 rural woredas and 3 urban
administrations of the Zone. The program has been planned to be implemented over a period of
five years (2008-2012) with two financing terms of three and two years.

During the end of first financial phase of the program some outcomes in the different result areas
were acknowledged by communities and reported by implementing agencies and evaluators. But
data and information on each of the specific outcomes were not systematically and periodically
collected, analyzed and reported by the Program Coordination Unit (PCU). To ensure the
appropriate program management based on trusted data, the first outcome assessment study has
been made PCU in 2011. Consequently, this second round outcome assessment has been done in
inline with the program indicators in order to capture and document outcome and output level
indicators, to truck the changes observed during the last five years intervention and to get
feedback for terminal evaluation and new Austrian supported project/program document
preparation. The study is also in line with the Monitoring and Evaluation Guideline of the
Program.




                                                1
1.2 Objectives of the outcome assessment
The objective of this Outcomes Assessment is to document the contribution of the program in
improving livelihoods, management of natural resources and in building capacity. Moreover, it
was aimed to truck the changes observed during the last five years intervention through a
properly designed survey.

During the first outcome assessment, four woredas were selected (i.e. Alefa, Debark, Lay-
armachiho and Tach-armachiho) and a total of 205 households studied to get representative
pictures of the performance of the program in the 19 woredas. The second round outcome
assessment also implemented under these sample woredas using 229 sample households (HHs).
The findings are expected to reveal achievements of outputs and outcomes with the contribution
of the program along these three major intervention areas.

Consequently the information so generated will provide feedback for terminal evaluation and
new Austrian supported project/program document preparation through the trucking of changes
observed during the last five years intervention besides documenting and sharing the lessons
learned to planners and development practitioners.

1.3. Organization of the report
Following the background information and the specific objectives of this outcome assessment,
the report is divided into the following sections. Section two presents the methodology used in
this study, and section three presents the finding of the outcome assessment for the three major
intervention areas of the program - changes in livelihoods of targeted households; natural
resource management; and capacity development and program management. The third section
also includes different services provided by the program to the wider community as well as
highlights the overall trend of development and livelihood options in the study area during the
past ten years based on pre-program and current status report of sample households. The later
helps to contextualize the actual contribution of the program in the study area. The final and
fourth section presents conclusions and recommended actions to be taken by the program
coordinating unit, other stakeholders and serve as a feedback for the preparation of new Austrian
supported project/program document, besides documenting and sharing the lessons learned to
planners and development practitioners




                                               2
2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 Types and sources of data and method of data collection
To elicit the necessary information for the intended assessment, both qualitative and quantitative,
and primary and secondary data were collected. Before conducting the field survey, secondary
data were collected from different stakeholder institutions such as WoA, WoEPLAU, WoFED,
WoCT, Park office and others and reviewed. The primary sources of quantitative data and
qualitative information were project participant/beneficiary farmers themselves, and data were
collected from the respondents using structured questionnaire and check lists.

Pre- tested and structured questionnaire was used for the formal survey of selected sample
households. Checklists also used for focus group discussions and key informant interviews. Field
visits and observations, and different methods and sources of data as well used to triangulate data
and to strengthen internal validity of study findings. As the focus was measuring progress
towards achieving project objectives, plan versus achievements of the program for the last five
years (2008-2012) were emphasized to evaluate program progress thus far.

2.2. Selection of sample woredas and sample size
The second round outcome assessment strictly follows the methodology designed for first
outcome assessment. Multistage random sampling was used to select the respondent sample
households. In the first stage of sampling among 19 program woredas, 4 woredas selected
considering several parameters. This required careful examination of key variables of interests
such as budget allocation, number of components (major result areas woredas were involved in),
and the overall performance of each woreda in their project accomplishments. In the first stage of
sampling (Annex table 1), woredas having Park Management and tourism development activities
were identified to form a separate set of woredas from which one representative woreda would
be selected. Then attempt was made to regroup the remaining woredas into three cluster or
homogenous groups and to select one sample and representative woredas from each of the three
clusters using several criteria. It was also recognized that the different criteria suggested would
have equal weights in influencing program outcomes. Then based on consultation with experts at
the PCU, different weights were given to these criteria. The criteria used along with the
respective relative importance are presented below.

a) Fund allocated. Woredas have been requesting and receiving different levels of fund. Total
   fund (budget) available to a given woreda is one of the factors that could create potential
   differences in level of development work and hence program outcome among woredas. Total
   budget allocation were considered and based on the budget amount, and the Woredas were
   regrouped into three categories – high, medium and low budget woredas. A score of six was
   given to high, four to medium and two to the low budget allocated woredas. This specific
   criterion was given a relative weight of 25% out of the total weight of 100%.

b) Number of result areas. Woredas also differ in the number of result areas they
   implemented. Based on the number of result areas, woredas were categorized into three
   groups (a score of three was given to a woreda with above average number of result areas,
   two for woredas with average number of result areas, and one with less than average number
   of result areas). A 12.5% weight was given to this criterion out of the total weight of 100%.


                                                3
c) Potential and number of technologies. A household was introduced to increasing income.
   The type (its immediate income generating potential) and number of technologies introduced
   to program participating households, and the total number of beneficiary households in a
   given area greatly influence the level of improvement in productivity and income status of
   households, and hence on program outcomes in a given woreda. Therefore, the number of
   beneficiaries who participated in income generating agricultural technologies needs to be
   taken into account and this criterion was accorded a weight of 12.5%.

d) Performance of Woredas. Despite the level of resource/fund allocation, we have witnessed
   over the years that woredas differ greatly in the program planning, implementation and
   reporting performances. This was believed to be the most important factor of the four
   identified in influencing program outcome. The nine result area advisors of PCU were asked
   to rank the 19 woredas based on their performance in terms of their program management
   capabilities to utilize the allocated recourse to attain the desired program objectives. The sum
   of this score was divided by the number of experts and the average score was used to
   categorize the 19 woredas into three clusters. This specific criteria was allocated a weight of
   50%.

By so doing the study team finally managed to get three nearly homogenous clusters of program
woredas with low, medium and better likelihood of having desirable program outcome at
household and farm levels. (Annex table 2). The woredas having Park Management and tourism
development activities were categorized as one homogenous group to form a separate set of
woredas.

Based on the above methodology, Wogera, Gondar Zuria, Chilga, Takusa and Lay-armachio
were in the category with better likelihood of achieving the desired impact. Among these, Chilga
and Takusa didn’t have sufficient number of beneficiary sample households for the formal
survey. Therefore, using random sampling technique Lay-armachio woreda was selected among
the remaining as a sample of this category.

Gondar Town, Alefa, Metema, Dabat and Dembia woredas fell in the medium category. Among
these, Gondar Town, Metema and Dabat didn’t have sufficient number of beneficiary households
for the formal survey. Using random sampling Alefa woreda was selected as a sample from the
remaining two.

Quara, Tach Armach and Gendewuha woredas were in the third category. Except Tach Armach
woreda others didn’t have sufficient number of beneficiary households and thus Tach Armach
woredas was considered as sample woreda to represent this category.

Woredas located around the Simen Mountains National Park (SMNP) and involved in park and
tourism activities include Telemt, Beyeda, Janamora, Adiarkay, Debark Town and Debark
woredas. This set of woredas was taken as the fourth category. In this category, except Debark
woreda, all others didn’t have sufficient number of beneficiary households for the formal survey.
Therefore, Debark woreda was taken as a sample woreda representing this cluster of woredas
and became the fourth sample woreda. It was passing through this process that the selection of
four representative woredas was made.




                                                4
The program follows integrated watershed development (IWSD) approach to ensure sustainable
development. Though beneficiaries living outside the watersheds also receive the support from
the program, most of the Program support goes to beneficiaries living inside the identified and
delineated watersheds in each of the woredas. As a result, during the second stage of sampling,
only households within the watershed and getting program support were considered. During the
third stage of sampling, the study team compiled the lists of the program beneficiaries within
each watershed from the selected sample woredas along with the types of technologies they were
introduced to (e.g. livestock versus soil and water conservation). As the objective was to assess
outcomes, only those project participants/beneficiaries who joined the program before 2009 were
selected, and each of the households were then categorized into very-poor, poor, medium and
relatively rich wealthy categories using PRA techniques and involving elders and development
agents in the area. Given the difficulty of getting sufficient sample size for each of the four
categories, the four wealth categories were reduced to two – the first two categories were clusters
as poor and the last two as better off. These two categories were used in subsequent analysis.

In the forth stage of sampling, a total of 229 sample households examined for this study. Nearly
equal proportion of sample households were taken from each four woreda and sample
households were selected using random sampling technique from the list of the own woredas.
Nearly equal proportions from poor and better-off samples were selected from their category.
Regarding gender, we assumed that this program supports both male and female households, and
both were given equal chance of appearing in the sample. During sampling, 44.5% poor and
55.5% better-off respondents were addressed in the sample. Regarding sex, 68.1% and 31.9%
were males and female beneficiaries respectively (Annex table 3)..

The team recognized that the impact at household level is very much influenced by the income
generating potential of the technologies promoted. As households vary in terms of the types and
number of technologies they were supported, income will accordingly vary. But stratifying the
sample along this line was tried to consider. But, the subdivision of samples by technology type
a long wealth status category created sample dispersion and at this stage woredas lack sufficient
number of respondent households to make such study meaningful. Therefore, the team decided
to exclude using of type of technology as one category.

2.3. Data analysis
The qualitative information was analyzed on the spot for consistency and information was
summarized. The quantitative data on the other hand was cleaned and entered using Excel, and
the actual analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software
version 20. Data were analyzed using both descriptive statistics (e.g. mean, percentage, graphs,
etc… and inferential statistics notably F-test, T-test and χ2-test. The later was used to examine
relationships between variables of interests and to evaluate the existence and levels of
differences variables such as sex, wealth status and woredas and the levels of certain measures of
performance.

Subsistence income, creation of asset, and cash income earned with the support of program was
one of the issue addressed in the outcome assessment. In order to calculate subsistence income
before and after intervention, average annual farm-get price for each specific year were
generated from group discussion. To calculate the value of livestock asset, average annual price
of each livestock species was used for each specific year. Respondent’s estimation was taken to


                                                5
get the woodlot tree and fruit asset values. Farmers were also asked the amount of Birr earned
from the sale of different agricultural products in order to calculate their cash income gain before
and after intervention. Inflation of price was not accounted in this study.

2.4. Composition of the team involved in the outcome assessment
The checklist for the qualitative study and the questionnaire for the formal survey were drafted
by the M&E advisor in line with the outcome and output indicators indicated in program
document. This was circulated to all result area advisors of PCU and their comments were used
to revise and finalize contents. Likewise, the approach followed in the selection of sample
woredas and households was done in consultation with the result area advisors.

Result Area advisors in the PCU participated in the wealth ranking exercise conducted in the
four woredas and also in supervising the administration of the formal survey to the 229 sample
households. The formal survey was completed by well trained Degree or Diploma holder
enumerators whose actual work was supervised by the result area advisors of the PCU.

To ensure the accuracy of data analysis, two well knowledgeable PCU experts in the SPSS
analysis were involved.

To assess output level indicators, five years plan versus achievements of the program were
compiled by the result area advisors through the close follow-up of M&E advisor.

During write-up process, each result area advisor prepared a report for his/her respective result
area jointly with the team leader in their core team area of interventions. Team leaders compiled,
edited and prepared one document for their respective team. Finally, the team leaders and M&E
expert worked together to bring the different core team reports in to one report.




                                                 6
3. FINDINGS OF THE OUTCOME ASSESSMENT
3.1 Characteristics of respondent households
A total of 229 sample households were examined for this study. Nearly equal proportion from
poor and better-off samples were selected from their category. Regarding gender, we assumed
that this program supports both male and female households, and both were given equal chance
of appearing in the sample. Therefore, 44.5% poor and 55.5% better-off respondents were
addressed in the sample. Regarding sex, 68.1% and 31.9% were males and female beneficiaries
respectively. The random sample technique from the direct beneficiaries general list revealed
that the proportion of female from the total beneficiaries were 31.9% (Annex table 3)..

As indicated in Table 2, the age of the sampled HHs ranged from 20 to 92 years with an average
of 44 years. The average family size of respondents is 6.42. The number of males in the family is
slightly larger (3.30) than females (3.13). As indicated in Annex table 5, the survey result shows
that the mean total family size of Alefa, Debarek, Tacharmachiho and Layarmachiho woredas
were 5.68, 6.16, 6.39 and 7.54 respectively. There was significant difference in family size
between woredas at 5% probability level.

Table 2. Respondents’ number, age and family size by sex

                              Number of           Mean age of   Total Family
            Sex              respondents          respondents       Size
                            No        %              (years)      (number)
     Male                   156      68.1           46.7756         3.30
     Female                  73      31.9           38.2055         3.13
     Total                  229     100.0           44.0437         6.42
     Minimum                                            22.00         1
     Maximum                                            92.00        14
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey

Among male respondents, 83% of them are married and 17% of them are single. Among female
respondent 56.2% and 43.8% of them were married and single respectively (Annex table 6).




                                                    7
3.2 Changes in livelihoods of targeted households


3.2.1. Improvement in crop productivity
In the five year program plan, the productivity of major field crops was to increase by 30
percent. The introduced improved promising varieties of field crops (tef, maize, wheat, rice,
millet, chickpea, lentil, sorghum, field pea, fababean, and soybean} vegetables (potato, pepper,
tomato) and fruits (different apple varieties) were tested and these important high value and high
yielding varieties of food crops are introduced along with improved management practices in 19
woredas, from which near to 15,000 people benefited to meet their own HH needs, but also the
crops are market oriented. According to the yield data gathered from 692 participant households
in tef, wheat and maize and the finding of the 2012 PCU outcome survey, due to the program
intervention, the average yield increment of major crops was 66% (141% for tef, 71% for wheat
and 228% for maize} higher than the baseline.

3.2.2. Subsistence income
               a. Crop production
As of the PCU sample survey of 2012 generated data the participant households in crop
consumption income before, after intervention and with program support were 221, 227 and 105
and the mean subsistence income was 4984.07, 8091.21 and 2528.55 respectively. This shows
that an increment of subsistence income by 62%.

               b. Livestock development
From the total 229 respondents 219 ie 95.6% households were participated in livestock
development in the program. This indicates that majority of farmers in all program intervention
woredas are beneficiaries of in livestock development. From the base line, at least 30 % of
households who are engaged in livestock development are women. However, after program
implementation their participation has increased from 30 to 50.98 which is 169.93% increment.
Likewise, before program intervention, from the total 229 sample households 85 (37.1%) of
them were participating in dairy development. This figure was increased to 134 (58.5%)
participants after intervention. From the 134 participants 69 (52%) were supported by the
program (Table C).

Data on subsistence income indicate that after the program intervention respondents were getting
an average of Birr 3630.16 from dairy. The annual substance income of those who were
supported by the program increased to an average of Birr 4743.53. In most cases locally dairy
products are consumed by the family members due to low absorption capacity of milk processing
plant established at zonal level. But some of them prepare butter and sell it at local markets with
reasonable prices(table G R6).

As an indicator 4510 participant households cultivating and using semi intensive back yard
animal production systems such as dairying and shoats but due to the program intervention
6380(141.46%) participant households engaged in cultivating and using semi intensive back yard
animal production systems such as dairying, shoats, Poultry and Beekeeping husbandries .


                                                8
              c. Use of Natural resources
Natural resources use for subsistence is obvious, beneficiaries use for fuel, construction or
household utensils from natural resources. However there was no enough data to accurately
indicate the magnitude of the subsistence income. Concerning fuel wood the survey data analysis
shows that use of own plantation as fuel source increased from 35.8% before program
intervention to 61.6% in 2012.The same way use of natural forest as fuel sources decreased from
45.9% before program intervention to 26.2% in 2012 (table rank of beneficiaries as fuel
sources).This is an important information which show that subsistence income in natural
resources is becoming more on own production than other sources.

3.2.3. Cash income
       3.2.3.1. Cash income from livestock farming

              a. Cash income from animals sold
Before the program intervention, 106 respondents were earning cash income from livestock sold
and this number rose to 121 after intervention. The baseline average income of those respondents
was Birr 1,888. After five years of program intervention the mean average income rose to
3369.75 Birr and this accounted to 78.5% increment from the overall baseline. Among them 69
participated due to program support, and 29 and 40 were male and female respondents
respectively. The baseline income of those program supported respondents from animal sold was
684 Birr and gained an average additional income of Birr 1001. This accounted 146% increment
from the group baseline. As shown in the baseline figure, the participants’ previous cash income
from animal sold was very low, so that the participation of these farmers in sheep and goat
rearing with the program support helps them to earn more income (Table D R6).

              b. Fattening
The number of participants involved in fattening before the program intervention was 41 (17.9
%) of which 34 and 7 were male and female respectively. After the program implementation, the
number of participants increased to 42 (18.3%) of which 9 were female. The mean income male
and female gained from fattening before the program intervention was Birr 1108 and 866.667.
After the program implementation, the mean income was increased to an average of Birr
11037.7778 and 3914.2857 for male and female accordingly. The total net income derived from
fattening business only for male was birr 4800. This indicates that there is high significant
income increment difference due to the program intervention. So, the program has positively
contributed to the income increment gained from fattening activities(Table D result 5)

 As an indicator it was planned to increased number of fattening cooperatives from 9 to 20 by
2012.At this time the number of fattening cooperatives reached 19 which has 95% achievement.

              c. Beekeeping
Among the sample households, the number of participants involved in beekeeping (honey
production) before program intervention was 59 (25.8 %) and from 59 households 55, 2 and 2
were owned traditional, Transition and modern behaves. This number was raised to 62 (27.1%)
after the program implementation. Average cash income from honey production before program


                                               9
intervention was Birr 264.375 whereas after program intervention, the average cash income
increased to Birr 493.77 and this accounted to 186.77% increment due to the program
intervention(Table C R6).

               d. Feed development
The number of households who participated in feed resources development before program
intervention was 68 (29.7%). This number increased to 89 (38.9%) and their average income
increase from 283.89 to 880.71 Birr. The program supported 68 (76.4%) households in improved
feed development activities. The mean income before and due to program support was 283.89
and 880.71 Birr respectively.

 From the total of 229 households 70(30.6) of them were participated in stall feeding where as
126(55) of the respondents were also participated after the program intervention. Among the
respondents 23, 26 and 43 beneficiaries reasoning out that prevent open grazing, for fattening
and animal care why the households used stall feeding without the program case. Likewise, after
the program intervention 46, 29 and 60 were also reason out that to prevent open grazing, for
fattening and animal care. From this one can conclude that the program has positive contribution
for the development of stall grazing. As an indicator stall feeding of animals exercised by 100
HHs dealing in dairy production by the end of 2012.However, in practice stall feeding of animals
exercised by 42 HHs dealing in dairy production.

Regarding to other animal products, before program intervention, 53 poor, 65 better off and a
total of 118 farmers were participating in the selling of different animal products such as butter,
egg, hide and skin, and in animal renting. Before intervention, their annual cash income was on
the average Birr 199.32. After program intervention, the number of participants rose to 127 and
their annual average income increment to Birr 377.42.

               e. Breed animals
Income gained from sold breed animals in birr was 4800. From the total 3 farmers were
participate in this activities.

               f. Animal products
Animal products can emanate from different sources such as cows, Oxen, sheep, goats,
etc.Income in birr gained from animal products after the program intervention was birr 887.78
and 233.5 for 133 and 35 respectively.

               g. Summary of livestock cash income
Before the program intervention the mean annual income was birr 1556.16 but after its
intervention the mean annual income also increase to birr 3070.42 and this shows an income
increment of birr 1514.26 which is 97.3%. After five years of program intervention the mean
average income of households from livestock increased to Birr 2690.8319. The number of HHs
getting income from livestock increased from 109 to 196 within five year program
implementation period. Among them 109 participated due to program support, of which 62 and
47 were male and female HHs benefited respectively. Baseline average income of the program
beneficiaries from different types of livestock development activities was Birr 1141.36 and those


                                                10
households who were supported by the program gained on average additional income of Birr
3666.89 from baseline. This accounted to 214% increment. The target of the program is to
increase livestock income by 50% from the baseline by the end of 2012 and in actual it increased
214 %(Table X).

Table x indicates that the number of women household participants in livestock development
increased from 38 to 57 and their annual income also increased from 1197.0263 to 1783.5088
Birr during within five years the program implementation period. Out of these, the program
provided support for 47 females who gained mean additional annual income of Birr 2131.1702
and this shows an income increment of 187% from the group baseline. The program is mostly
providing credit and animal production technology for poor and female farmers, so that the
return is higher.

Table x. Livestock cash income by sex

                                   Before                         After                    Baseline of samples
                                                                                                                     Additional income from
                                Intervention                  Intervention                   getting program
         Sex                                                                                     support
                                                                                                                       program supported


                               N           Mean               N           Mean             N          Mean             N          Mean
Male                                     1655.0580                      3598.1511           62      1600.3387                   4831.0645
                                138                          139                                                       62
Female                                   1197.0263                      1783.5088           47        535.8936                  2131.1702
                                   38                        57                                                        47
Total                                       1556.16                        3070.42        109          1141.36                     3666.89
                                176                          196                                                      109
t-test                          1.409 (0.161)                   3.675 (000)                    4.023 (000)               2.138 (0.036)
Income difference
before and after                                                   1514.26                                                  2525.53
% increment
                                                                    97.34                                                    221.27
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 % , at 5*, NS non Significant

Before the beginning of program intervention, the income gained from different types of
livestock development activities among the poor and better-off participants was Birr 1321.9114
and Birr 1746.9485 respectively. This income was on the average raised to Birr 2143.6421 for
the poor and Birr 3942.1485 for the better-off farmers with a total average income of Birr
3070.4230 within five years period of the program. Poor farmers gained average additional
income of Birr 2117.6071 and better-off farmers Birr 5303.8679 as a result of the program
support, with total mean income of Birr 3666.89. Due to the program support, the poor and
better-off farmers average increment accounts to 900% and 98.6% respectively. The statistical
analysis of the data indicates that there was no significant difference between poor and better-off
farmers before, overall after intervention and with the program support. The result shows that
poor and the better-off farmers are equally benefited from the program (Table y).

Table y. Livestock cash income by wealth status

                                                                                             Baseline of              Additional income
   Wealth Status             Before Intervention            After Intervention             samples getting             from program
                                                                                          program support                supported


                                                                     11
                               N            Mean              N            Mean            N           Mean             N          Mean
Poor                             79      1321.9114              95      2143.6421           56        755.7500          56      2117.6071
Better                           97      1746.9485            101       3942.1485           53      1548.7925           53      5303.8679
       Total                  176          1556.16          196         3070.4230         109          1141.36        109         3666.89
t-test                             -1.627 (.106)                      -2.961(.004)               -2.673 (.009)                -2.202 (.032)

Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 % , at 5*, NS non Significant
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data,




          3.2.3.2. Cash income from crop production

                     a. Cash income from crop production
Unlike the subsistence income the mean cash income of the sample households before
intervention were 4211.67 and after intervention were 3787.41 which is due to the survey time of
the program was at the middle of the crop calendar year that makes unable to calculate the year
base annual cash income of households before the farmers sale their grain product. Where as the
mean cash income of 104 {among them 22 are females} with program supported participants
were 5105.72 which was higher than the survey data by 894.05{21.23%}. That means farmers
are able to earn better additional annual income from sale of grain harvest after the program
intervention than before. This is substantiated by most participant farmers in crop production
from a plot of tef land they harvested more than double that is up to 22qt/ha compared to the
traditional 8qt/ha, of which they sold 25% of the total yield at a rate of Birr 800/qt and earned
extra cash to buy different animal’s, inputs e.t.c….

                     b. Cash income from fruit (trees) production
Depending on the sample data analysis of 2012 cash income generated from introduced highland
apple and root stock production before and after the program intervention was 100 and 184.29
respectively, due to the long term time requirement for high yield return of the fruit tree nature
the cash income from apple tree were relatively low which is highly promising in the future.

                     c. Cash income from Irrigation development
Integrated watershed development is all about sustainable management of water and other
natural resources in the watershed and there fore small scale irrigation and spring development
are two major interventions of the integrated watershed development result area. To increase
production and income of beneficiaries' development of small scale irrigation schemes had been
one of the focus areas in the program. Accordingly many of these schemes were developed in
watershed woredas. The program had invested about 4,244,695.70 to develop 8 small river
diversions. A target to develop 10 small scale irrigation schemes and 150 hectares of land to
enable 500 households increase their income by 50% was set for five years of the program. And
for the last five years as indicated by compilation of secondary data,33 small scale irrigation
schemes and 246 hectares of land was developed and benefited 997 male and 63 female (1060
households). The developed schemes include 8 small river diversions, 2 spring development and
23 motor pumps. Unfortunately 8 motor pumps in Taqusa woreda were not utilized by
beneficiaries so far. Other wise the cultivated area and beneficiary number could have been more



                                                                     12
      than this. Concerning income, as it is shown from data compiled from beneficiary woredas
      (table below), the average annual income per household per year was 926.00 before the
      intervention of the program and after the program intervention it was changed to 2054.This
      shows that the beneficiaries' annual income has increased to 55 % in contrast to the five years
      target 50% increase.


        Change of beneficiary woredas in irrigation before and after the program
                             Before program intervention                  After program intervention

                                                    Beneficiary       Cultivat   income         Beneficiary
S/n      woreda
                         Cultivated   income                          ed Area    per year
                         Area per     per year                        per year    in birr                   Tota
                                                  M         F   Total                       M       F
                         year in ha   in birr                         in ha                                   l
         Lay                8.25                   28       2    30     8.25     73328.4                     35
                                       57884                                                 32     3
1        armachiho
         Gondar               0                    1             1     0.41667      9800                      6
                                          0                                                   6
2        Ketema
3        Gondar Zuria     23.7125     19749     11         11            26      85852.5     16              16
4        Dembia             15.6     280000 243 14 257                   64       965120    305    17       322
5        Dabat             14.66     229350 106 1 107                    37       606500    143     5       148
6        Wogera              7.5     141300     27    1    28             8       181050     27     1        28
7        Chiliga             25       49860     18    5    23            41        99495     68    12        80
8        Alefa                8         0      150 13 163                36        85000    179    15       194
9        Debark              20         0      210 10 220                26        71040    221    10       231
         Total              123      778143 794 46 840                   246     2177186    997    63       1060
         Ave income                  926.361                                      2053.95
                           Source: Compiled data from woredas

       The table above also indicates that cultivated area had increased from 123 ha before intervention
      to 246 ha after intervention, like wise the number of beneficiaries increased from 840 to 1060.In
      this case the area under cultivation and annual income has doubled after the program
      intervention.

       In contrast to this the survey data analysis (Table: area under cultivation and annual income
      from irrigation) shows reduction of cultivated area from before program intervention 0.2261 ha
      to 0.2253 ha after program intervention. This is very unlikely because data has been collected
      from all irrigation beneficiary woreda and the realities on the ground show that new cultivated
      area has become under irrigation. Some of the examples can be Dembia Tantikura small river
      diversion (about 16ha),Alefa and debark woredas irrigation by motor pumps (together about
      36ha),Chiliga woreda small river diversion (about an increase of about 16 ha) these are all
      additional areas so what ever the case there can not be area reduction. Apart from this, there is a
      remarkable similarity in income increase by both data sources 55% increase from data
      compilation and 59% income increase from survey analysis.


                                                       13
Area under cultivation and annual income from irrigation.
                                                                                Support of
  Area and                               Before               After
                    Wreda                                                        program
   income
                                    N        Mean        N       Mean         N       Mean
               Alefa                23       .3078       18      .3189         1        .1300
Area covered   Debarek               7       .1543        2      .1550         1        .2500
in irrigation  Tacharmachiho         0          .         2      .2500         -          -
(ha)           Layarmachiho         39       .1908       38      .1834        20        .1990
                    Total           69       .2261       60      .2253        22        .1982
               Alefa                23      674.7826     18     583.3333      1      1000.0000
Income from Debarek                  7      191.4286      2     375.0000      1       500.0000
Irrigation     Tacharmachiho         0          .         2    3750.0000
production (in Layarmachiho         39     1132.3077     38    2147.1053      20     2187.5000
Birr)          Total
                                   69     884.3478    60 1672.3333       22     2056.8182
                          Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data,

       3.2.3.3. Cash income from Natural Resources
Income from natural resources can be selling from wood, seedlings or other natural resources
products. The most relevant one in terms of program support is that of selling from seedling
production since the program had supported many beneficiaries to have their own nurseries. And
the second contributor will be selling from wood since some thinning and small pole size
products from plantations at the begging of the program can be marketable products at this time.
Income from natural resource is based on Compilation of consecutive reports, field observation
and Survey data analysis. The survey data analysis result concerning income from Natural
Resources is depicted in the table cash income from natural resources. As indicated in this table,
the cash income from selling of wood, cash incomes from selling of seedlings and cash income
from natural resources products are presented consecutively. The survey result further depicts
that total mean cash income from natural resources has increased from 791.369 before program
intervention to 1812.194 after program intervention which is 56.33% income increase. The
programs contribution accounts for 1157.5 annual mean income i.e. 64 % of the income.

                a) Cash income from sealing of wood
Cash income from selling of wood can be from the program support planted at the begging of the
program. As the survey data analysis indicates the mean income of beneficiaries from wood has
increased from 796.67 before program intervention to 1288.9 after the program intervention and
this is an increase of about 39%. And almost all of the increment is contributed by the program
since mean income from wood by the program support is 1013.78.

                b) Cash income from sealing of seedling
The program had contributed much to the development of private nurseries and plantations.
About 610 private nurseries were established and produced about 8 million seedlings (5 years


                                                  14
achievement table in integrated watershed development). No matter how small the size of the
nurseries (they are some times as small as 0.014 ha or 136m2) is the main objective of any
nursery is to produce quality seedlings. And these private nurseries produce very good quality
seedlings some times even better than some poor module nurseries and from all community
nurseries. First and for most these private nurseries produce seedlings of good market value like
Eucalyptus, Rhamnus prinoides (Gesho), and others. From consecutive reports and field
observation data most private nurseries have the capacity to accommodate about 21 seedbeds of
1meter by 5meter in spacing of about 30 to50 cm between beds. The average cost per seed bed
ranges 200-300ETB i.e. average250.00 birr .So the smallest private nursery generates an annual
income of 250.00*21 beds =5250.00 per year. In This case the income from seedling sell in2012
will be 610*5250.00=3202500.00 birr this means there are 610 beneficiaries with annual income
of 5250.00. In terms of sex about 213 (34%) were women participants.

In the other hand the survey data analysis (Cash income from natural resources) indicates that the
annual income of beneficiaries before program intervention was about 534.00 and the average
income after the program intervention is found to be 3320.00.From this 1180.00 mean annual in
come (about 33%) is contributed by the program. however the survey data shows less annual
income than values from formal reports. The formal report supported by field observation data is
to be trusted more because it is checked at different levels.

               c) Cash income from Natural resource products
The program has no any direct contribution to the income from Natural resources products. The
products can be charcoal, local timber or other non forest products. As the survey data indicates,
the mean annual income gained from natural resources products increase from 534.00 birr before
program intervention to 1163.00 after program intervention. It has increased by 54% and in
terms of participation in this activity men participants increased by nearly 33% while that of
women increased by nearly 7%.

       3.2.3.4. Cash income from tourism Development
As a result of different promotion efforts, other conducive social and political environment
created for visitors, tourist arrival and the associated income from the sector to both community
and government is increasing than ever before. Based on the SMNP office data, tourist arrival
increased from 8460 in 2000 E.C to 15995 in 2004 which is a significant increase by 89% (see
figure N below). Income of the community also increased from1161992 in 2000 to 4498905 in
2004 which is 287% increase. Income of the government also increased from 956071 in 2000 to
4450810 in 2004 which is 366% increase (fig. T below).As the graphical representation of the
income indicated, the annual income of both the government and community has increased in a
geometric fashion over time. The average stay of tourists has also increased from three to five
days (park office report).




                                               15
16
Out of the sampled 62 respondents in Debark, 45 (73%) benefited from providing tourist services
of which 8(13%) are females before the program intervention. After intervention only 30 (48%)
were participated, of which 5 (8%) were females. Hence, the survey data indicated that male
households were more encouraged than female households which require the program to give
due attention to focus on mainstreaming gender in its tourism related income generation
activities. From tourism related businesses the mean income of all participants before program
intervention was 330 Birr and the income rose to 374 Birr per year showing income increment of
13% from the baseline or achieved 92% of the benchmark set in the log frame (Table Z below).
The decline in the number of beneficiary households from tourism income after program
intervention could be justified as the number of beneficiaries increased from time to time; those
households involved in tourism services in the previous period will not get the turn opportunity
to provide services to visitors in the next period. Hence, the frequency of getting the opportunity
of providing services and generate income from the sector would be minimal.

When income and participation are evaluated in terms of wealth status, only 16 (42%) poor
households were involved and received mean income of 226 Birr as compared to 22 (58%)
Households from better-off categories who got mean income of Birr 304 before the
commencement of the program. After program intervention 12 (19.4%) of poor household
generated an average income of 462.5 Birr as compared to the 18(29%) better-off households
who generated mean income of 314 Birr. After the program intervention the mean income of
poor households increased by 104% and those of better off categories increased by only 3%
indicating that poor households are supported adequately and the program is maintaining its
concern of target beneficiaries (Table M below).




                                                17
Table Z. Cash income from tourism by sex

                                      Sex of Respondent                 N              Mean           Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean
                                      Male                              37              348.2973            547.69745               90.04091
income from Tourism activities
                                      Female                            8               243.1250            156.86522               55.46023
before
                                      Total                             45                329.60
                                                                                       .534 (.596)
                                      T test
                                      Male                              25              323.6000            231.55057               46.31011
income from Tourism activities
After                                 Female                            5               624.0000            799.45607             357.52762
                                      Total                             30                373.67
                                                                                     -.833 .450 ()
                                      T test
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 %, at 5*, NS non Significant




Table M. Cash income from tourism by sex and wealth status


                                                         Group Statistics
                                      Wealth status              N             Mean           Std. Deviation      Std. Error Mean

 income from Tourism activities Poor                                  16       226.0625              155.10017             38.77504
 before                               better off                      29       386.7241              609.94794            113.26449

                                      Total                                       329.60
                                                                             -1.030 (.309)
                                      T test
 income from Tourism activities Poor                                  12       462.5000              518.35623            149.63655
 After                                better off                      18       314.4444              255.04837             60.11548
                                      Total                                       373.67
                                                                             1.043 .306 ()
                                      T test



          3.2.3.5. Alternative Livelihood Promotion
It is the identification, selection and development of alternative enterprise opportunities or
livelihood diversification. To do this a number of activities were carried out.

a. Training and materials supervision

To improve the livelihoods of marginalized groups as well as to reduce the pressures of the park,
skill up grading training was provided for 55, 138, 45, and 22 farmers on artisan, cotton weaving,
carpentry and pottery training respectively. On top of this, to facilitate their activities working
materials such as hand tools, modern cotton weaving machines, pottery machines, etc were
provided to the trainees. Likewise, TOT training on business planning & financial skill for
woredas experts and ToT training on business and entrepreneur skills for woredas experts were
also provided for 42 and 60 trainees.


                                                                     18
From the total 133 respondents 102 of which 68 and 34 male and female were modern
technologies such as cotton weaving, pottery, etc machines utilizes.

B.Micro-business

To enhance the farmers’ alternative livelihood options and to reduce the pressures of the park,
two bakery micro- business were under way both in Adirkay and Debark woredas.On top of this,
3 bakery machines and 2 flour mixers were also purchased and distributed to the two woredas.

C.Mashroom and spawn production

To diversify the alternative incomes of the farmers the program has involved in the production of
Mushroom and spawns productions. So, 6, 46 and 20 spawn producers farmers, Mushroom
producers farmers and extension woreda and development agents were trained. They started
producing and improve their livelihoods.

d. Petty trading

Support Selected HH in different local Trade Activities (Egg, Grain, cons traction poles, Hide &
skin) on credit basis. So far, about 274 farmers were involved in different trading activities and
enhance their income.

At the outset it was planned to select and promote10 alternative livelihood options, 3000
beneficiaries will be trained in alternative livelihood options and 300 households adopted off-
farm livelihood options and earned additional income and hence, 10 alternative livelihood
options were selected and promoted or implemented. Based on this, 1998(67%) beneficiaries
were trained in alternative livelihood options, out of them 110(47%) households adopted off-
farm livelihood options and earned birr 692 as an additional income.

       3.2.3.6. Cash income from off-farm and , non-farm and stove production activities
The involvement of farmers in off-farm and non-farm activities helps to minimize environmental
degradation, reduce unemployment and underemployment and maximize or earn additional
income to support their livelihoods.

 11.7% and 12.2% of respondents participated in off-farm (seasonal labor migration) before and
after intervention respectively. The mean income gained from this activity was 1,265 Birr and
876 Birr before and after intervention respectively. Regarding non-farm income activities, 14.6%
and 15.1% of HHs participated before and after intervention respectively. The income gained
from this activity was 823 Birr and 1,892 Birr before and after intervention respectively. Non-
farm income was generated from different activities such as hand crafts, small scale trade, safety-
net program, school guard salary, etc(Table D R5).




                                                19
       3.3.3.7. Summary of total cash income
Before the program intervention, among the overall respondents, 214 (93.5%) of HHs were earn
cash income from various income generating activities. This number roused to 223 (97.4%) after
intervention. The baseline average cash income of those respondents was Birr 5,456. After five
years of program intervention the mean average income raised to 7,180 Birr and this accounted
to 31.60% increment from the overall baseline. Before a year during the first outcome
assessment the income increment was 12.7%

Out of the total 229 respondents, 188 (82.1% ) households has been supported by the program
and earned additional cash income in various income generating activities, of which 129 (68.6%)
and 59 (31.4%) were male and female respondents, respectively. The baseline cash income of
those program supported respondents was 4878 Birr and after the program intervention their cash
income earn increase to 11,659 Birr which is 138.9% of cash income increment from their group
baseline. The effect of overall cash income increment on women participants was more when we
compare to men, i.e 206.6% increase (Table 7). During the first outcome assessment the overall
cash income increment of beneficiaries were 28%



The support of program was mainly focused on animal production, fattening, apiculture, dairy,
feed development, different improved crop varieties, irrigation development, wood sell from
private plantation, and seedling sales, etc.

Table 3. HH total cash income before, after intervention and only the support of the program

                                                                           Std.
         Activities                     Sex      N           Mean                    Maximum
                                                                         Deviation
                               Male             155          6256.5       5455.4
HH Total Cash income Before    Female            59          3353.2       4337.2
intervention                   Total            214          5456.07      5322.7       35270.0
                               t-test                       4.062 ***
                               Male             155          8331.2       7776.4
HH Total Cash income After     Female            68          4558.5       4188.2
intervention                   Total            223          7180.81      7090.3       48490.0
                               t-test                       4.686 ***
                               Male             129         5941.9380
Baseline
                               Female            59         2553.5000
 (for HH which generated
income from program support)   Total            188          4878.55
                               t-test                       4.854***




                                               20
                                          Male                          129               13411.5              20406.4
   HH Total Cash income with              Female                        59                 7827.9              11601.5
    the support of program                Total                         188              11659.21              18262.8          148500.0
                                          t-test                                          1.960 *

Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 5 % , at 10 respectively


3.2.4. Asset building, saving and investment

           3.2.4.1. Assets created fully attributed to the program

                      a. Livestock development


Before the commencement of the program, the respondents male and female HHs had asset
worth 19394.25 and 10265.23 with a total mean value of 16847 Birr. Statistical analysis
indicates that there was significant difference (at 1%) between them. During the program
implementation period or five years of program intervention, the participants’ asset in the form
of live animals was on the average Birr 33638. The asset created by males increased to an
average value of Birr 38444.75 while that of females decreased to Birr 22630.58. By the program
support, 117 HHs (63 males and 54 female) participated and their average asset of livestock
development was 6775 Birr and this shows an asset value increment of 45.65% from the group
baseline. Among them, males and females created additional asset of Birr 6356.43 and 7263.52
respectively. This accounted 30% and 120% increment from own baseline, respectively(Table
Z).

Table z. Livestock asset created by sex and wealth status

                                                                                    Baseline of
                                                                                                             Additional
                                                                                     samples
                                    Before                      After                                       income from               Program
                                                                                      getting
           Categories            Intervention               Intervention                                      program               contribution
                                                                                     program
                                                                                                             supported                  in %
                                                                                     support
                             N         Mean             N        Mean             N    Mean                N       Mean
        Sex
     Male                     155       19394.25        158       38444.75         63      23180.89         63      6356.43
     Female                      60     10265.23            69    22630.58         54        7607.35        54      7263.52
     Total                                 16847                      33638                 15993                     6775
     t-test                       4.809 (.000)               5.140 (.000)            5.870 (0.000)           -.913 (0.363)
          Wealth
     Poor                     102       10365.98        113       23668.76         67        8626.58        67      7093.96
     Better                   113     22696.40          114      43519.39          50    25864.24           50      6347.80
     Total                              16847                      33638                   15993                      6775
     t-test                      -6.885 (.000)              -6.141 (.000)           -5.783 (0.000)             .744 (.458)
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 % , at 5*, NS non Significant




                                                                     21
Asset created before intervention among the poor and better off farmers was analyzed and the
result revealed that there was difference between the poor (Birr 10385.98) and better of (Birr
22696.4) farmers at 1% significant level in asset creation. Due to program intervention, the
difference between the poor and better-off farmers was narrowed and some 117 participants (67
poor and 50 better-off farmers) accumulated an average asset of Birr 6775. The average
additional asset created by the poor (n=67) and better-off (n=50) was Birr 7093.96 and Birr
6347.80, respectively.

               b. Fruit trees (apple)
According to the sample data analysis farmers have created an estimated mean asset of 3555.56
before and 4131.91 after intervention and 4157.45 with program support. In apple production,
before interventions there were only 9 participants and after program intervention, the number
rose to 47 and the dominant participants were better-off opposite to the previous 2011 survey
data generated by PCU. . All respondents were supported by the program of which 34 (72%) and
13 (28%) were better-off and poor respectively.

               c. Assets created from developed plantations
Individual trees which do not attain rotation periods or marketable size are assed in terms of asset
creation. These are basically either individual trees or forest stands. As a forest stand mean
annual increments and volume per hectare and other sulvicultural parameters are required and
they are averages .but local individual tree value gives better estimate and so the assets created
are calculated by local market estimates .There are many woodlots and farm boundary
plantations developed by the program and the majority of them will be considered as assets.
About 2758 hectares of different plantations are developed so far. In 1meter by 1 meter spacing,
this will be about (10000 seedlings *2758) seedlings and the average survival rate is 77% in most
watersheds. This will give 21,236,600 trees. The average plantation site cost per five year tree is
30.00 birr there fore the total assets created from the plantation is calculated to be
30.00*21,236,600 = 637098000.00. Both the survival rate and plantation site costs are the
average values so as not to exaggerate the assets created. The total number of beneficiaries under
these assets is 47102.In this case the assets created per beneficiary will be 637098000.00/47102
which is 13526 birr (mean asset created). The baseline of the assets created from trees was
5215.00 birr in 2008 and now after the program intervention has increased by 13526.00 which is
61% increase. When the assts created are categorized across sex, there are 41255 men and 5847
women and total 47102 beneficiaries who created 13526.00 each in which 12.412% are women.
This is almost similar with the survey data analysis (table below) result which shows 12314.00
birr mean asst in 2012 and here women participation is 21.42 %. Further more, this survey data
shows that from the total assets created 6373.43 (about 50% of the assets) is contributed by the
program.


Table of Assets created from developed plantations
   Time                                      Sex of            N        %           Mean
                                             Respondent
   Estmated price of forest tree stand       Male             117       79        8966.77
   before                                    Female            31       21        2137.74


                                                22
                                                       Total                 148         100         7536.365
      Estmated price of tree stand in after            Male                  121          79         14440.58
                                                       Female                 33          21          4516.06
                                                       Total                 154         100          12313.9
      Asset created from stand wood with
      the program support /subset              Male                           62          89           6710
                                               Female                          8          11           3765
                                               Total                          70         100         6373.429
                    Source: PCU 2012 survey data



                     d. Summary of assets created
The baseline data indicate that, before the program intervention, all respondents were created
21,581 Birr asset value in different forms. Due to different actors’ involvement, after the
program intervention the mean total asset reached to 43,051 Birr and this accounted 99.5%
increment from the overall baseline. Before a year during the first outcome assessment the
additional asset creation was 26%

Out of the total 229 respondents, 170 (74.2%) households has been supported by the program
and created additional asset value of 8962 Birr. On average the program contributed 41.9% of
additional asset creation from their baseline. Before a year during the first outcome assessment,
66% of respondents were created asset with the program support and the estimated increment of
additional asset created were 39%. The asset generating activates with the support of program
were apple production, different live animals and private forest/wood plantations (Table 9).

As a program, the number of beneficiaries created asset and type of technology used to create the
asset is presented in the (Annex table 6 and 8).. The number of direct beneficiaries from income
generating activities is estimated to be over 55,4565 households. Based on the program five years
plan, it was planed to assist 8000 participant households in asset creation.




Table 4. HH Total asset before and after intervention and only due to the support of the program

                                                                                              Std.
             Activities                    Sex                   N            Mean                         Maximum
                                                                                            Deviation
    baseline asset crated before   Male                              157       26033.3          28337.2          2261.6

5
 Farm boundary plantations 15,469, homestead plantation 26,406, private wood lots 4,227, motor pump 115, Cross Heifer
Distribution 358, Sheep Production 1021, Goat Production 827, Bee Hive Distribution 759, Artificial Insemination 6222, Jack
Ass Service 52 HHs created asset in different forms.


                                                           23
 for all sample                              Female                                       64             10659.1               11831.7               1478.9
                                             Total                                       221            21581.0                25657.9
                                             t-test                                                  5.689***
                                             Male                                        158             51236.6               42996.4               3420.6
 overall asset created after                 Female                                       70             24576.3               18568.1               2219.3
 for all sample
                                             Total                                       228            43051.4                39182.9
                                             t-test                                                  6.538***
                                             Male                                        113             27685.4               32173.2               3026.6
 Baseline asset created before
 /only asset created from                    Female                                       57               8837.6              11193.9               1482.7
 program/                                    Total                                  170                 21365.8
                                             t-test                                                  5.592***
                                             Male                                        113               9659.1              15693.9               1476.4
 Asset created after with the                Female                                       57               7581.6               6404.8                848.3
 program support
                                             Total                                       170             8962.5                13333.7
                                             t-test                                                  1.220 N.S
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* , N.S are Significant at less than 1 %, at 5 % , at 10*, NS non Significant respectively




            3.2.4.2. (Re-) investment and savings with contribution of the program

                         a. Housing and investment in urban residence
House ownership and the type of housing generally reflect the socio-economic status of an
individual. Before five years, percentage of HHs residing huts (thatch roof) was 52%, this was
reduced to 29.3%. Last year this reduction figure was 37.1%.

Accordingly, HHs residing in corrugated iron sheet (CIS) roofed houses increased from 48% to
70.7%. During the last outcome assessment, it was increased to 62.4%.This data shows that
households are investing in improving their housings, indicating an improvement in standard of
living in the intervention area. No doubt that the program has in one way or the other contributed
to improving quality of life (Annex table 30).

Investment in urban areas like buying a plot or a residence was also another issue addressed in
this survey. As indicated in Annex table 31, among male 17.9% and among females 6.8% of
respondent HHs reported having such an investment in urban areas. The amount of money
invested ranged from 1,000 to 300,000 Birr with an average investment of 47,507 and 20,840
Birr for males and females respectively. The total average amounts of money invested in town
residence was 43,466 Birr. During the last outcome assessment, the total average amounts of
money invested in town residence was 38,324 Birr. Therefore, based on the survey data we can
say that agricultural production in the intervention area is playing an important role in asset
creation in the form of residential investments.



                         b) Educational level


                                                                               24
Before intervention of the program, illiterate HHs were 49.8% and after five years of
intervention this figure was reduced to 44.1%. The education status of read and write capability
of HHs decreased from 23.6% to 21% (informal education shift to formal). Similarly, education
status of first cycle level of HHs increased from 21.4% to 25.3% and second cycle level of HHs
increased from 5.2% to 9.63%. The survey result reveals that education status of HH heads
improved during the last five years.

Regarding the education status of children, among school aged children between 7-18 years, the
survey result reveal that before intervention 59.7% (55.8% males & 64.1% females) of children
were attending school and this number increased to 72.8% (67.4% males & 79.1% females) after
the end of the program. During the last outcome assessment, children attending school was
increased to 66.46%. Among school aged children (7-18), the number of children not attending
school reduced from 40.3% to 27.2% children before and after the program intervention
respectively. At the time of the last outcome assessment, children not attending school were
reduced to 33.5%.

Therefore, the result clearly indicates that, the majority of younger generation is found on the
track of education program including the head of the HHs and the HHs are investing on
education to improve the wellbeing of the family (Annex table 32 & 33).



               c) Saving status


From the total of 229 households, before the program intervention only 43 households (18.8%)
expressed that they tried to save through formal and saving institutions. On the other hand about
60(26.2%) didn’t like to save even-though they had money whereas 126(55%) did not have extra
money to save. After the program intervention, a number of HHs who were saving increased to
70 (30.6%). Households who didn’t want to save dropped from 60(26.2%) to 22(9.6).This
indicates that there was an improvement in awareness about culture of saving and the program
has contributed in the process of income generating to be saved. The HHs who were saved had
on average saved 2099.17 Birr( Table C R5).

               d. Input utilization


For high value and high yielding promising varieties of food crops 540 qt improved seeds and
9323 qt of fertilizers and compost for fruits and vegetables are used in program life time.

Inputs which create immediate income from their products like cross bred cattle, shoats, poultry
breeds, beehives and fattening were demanded by almost all beneficiary households. The
problem encountered with this respect is lack of enough inputs and inadequate credit availability.

To alleviate the shortage of inputs, the program has designed to strengthen the local animal
husbandry activities through provision of artificial insemination services, animal health
activities, and livestock improvement through breeding with rams and bulls selected from locals.


                                               25
3.2.5. Reducing food insecurity
The proportion of respondents who reported to have faced food gap6 before the program
intervention was 48.5% and this proportion was reduced to 41.5% at the end of the program. The
survey reveals that among the previous food insecure HHs, 7% of them totally shifted to food
secured and able to feed the family through out the year. But regarding mean number of food gap
in months reduce for those remain food insecure HHs was from 2.98 month before intervention
to 2.42 month after intervention. However, reduction in food gaps for women beneficiaries only
showed relatively higher change (3.10 month to 2.36 months). Therefore, in the intervention
area, data reveals that the number of food insecure households was reduced in the program life,
but mean food gap in month declined only marginally for specific group of people. Therefore,
severities of food insecurity remain the same for those some chronically food insecure groups
(Table 10).

Table 5. Food shortage before and after intervention of the program



                                                      Male                            Female                              Total
                    Responses
                                            N          %         month      N         %          month          N          %         month
                       Yes                  63      40.4%                   48      65.8%                        111    48.5%
Before                 No                   93      59.6%                   25      34.2%                        118    51.5%
three                 Total                156      100.0%                  73      100.0%                       229   100.0%
years            Chi-square test                                                                                  12.814***
                 Mean food gaps                                   2.88                             3.10                                    2.98
                Yes                          56      35.9%                   39     53.4%                        95      41.5%
                No                          100      64.1%                   34     46.6%                       134      58.5%
2009/10         Total                       156     100.0%                   73    100.0%                       229     100.0%
                Chi-square test                                                                                 6.293 (0.009)
                Mean food gaps                                    2.46                             2.36                               2.42
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 % , at 5*, NS non Significant




6
    Food gap means facing food shortages for a months or more


                                                                     26
3.3. Natural resources management


3.3.1. Integrated watershed development
Watershed development starts with identification and delineation of watersheds. As a necessary
condition, the general bio-physical status of watersheds was captured since delineation so as to
enable comparison of changes at some time in the future. One of the major data is population and
some of its general characteristics. A total of 14644 households 27% females (10665 male and
3979 female) live in and benefit in different activities of the program in the watersheds
(watershed beneficiary households data table). This data shows that 27% of the house holds are
women headed and any activity performance of about 27% gender participation and benefit is
necessary. An other important feature of integrated watershed development is that all activities of
the result area and other result areas need to be integrated in the identified and delineated
watersheds. For the past five years, 43 watersheds are identified and delineated. From the
identified and delineated 43 watersheds, 36 watersheds (103% from 5 years program target) have
been successfully developed as per the community watershed guideline, i.e. have watershed
committees working regularly, development plan, and rules and regulations. Many interrelated
activities have been performed in these watersheds which include the activities of integrated
watershed development result area and other result areas. Except few activities most were
executed within the watersheds. Due to these interventions the biophysical condition of the
watersheds and income of the beneficiaries had improved.

3.3.2. Area under improved land management
For this purpose, data compilation of achievement of activities for the last five years was used.
Land under improved management includes: Area under different soil and water conservation,
forestry and agro-forestry, area closure and rehabilitation and natural forest demarcation and
protection. The total area under these use system for the past five years is 324113 hectares which
is 282% of the five years program target (115000 hectares).

       a) Area planted with trees
Achievements in this sub result area accounted 91.36% from five years program life targets (5
years achievement table). The target in five years is to develop 5000 hectares of different forms
of plantations while the achievement is 4568 hectares. For the last five years about 54 million
seedlings were raised by model, community and private nurseries for this purpose. Survival rate
of plantations ranges between 77% and 96%. Individual woodlots, backyard, farm boundary and
communal plantation for income and fuel and construction wood consumption developed and
benefited 52965 beneficiaries.

       b) Area under soil and water conservation measures
Different soil and water conservation activities have been done in program watersheds. Their
standard is also appropriate. A compilation of reports from program woredas reveals that 15162
hectares of different soil and water conservation structures which is 253% of program target for
5 years have been achieved (5 years achievement table). The result was by far more than what
was planned; the main reason for this is that the current government emphasis to soil and water


                                                27
conservation and high public mobilization. Field visit to program woredas showed that
appropriate maintenance and stabilization of bounds and check dams were also performed for
sustainability. These structures were strengthened by biological conservation methods too. The
main planting materials were elephant grasses, vetiver grass, ficus spps and local grasses. Soil
and water conservation structures on farm lands especially have very well decreased soil loss due
to soil erosion. The conserved moisture and soil had enabled the land users to increase their
agricultural product

       c) Volume of compost prepared and applied
Proven cultural practices were promoted for the last five years by the program. Practices like
compost preparation and utilization, area closure and rehabilitation and others implemented and
field days to promote these were conducted. There was a target to produce and use 300,000m3 of
compost in five years. However 323492 m3 of compost (107.8%) was produced and used for
backyard and other forms of farming (5 years achievement table). Field days are very important
to promote important practices. Because of these field days, communities can learn from their
neighbors and get knowledge of new technologies. Understanding this fact, promotion of field
days has been continued for the past five years and there fore 129 field days (86%) was
conducted and 10798 beneficiaries participated and get experiences (5 years achievement table).

       d) Area closure
Area closure and rehabilitation is one major activity in integrated watershed management. 37502
hectares (288% of five years plan) of land have been demarcated and rehabilitated in the last five
years (5 years achievement table). In area closure and rehabilitation, the program has achieved
good results in different woredas, Alefa,Dabat,Debark , Debark Ketema,Taqusa,Gondar ketema
are some to mention. The experience has also transferred to other watersheds which are not
supported by the program. These areas provide a number of advantages to beneficiaries after
rehabilitation (grass, wood and other environmental benefits). This activity is also a good
example of integration with other result areas (livestock development) i.e. Animal feed can be
collected; fruit trees included and bee colonies get best site and feed. Many degraded areas are
recovering because of this. From group discussion of beneficiaries during this assessment, it is
confirmed that springs reemerge or stay longer times from drying out, vegetation cover improved
and gullies are rehabilitated.

       e) Natural forest demarcation and protection
Study demarcation and protection of remnant natural forest had been one focus area of the
program. Especially in the lowlands of program woredas, where the pressure is very high,
preserving important tree species and forests is crucial in controlling desertification and climate
change. Accordingly 266881 hectares of natural forests (98%of plan) are protected in the past
five years of program life (5 years achievement table). To secure their sustainability benefits to
communities (grass, forest products, honey, incenses and gum and other advantages) besides
environmental benefits are incorporated. More attention in the future is required in this
intervention since the problem is so intense and because there was not enough protection by all
relevant actors to remnant dry woodlands and natural forests. Especially, in terms of ownership
creation, generating economic benefits to local communities, and tenure security through
provision of land certificates can bring sustainable use of these resources.



                                                28
3.3.3. Utilization of biomass energy saving technologies
This activity is very much important in reduction of deforestation and women health problems.
For the last five years, 5820 energy saving stoves was distributed for 1153 men and 4667 women
(80% women) households (5 years achievement table). Target to benefit 5000 households in five
year's program plan was set, and the achievement is found to be 116%. Due to this intervention
and related support to produce bio-mass fuel energy, trend of natural forest destruction has
decreased. These two aspects (reduction pressure on natural forest and increase of private
afforestation) are promising and encouraging signs of hope for rational use of natural resources.
To add more value and taste on top of these, most beneficiaries of this intervention are women.
Some beneficiaries trained by the program also have generated income from sell of these stoves
in this case the intervention can be regarded as an alternative income option. Compilation from
reports shows that women engaged in this activity earn up to 10640 ETB from sell of stoves per
season. (Dembia,Alefa). So the advantages of these technologies are multiple.

The survey result below (Table utilization of energy saving stoves) indicates that there is
encouraging result in promotion of bio-mass energy saving stoves i.e. utilization of energy
saving stoves increased from 24% before program intervention to 47.6% in 2012 or after
program intervention. That means the use of energy saving stoves increased by about 50% after
program intervention. More than this the survey data also indicates that use of modern stoves
increased from 21.8% before program intervention to 75.5% after program intervention, this is
nearly 55% increase. The survey data also depicted that beneficiaries use of natural forests as
fuel sources decreased from 45.9% before program intervention to 26.2% in 2012 (table rank of
beneficiaries as fuel sources).This is very encouraging and great success to the program towards
rational use of natural resources

Utilization of Energy Saving Stove
                                                               Sex of Respondent
Time series                          Responses       Male          Female         Total
                                                  N      %      N       %      N         %
                                     Yes          34 21.8       21     28.8    55        24
Utilization of energy saving         No          122 78.2       52     71.2   174        76
stove before
                                     Total       156 100        73     100    229       100
                                     Modern        9   26.5      3     14.3    12       21.8
If yes, which technology before      Traditional 25 73.5        18     85.7    43       78.2
                                     Total        34    100     21     100     55       100
                                     Yes          80 51.3       29     39.7   109       47.6
Utilization of energy saving         No           76 48.7       44     60.3   120       52.4
stove in 2002
                                     Total       156 100        73     100    229       100
                                     Modern       69 86.2       13     44.8    82       75.2
If yes, which technology in 2002     Traditional 11 13.8        16     55.2    27       24.8
                                     Total        80    100     29     100    109       100




                                                 29
3.3.4. Land administration and management
       a) Land certification
Land Administration is the processes of determining, recording, and disseminating information
about tenure, value, and use of land when implementing land management policies. Land
Management is the activities associated with the management of land as a resource, from both an
environmental and economic perspective, towards sustainable development.

A land administration system includes the following major activities:

      Management of public land;
      Recording and registration of private rights in land;
      Recording, registration and publicizing of the transfers of those rights in land through, for
       example, rent, gift, subdivision, consolidation, and so on;
      Management of the fiscal aspects related to rights in land, including land tax, historical
       sales data, valuation for a range of purposes, including the assessment of fees and taxes,
       and compensation for state acquisition of private rights in land, and so forth; and
      Control of the use of land, including land-use zoning and support for the development
       application/approval process.
Thus, with regard to these under the rural land administration result area the North Gondar zone
Sustainable Resource Management Program (SRMP-NG) intended to support efforts done
towards the user’s right certification. Herewith, the 5 years targets was to issue 105,000 primary
and 7,000 secondary books of holdings for landholders so as to increase investment and tenure
security on land. As it is depicted in the Annex (table --) 119,592 (114%) primary books of
holdings are issued. However, because of some rearrangement activities to relocate the Geo-
reference bench mark by BoEPLAU & EMA, unlikely, issuance of secondary books of holdings
was not promising. Given that, the necessary trainings are delivered for about 115 surveyors
against the five year target 75, experiences are attain by the practitioners and 7 RTK GPS are
purchased with expensive charge with the support of the program. Activities of cadastral survey
will become uncomplicated. Predominantly, encouraging conditions are in place for issuance of
the 2nd level land users book of holding i.e. awareness of community is created, technical
trainings delivered, experiences attained and essentially primary books of holdings issued and
surveying equipments are available. According to the sample survey, in the program intervention
woredas, among 212 respondents about 137(64.6%) have received their primary books of
holding, of which 29.9% are women. The rest 35.4% respondents are not in a position to be
certified due to some unsolved disputes or uncertain documents in relation to their holding. Land
holding certification assessment is illustrated in the following table.

(Table--) Certification of land users

                Activity                             Sex                    total
 Issuance of Primary book of holding:       Male           Female    Count           %
      Received                                  96             41       137         64.6%
      Not received                              55             20         75        35.4%
                 Total                          151             61       212        100.0%
Source: own survey




                                                30
It was planed to organize 2 different forums and to produce 2 documents on the impact of
issuance of 1st and 2nd levels certification. However, as a consequence of limitation in time, it
was possible to undertake only one assessment to prepare a document. Finally, one fourm was
organized on the assement document produced the final document named as “ The early impacts of
rural land registration and certification program and challenges in North Gondar”

        b). Land transaction
Inappropriate land policies constitute a serious constraint on economic and social development.
On the one hand, insecure land tenure and dysfunctional land institutions discourage private
investment and overall economic growth. On the other hand, skewed and ownership distribution
and discrimination according to gender or any other case limit economic opportunities for
disadvantaged groups and provide fertile conditions for social conflict - which often erupt in
violence. Proper land certification encourages economic growth through a secured land use
rights that also create additional incentives to sustain and possibly improve productivity.
Certification helps to make sure their tenure security to women, elders and children which are the
vulnerable group of the community. Concerning the vulnerable groups, intervention supported
by the program is well explained by the following facts. From sample survey, 64.6% (137)
beneficiaries received their land use right certificates, out of this as it is depicted in the annex
(Table--), 14(10.2%) certificates for male HHs, 22(16.1%) certificates for female HHs and
101(73.7%) for husband and wife where, 52.95% certificates have addressed the rights of
women, as a result, rents of holding without fear have increased by 81.7% as it is illustrated in
the table below.

(Table --) Land rent activities with the consequence of land certification
                                         Perceived              Sex                       Total
                                         as:              Male       Female         count         %
 Land rent or share cropping as a        Minimized             13          5             18         7.9
 consequence of certification            Same                  15          9             24        10.5
                                         Increased           128          59            187        81.7
                                         Total               156          73            229       100.0
Source: own survey


        c) Perceived benefits of certification by the communities
Land certification brought about improvements in soil and water conservation, community
forest, and built confidence to rent land. Landholders construct the necessary soil and water
conservation structures with the technical assistance of development agents and trained farmers.
Reforestation has also increased after certification. Plantation around farm boundary, woodlot,
and backyard plantations and survival rate of seedlings had also increased. Most of landholders
after certification tend to plant and give necessary protection for the survival of seedlings. As it
is depicted in the table below, out of 229 respondents 181(79%) respondents believed that
plantations have expanded and increased, only 4.4%(10) respondents reply that expansion of
plantation is decreased after certification. On the other hand, 93.9%(215) respondents put in
plain their words that construction of soil and water conservation (SWC) structures increased
after certification, where as 1.3%(3) respondents out of 229 reply constructions of SWC




                                                   31
structures are decreased. Farmers’ perceptions in the survey on some developmental deeds with
the consequence of certification are represented as in the next table.




(Table --) Perception on the development activities with the consequence of land certification
 Activities                            Perceived
                                                                Sex                         Total
                                       as:
                                                         Male        Female         count           %
 Afforestation on own holdings   Minimized                    7           3              10            4.4
                                 Same                        21          17              38           16.6
                                 Increased                  128          53             181           79.0
                                 Total                      156          73             229          100.0
 Constructions of Soil and Water Minimized                    2           1               3            1.3
 Conservation structures on own Same                          5           6              11            4.8
 holdings                        Increased                  149          66             215           93.9
                                 Total                      156          73             229          100.0
Source: own survey
Land certification has many advantages. The main ones are reduction of conflicts and increase
investment on land. The program planned to decrease land related conflicts by 50% and to enable
75,000 households invest on their land at the end of the program. 55(25.8%) respondents
reported facing land related conflicts before intervention. After intervention, among farmers
received land certificate, only 13(9.1%) respondents reported facing land related conflicts.
Therefore 42 respondents were free from land holding related conflicts. The proportion of HHs
facing land related conflicts dropped from 25.8% to 13.9% and land related conflict reduced by
76%. About 191 (83.4%) of the respondents perceived that land related conflicts had decreased
after certification (Annex table 41).

Regarding the benefit of certification for women, 10(16.1%) respondents reported facing land
related conflicts before intervention. After intervention, among female HHs received land
certificate, only 3(6.7%) respondents reported facing land related conflicts. Therefore 7
respondents were free from land holding related conflicts. The proportion of female HHs facing
land related conflicts dropped from 16.1% to 6.7% and land related conflict reduced by 70%
after certification with in the program intervention woredas.

(Table--) Status of conflicts related to landholding before and after certification

                              status               Sex                              Total
                                          Male           Female        count                %
Was there conflict before Yes                   45              10             55            25.8%
certification?            No                   106              52            158            74.2%
                          Total                151              62            213           100.0%
Was there conflict after Yes                    10               3             13             9.1%
certification?            No                    88              42            130            90.9%
                          Total                 98              45            143           100.0%


                                                 32
Source: own survey




3.3.5. Enhancing tourism, park infrastructure and management


       a) Park infrastructure and endemic wild animals
To strengthen the management system of the two national parks, the plan was to construct 11 out
posts (see fig.2 below), ten toilets, seven water points and 580km of dry weather road. During
the last five years nine out posts, nine toilets, seven water points and 558 kilometers of dry
weather road were constructed. i.e. 82%, 90%, 100%, and 96% of the plan achieved. Besides
what has been specified one park office for Alatish National Park constructed and seven out
posts were also equipped with solar voltaic power.

The set up and functioning of facilities has created closer interaction between the park
management and the local community around the parks through continuous village conferences
and meetings. In so doing, the efficiency of the park management to control remote areas is
better than before through assignment of park scouts and community volunteers.

The improvement of park infrastructure from time to time has also resulted in an increment in the
number of endemic wild animals in the Simen Mountains National Park. Reports shown that
there is increment of Walia ibex from740 in 2008 to over 889(20%) increase in 2012, Simen fox
from 84 in 2008 to over 100 (16%) increase in 2012 and Gelada baboon from 8714 in 2008 to
over 15002 (72%) increase in 2010. The target was to increase the number of wildlife population
by 10% and the achievement is much higher than the planned target.

For the removal of the Simen Mountains National Park from the list of ''World Heritage Site in
Danger'', relocation of residents from its core area is one of the major tasks proposed by the
UNESCO/World Heritage Committee and is being conducted by the government in collaboration
with the local community and donor agencies. With the support of the Sustainable Resource
Management Program, about 146 households (57% of the target) (273) people were relocated
from the “Arkwazye” village to the neighboring PA which is found to have one of the best
alternatives to minimize the human induced pressure to the lowest possible degree. Besides the
relocation of the park occupiers, 15 hectare (27% of the target) that was under human use was
handed over to the park management. Currently, there is also an effort by the Ethiopian Wildlife
Conservation Authority to relocate some sections of the community residing in the core area of
the park with special attention to the '' Gich'' village. Hence, the program has donated 1.5 million
birr for the purpose intended.

The Park Management Plan of Simen Mountains National Park had been refined approved and is
being implemented by line offices and other partners at all levels. Issues to be considered here
are due to continuous structural change, lack of sufficient man power and financial constraints,


                                                33
most of the issues and management strategies stated in the management plan and the
recommendations forwarded by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee had not been
considered yet. Hence, to make the park in a better conservation status and de-list it from the
“List of World Heritage Site in Danger”, the recommendations and management strategies
should be taken into account.



       b) Community participation in park management
Community participation is one of the methods by which the park offices compensate their man
power limitation and fill their implementation gaps. Hence, the National Parks have established
about 44 park advisory committee with an achievement of 220% of the five year plan which was
20 committees. The committees established at kebele level, have regular meetings around
localities, discus on park related problems, solve minor problems that are manageable at local
level and report others that have potential risk to the national parks. Besides filling the man
power and financial limitations of park offices, the establishment and functioning of these
committees enabled the parks to get high community support and develop sense of
belongingness among public,

       c) Tourism development
By definition Ecotourism is: "Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment
and improves the well-being of local people." With regard to this the aim of establishing
ecotourism associations around Simen Mountains National Park was to make communities build
sense of ownership, get them involved in park conservation and thereby benefit from tourism
businesses. Based on these 13 ecotourism associations from 3 woredas (Debark, Janamora and
Adiarkai) bordering SMNP were established. To make the management more advanced and
maintain equity of benefit sharing, the 13 independent associations were merged and formed one
big association. The Sustainable Resource Management Program had been providing technical
and financial support. In the program five year life period, the association had been supported
with technical training, office building and furniture, purchase of 26 mules. As far as good
performance and effectiveness of the associations is concerned, there is a need to have closer
follow up, evaluation of the functioning and performance of the association and technical
training is crucial for better leadership.

Based on the group discussion and observations in the field, some problems were observed in
tourism development such as lack of good governance and accountability. These may undermine
active participation and could cause conflicts. Failure to maintain equity of benefit sharing within
the ecotourism members and association representatives must be addressed. Therefore, such
problems lead to declining of household income from tourism. In addition to this, it has been
indicated that the local community and members of the ecotourism association have not been
involved and benefited to the level expected from Simen Mountains National Park. In connection
with this, problems and issues raised were lack of transparency, poor governance and
accountability.

As a recommendation, to improve the existing problems related to good governance and
establish sustainable benefit sharing mechanisms and improve the livelihood of the community,


                                                34
the park office in collaboration with the Sustainable Resource Management Program, the
stakeholders at all level and other donor agencies is working to the extent that these ecotourism
associations are well established and have the capacity to manage their resources by themselves.

Promoting the available tourism resources of North Gondar was one of the major tasks intended
to execute by the program. The promotion efforts made by the same help increase the tourist
arrival and stay thereby maximizing the government revenue and local community income. In
this regard there was a target to produce different 4500 printed material for promotion. The
program produced one item of promotion brochure having 3,000 copies and 4 promotion
materials having 9020 copies and dispatched, with an achievement of much more than
benchmarked target of the program.

        d) Attitude towards SMNP
Frequent assessment and understanding of the perception of local people around protected areas
is needed by managers and implementer institutions to identify gaps and design appropriate
management strategies. With regard to this, 62 sample households were requested to express
their feelings about usefulness of SMNP before and after the program intervention (Table XY).
Based on the analysis, before and after the program intervention 51 (89.5%) and 48 (77.4%) of
respondents perceived useful respectively. The decline in community understanding the
usefulness of the national parks implies that continuous awareness creation, gap identification
and kebele level public meeting and demand driven intervention is crucial for better
understanding of park significance and involvement in conservation activities.

Hence, conclusion can be made saying that though the program incurred a lot of cost to different
conservation and tourism development related activities, the park significance has not been
understood adequately. To this end we can conclude that joint effort is crucial to integrate
technical, financial and political efforts together for better awareness creation and gain
community support in park management and tourism development affairs.

Table XY. Respondents’ attitude towards the park


                                                       Male               Female               Total
                                                  N            %     N              %     N             %

                         Useful                   43          93.5   8             72.7   51           89.5
                         Not useful               2           4.3    3             27.3   5            8.8
                         Had negative impact on
                         our life                 1           2.2    0              0     1            1.8
Perception of park and
tourism before           Total                    46          100    11            100    57           100
                         Useful                   41          80.4   7             63.6   48           77.4
                         Not useful               0            0     1             9.1    1            1.6
                         Had negative impact on
                         our life                 1            2     0              0     1            1.6
                         I don't have idea        9           17.6   3             27.3   12           19.4
Perception towards the
park and tourism after   Total                    51          100    11            100    62           100




                                                  35
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 % , at 5*, NS non Significant




                                                                     36
3.4. Different services provided to the wider community
3.4.1. Artificial insemination and Animal health service

       a) Artificial insemination


The five years breeding performance was 15978 cows inseminated artificially. This is only 80%
of the target (20,000). 9839 male households and 1698 female participants with a total of 11537
farmers were benefited from artificial insemination services during the project implementation
period of the program. 9459 cows were served by Fogera and other selected local bulls. From the
natural breeding services provided by the program, 5058 males and 556 female with the total of
5614 households benefited in five years of program implementation. During the five years period
it was planned to benefit 36000 households from expanded support of AI and natural services for
genetic improvement and veterinary services (AI and bull services for 25,000 cows / heifers; veterinary
services for 263,000 animals). 48208(133.91%) households were benefited from expanded support of
which 18527 HHs Receiving A I and Bull services and 29681 HHs Receiving Animal Health services.
Likewise, 25419(101.68%) and 431510(164.07%) total genetic Improvement and Livestock treated by
health services during the program implementation respectively.
 The program is giving support to the already established jack ass breeding and multiplication
center situated in Dabat woreda. In five years, the center has given a breeding service to 1323
mares and 246 donkeys. 1320 males and 56 female with the total of 1376 beneficiaries were
participated in jack ass breeding services. The achievement from the five years target was more
than 100%.From these figures, one can conclude that the program has to give higher attention to
identify and resolve technical and administrative constraints faced to the cattle improvement
process of artificial insemination activity and this enhances the productivity, production and
income derived the livestock sector.

The program has fully succeeded to establish one liquid nitrogen processing plant with the total
costs of birr 4.4 million and this helps as big input for further strengthened the process of
artificial insemination activities in the region in general and in the zone in particular.

       b) Animal health service
The number of treated animals was 431510. This is 181.3% from the five years perspective plan
of 238,000 animals. The higher achievement is due to the higher demand for animal health
service, especially, in the remote areas.

In remote areas of North Gondar zone where permanent animal health service is not available,
the program has planned to upgrade 200 community animal health workers to 1st & 2nd level
paravets and 104 of them upgrade to 1st & 2nd level paravets by providing practical training. Moreover,
62 upgrade first level to second level paravet workers as well as Provide training for 42 new paravet
workers for 30 days in the program implementation period. In addition, the program has purchased
and distributed veterinary equipments and medicines worth Birr 683994.00 of the target. A total
of 271663 HHHs (242240 male and 31160 female) livestock owners benefited from the animal
health services of the program.



                                                  37
3.4.2. Establishment of open nucleus breeding center
To maintain the pure breed Gumuz sheep in the Western part of North Gondar, the program has
planned to establish one open nucleus Gumuz sheep breeding and multiplication center. The
center will help to maintain selected Gumuz sheep breed purely and serve as a genetic resource
for further sheep breed improvement. The program has already finalized the construction
activities and handing over to Gondar Agricultural Research Institute. However, the center is yet
functional.

3.4.3. Establishment of feed processing plant
Animal feed shortage has become the main constraint in intensifying modern animal husbandry
activities in the region in general and in North Gondar Zone in particular. To alleviate this
problem, the program has designed different types of forage development strategies such as
Chibha development as well as support the establishment of one private concentrate feed
processing plant.

To achieve the establishment of feed processing plant, feasibility study has been conducted, to
ensure its sustainability the future owner of the plant ( Tsehay Cooperative Union) has been
identified, land has been provided by Gondar Town municipality, purchasing of machine carried
out and the construction activities are underway and has been reached 70% progress. The
remaining activities will be finalized in the upcoming month.

3.4.4. Credit service

       a) Credit access from different financial institutions
Credit is an engine for income increment as well as food security. In an economy such as
Ethiopia where agriculture accounts for a major proportion of economic activity and employs a
large proportion of the population, it could be assumed that increased credit to agriculture would
lead to increased growth in the economy. Effectiveness of any food security program besides
technology delivery is highly associated with timely and adequate credit provision.

Be it agricultural, Natural resources conservation as well as Non-farm activities, Credit is very
important resource for poor farmers who can’t finance agricultural as well as non-agricultural
inputs purchase from their own savings or endowments especially at the early stage of
adoption/production processes. In the program intervention credit has been using as a source of
cash or seed money for purchasing different inputs such as improved seed varieties, inorganic
fertilizer, small ruminants like sheep, goat and cows and oxen and fattening for those who cannot
afford to finance from their own income sources.

In this study credit intervention had been seen with and without the program case so as to see the
impacts of the program intervention. Based on this, the respondents were asked whether they
used credit from other credit institutions, Out of 229 sample respondents 74 (38.5%) got access
to credit of which 46.9% were male and 21% were female before the start of the program. They
also received on an average credit of 2471.32 Birr before intervention of the program. However,
after the commencement of intervention of the program, access to credit was 61 (27.2%) of
which 47% were males and 14% were females. This indicates that the participation of respondent



                                               38
households in access to credit decreases and after intervention 61 (39.1%) of respondents
received mean Birr of 2397.54

       b) Credit access from program

Credit service has been providing by the program for program beneficiaries to diversify and
enhance their incomes. The program has designed all necessary credit provision and repayment
mechanisms with reasonable 6% interest rate and up to the end of 2011 more than 14 million birr
provided to the beneficiaries based on revolving fund credit.
Based on the data obtained from the survey, credit was provided by the program to 164
respondents (71.6%), of which 102(65.4 %) were male and 62(84.9%) female. Out of the
respondents access to credit, on average men got on average Birr 3186.11 and females Birr
2071.06 with a total average of Birr 2764.57. Out of the respondents who took credit from the
program, 82(50%) repaid the loan timely. This indicates that the households’ access to credit
from program source increased compared other different institutions including that of women.
Only 9(8.8%) of respondents also perceived the existence of problem in credit provision(Table B
R5).

3.4.5. Cooperative support
         3.4.5.1. Overall support to cooperatives
There are different types of cooperative namely producers, services, fattening, saving and credit,
irrigation, etc.cooperatives.The program has been using services cooperatives as a channel to
provide revolving fund credit and repaid it by charging 5 percent interest rate that enable to
offset their running cost . However, the program has been supporting fattening cooperatives
since the commencement of the program up to the year 2012. So far 19 fattening cooperative /
users groups were established and accessed 1.14million birr on revolving fund credit basses for
487 beneficiaries of whom 102 are women.

       3.4.5.2. Status of fattening cooperatives
Cooperatives provide necessary facilities to the concerned communities and have especial
importance to the rural poor. There are different types of cooperatives. One of them is fattening
cooperative. The fattening cooperatives are profit oriented business organization and organized
at kebele level. Before the program intervention there were 9 fattening cooperative. Now, due to
the program implementation, 10 additional fattening cooperatives have been organized with
actual beneficiaries of 487 people of whom 102 are women and their number increased from 9 to
19. This indicates the achievement has reached more than 95% from the five years program plan.

        3.4.5.3. Status of milk delivery to cooperatives
There are a number of milk cooperatives at a grass-root level in some woredas of the program
targeted areas. However, there is only one milk processing plant which was established by
previous Austrian funded project and acting as Union.
From the commencement of its intervention, the program has been providing a number of cross-
heifers to the program beneficiaries to improve milk production and productivity and in turn to
increases the incomes of the beneficiaries. As result there is high milk supply both to the basic
milk cooperatives as well as the union. But due to internal problem the milk processing plant its


                                               39
daily milk absorption capacity is very minimal ie 400 litter per day. On the contrary, there is high
pasteurized milk demand in the area.
 As an indicator it was planned to reduce informal marketing, annul delivery of milk to cooperatives
increased from 48,000 lit of milk to 86,000 lit by 2012.At this time the annul delivery of milk to
cooperatives increased to 101135(177%) litters.

3.4.6. Market facilitation and promoting legal livestock export
At the outset of the program preparation it was planned to construct 3 cross border and 1
domestic modern livestock market center with in 5 years program implementation period so as to
reduce illegal livestock trade. Now the constructions of these market centers finalized and have
been providing market service to the community. Likewise to reduce illegal livestock trade four
rounds workshop were conducted at Metema and Tachiarmachiho woredas in the presence of
6604 farmers and merchants. Livestock exported to Sudan includes Cattle (Oxen, cows and
bulls) and small ruminants, sheep and goats. However, oxen export takes the lion share of
number of exported livestock. The program target is to increase the export of livestock from
8,000 to 18,000. According to the data obtained from Metema woreda custom office, before
2008, the number of animals exported to Sudan per annum was 8,000. Now the number has
increased to 22303 per annum (124% of the five year program plan). On top of this, the above
mentioned market centers specially Metema(Gendawuh) as well as Tachiarmachiho(
Maserodemb) market centers are the revenue sources of the government.




                                                40
3.5. Capacity development and program management
In the country, efforts and significant progress has been made in putting place the necessary
legislative, normative and regulatory framework for capacity building. However, managers and
expertise in the Public Service are faced with multiple challenges, and require very specific skills
and expertise, some of which can only be gained through continuous learning and training. Such
training for capacity building include courses that can develop better understanding of local
natural resource systems, livestock improvements, crop productivity enhancement, off-farm
income based activities, sustainable resource use and the economics of sustainability. Training is
also required to make the program participatory as well as monitoring and evaluation to be a
success.

There fore, we need much to do about training as an important component of the overall capacity
building of any implementing organization. Training is a planned process to acquire knowledge,
skill, to modify attitude and/or behaviour. Cognizant this fact, The Sustainable Resources
Management Program in North Gondar (SRMP-NG) has engaged in providing need and
technology based trainings. The training has been provided for personnel working in the field of
agriculture and related areas. It offers tailor made long term training programmes and demand
driven short training programmes to field of agricultural staff, program actors and beneficiary
farmers.

3.5.1 Training and experience sharing

       3.5.1.1. Short and long term trainings
Training programmes are designed to improve performance by developing the appropriate
capacity through practical learning processes in such a way that enables the trainees to improve
subject area skills and increase their performance level. Based on this, Terms of Reference
(TOR) has been prepared and training areas identified. The general training provided include
program orientations, planning of group activities (PRA), monitoring and evaluation, gender
mainstreaming and family planning. Specialized training (result based training) has also been
given according to the program objectives. Based on needs, training on topics such as crop
production, small livestock development, soil and water conservation, small-scale industry,
marketing, etc., but also in non-farm activities such as carpentry/masonry, weaving, tailoring,
pottery, and artisan etc…

               a) Long-term Training:
Long-term Training: one of the activities of the program is to capacitate those institutions that
have direct involvement in the implementation of the program. Based on this, training
opportunities has been provided for 49 BSC, 36 MSC of which 28 in research support and 8 in
tuition fee support and 3 PhD candidates with achievement of 100%,           110%, and 100%
respectively in the five years program plan. A research grant Fund guideline has been prepared
and was endorsed by the steering committee. Based on this, tuition fees support has been
provided to 8 MSC students & and other 28 students got research grant support. Such supports
will strength the institutional capacity of partners and PCU.




                                                41
              b) Short-Term Training: /Per each result/
Concerning short term training, a target to train 100 development agents was set for five years
program life. However 498 development agents and woreda experts of which 308 were
Development agents ( 308% of 5 years plan) were trained in watershed development and related
activities.
To establish computerized registration system of land users the program supports the provision
of training on the Information System for Land Administration (ISLA). Provision of training
cover on basic computer and computerized registration and provided for ten woreda and zone
level experts. 104 experts and data clerks of which 51 are women beneficiaries are trained on the
system,. On the other hand to facilitate issuance of second level certification, there were
limitations on the activities of surveying and mapping. To alleviate the problem, training on
surveying and mapping was provided. 115 experts and technicians are trained on the techniques
of surveying and manipulation of RTK-GPS. Moreover, training on the rules, regulations and
rural land administration proclamations were provided for 723 kebele level and woreda land
administration experts .
The promotion of high value and high yielding improved crop varieties, fruits vegetables and
there management practices were also accompanied with trainings of 278 experts, 390 extension
agents

Short-Term Training: a training need assessment guideline was prepared and approved by the
steering committee. Based on this document and the need of stakeholders, a number of
technology based training courses have been designed. the course are meant for Zonal &
program woreda partners, Gondar university & Gondar agricultural research center & program
coordination unit personnel’s and the beneficiary farmers to increase their awareness about
resources analysis, sustainable utilization and management strategies and options. These
trainings include Participatory Planning, Data Analysis /SPSS, GIS, Watershed Modeling and
Rehabilitation, Monitoring & Evaluation and Performance Audit, Marketing, Basic Accounting
& Computer training. The participants of the training were 560, with an achievement of 219% as
compared to the five years plan of the program. An awareness raising activity was undertaken by
the Program to gained knowledge and skills on different improved technologies specifically crop
management practices. In this regard, 3556 The program beneficiary farmers and DAs were
trained on participatory planning and crop management with an achievement of 118% as
compared to log frame.

One week training was provided to 38 participants from Simen Park office staff and other line
offices and other implementing institutions were trained on Protected Area Management, For
effective implementation of watershed based development, training of development agents and
woreda experts as well as farmers in integrated watershed development was given emphasis for
the last three years by the program. A target of training 100 development agents and 5,000
households was set for five years program life. However, 180 DAs and 3,824 farmers were
trained. This is an achievement of 180% and 76% for the program period respectively. In
addition to this 160 program woreda experts were trained.




                                               42
Gender mainstreaming trainings were given for Zonal and woreda decision makers, PCU staffs,
DAs, teachers & health professionals. At the same time training on family planning was given
for health professionals, community based reproductive health agents and for farmers. In the last
five year a total of 2085 (46% women) individuals gained Knowledge on gender and 36 (20 %
women) health professionals participated on family planning trainings.

Two trainings were provided to 61 participants from woreda communication offices and pcu
staffs & other implementing institutions were trained on photograph and video editing.

 Due to time constraints, recruitment of the expert and availability of pcu experts most of
trainings like training on promotion and communication, documentation, knowledge
management and partnership was not done in this phase.

       3.5.1.2. Farmers’ Participation in Training
For effective implementation of watershed based development, training of farmers in integrated
watershed development was given emphasis for the last five years by the program. A target to
train 5000 households was set for five years program life. How ever 5668 farmers were trained.
This is an achievement of 113% for the program period.

On top of these, some 1105 Keeled land administration committee members are provided
training on the rules and regulation and rural land administration proclamation. Moreover,
provisions of training with the support of the program were extended for landholders and
different committee members established at kebele and sub kebele levels. 1058 communal land
administration committee members are provided training on the protection and proper
management of communal lands. To strengthen the awareness of conflict resolving committee
members, trainings on the rules and regulations and rural land administration was delivered with
the support of the program.
For more than 2000 farmer’s trainings were delivered in crop, fruit and vegetables production,
management and post harvest handling technologies.

The communities visited during the outcome assessment reported their participation in various
training programs. Out of the 156 sampled households, 167 (72.9%) of the program beneficiaries
indicated that they were participating in one or more of the trainings provided. Out of those
respondents who participate in training program 116 (69.5%) were men and 51 (30.5%) were
female. From the responses of the sample training participant respondents it can be observed the
training was perceived as very important 86(74.1%) and important 19(16.4%) and the rest 10
(8.6%) did not able to understand the importance of the training provided (Annex table XXX).
With regard to the level of information gained about the program, 199 (86.9%) respondent were
get information and the rest 30 (13.1%) did not have information about the program. Of those
who have information about the program, the source of information was radio (4.7%), training
(32.3%), field days (2.5%), neighbour farmers (11.2%), agricultural personnel’s (48.2%), and
others (1.1%).

Gender mainstreaming training and family planning trainings were also given for individual
farmers at kebele (watershed) level. Based on that 6097 couple farmers participated in gender
mainstreaming training and another 3057 farmers participated on family planning trainings.



                                               43
       3.5.1.3 Experience sharing study tours
In addition to trainings, experience sharing to get better technology adoption in similar
interventions was executed for 77 participants from different stakeholders in watershed
development

Experience sharing tour is found one of the best deeds to motivate stake holders to exercise all
best practices and useful technologies visited to resolve conflicts raised from landholding and to
put into action all proper land management techniques on individual’s and communal lands in
their model sites. In this activity about 59 woreda and zone level experts and 6 rural land
administration committee members were participated.
In apple production and management 3 experience sharing tours was organized and implemented
for 133 people of whom 7 are females in Awi, south Wello and south Gondar.

Local officials and communities participated in experience sharing tours to get lessons from
other parts and applying them in their respective areas. Nineteen experts form partner
organizations and from PCU undertook exchange visits abroad on donor fund management and
administration. These enhanced their capacities to support the donor fund program/projects.
Twenty persons participated in technology shopping tour in country as experience sharing tour
program. In addition to this, out of the sampled respondent households 24 (10.5%) participated
in experience sharing in other areas (localities) of which 91.7% were men and 8.3% female.

The program arranged experience sharing tour to gender sensitive communities (Awuramba
community) for the last five years. Based on that, 264 persons from implementer organizations,
individual farmers and PCU staffs participated.



3.5.2. Development fund
It was planned to establish development fund at woreda and kebele level so as to strengthen their
involvement in planning and decision-making process. Based on this, woreda development
activities conducted include strengthening FTC and spring development.

Springs development for clean water access was one focus area in integrated watershed
development result area and in the form of development fund from capacity building result area.
In the second phase, the activity was implemented under watershed development because of
rearrangement of similar activities together for integration purpose. Watershed communities are
benefited very much from this intervention of the program. Field visit, report compilation and
group discussion had confirmed that most developed springs are serving the beneficiaries and
their sustainability is secured by the beneficiaries them selves. All necessary data revealed that
the beneficiaries are very much interested and they assured that besides access to clean water this
intervention of the program had decreased the workload on women and children on whom the
responsibility of fetching water is imposed. For the last five years 44 springs were developed
(which is 122% of five years target) and benefited 1200 male and 1000 female households..



                                                44
                                                                                                T
Tachi Armachiho                                     Debark Ketema
.

The program has been supporting 14 FTC for their proper function since 2008. Even though, the
data obtained from the woreda shows that FTCs were used by the 3947 (3012 men and 935
women), most of the woredas FTCs have not yet been utilized for intended purpose of training
the rural community. This requires rethinking and attention of the concerned line offices.



3.5.3. Action research

       3.5.3.1. Crop Development
In crop action research within the program life time 6 action researches on selected crops were
planed to be conducted and their results disseminated to farmers.

In collaboration with Gondar Agricultural Research centre a participatory on-farm technology
development work has been conducted on farm plots using farmers-research-extension-group
(FREG) approach. FREGs formed between 2008 and 2012 were 25, and have conducted 2-3 crop
seasons of experiments. The average number of farmers in each group was 17, ranging from 15
to 23 farmers. FREGs were either mixed (79%) or exclusively men’s groups (21%). Generally,
the experiments compared different improved crop varieties, and improved agronomic practices
to local varieties and local farming methods. FREGs conducted crop adoption trails of potato,
ginger, chickpea, lentil, rice, hot paper, tomato, banana verities and on indigenous tree species.
GARC has been providing training has provided to 1879 (1627 men and 163 women) and field
days conducted for 3515 (3088 men and 277 women). In addition to this, a technology shopping
tour was conducted and 20 experts participated. To enhance the understanding on action rsearch
and facilitate the organization of action research review meeting in 2011 responsibility sharing
was done among researcher and extension workers. Based on this arrangement, GARC
coordinated the action review meeting at zonal level and woreda DOA orgnazie the action
review meeting and follow-ups of FREG at woreda level. Such arrangements enables to conduct


                                               45
the review meeting on time and improve the shared understanding of the action research actors
(farmers, extension workers and researchers) even.. In this regard, action research review
meeting (ARM) was conducted at zonal level and 76 (67 men and 9women) persons participated
and ARM were also conducted at woreda level and538 (448 men and 90 women) participated as
well as 2 research-extension-farmers linkage workshop was supported. This enabled to capacitate
the institutions and have shared understanding on the research problematic/thematic areas of the
program sites.

       3.5.3.2. Natural resourse
A research on the effect of the combined application of chemical and organic fertilizer on
production of bread wheat was proposed for year 2011-12 by Gondar Agricultural Research
Center. The result was promising and it was promoted with field days for large scale application.
Adaptation and evaluation of different provenances' of lowland and highland bamboo was
proposed and conducted by same organization. Different provenances' of lowland and highland
bamboo which were collected from Forestry Research Center (FRC) in Addis Ababa are being
multiplied at field level in 2012. The performance so far is promising and the results will be
disseminated at the end of this year. Development of lowland and highland bamboo will be very
important undertaking in north Gondar in the future because of the lowland bamboo is depleting
faster and the highlands of the zone can be appropriate places for highland bamboo. It is very
clear that there are very limited species selection options for highlands .From this perspective the
findings of the research can have very important input in terms of knowledge and skills for
development of bamboo.

       3.5.3.3 Livestock development

3.5.4. Technology and equipment provisions


       a) For beneficiaries /per each results/


Of the 229 households, 133 (58%) received one or more technologies from the programs and the
remaining 96 (429%) did not receive. Of those respondents who receive technologies 99 (63.5%)
were men and 34 (46.65) were women.             The respondent participants’ exercise different
technologies were 23(16.23%) in NRM17 (12%) in modern behave 102 (71.8%) in others
equipments, In addition to this, physical facilities such as computer, printers, shelf and others
office materials have been provided to capacitate and create conducive environment for the
working conditions.




The main technology packages in integrated watershed development can be promotion of
biomass energy saving stoves, development of plantations and supply of motor pumps for small-



                                                46
scale irrigation. Concerning motor pumps, 23 motor pumps were distributed to 115 beneficiaries.
The delivery is through credit system and averagely cost 6000.00 ETB each motor pump

 Table for delivery of motor pumps
No Woreda         No of      Year of     Cultivated     Beneficiary house holds     Remarks
                  water      delivery    land in        Male Female Total
                  pumps                  hectares
 1   Dabat           3         2002            6          11                  11
 2   Alefa           1         2001            5          25        5         30
                                                                                      Not used
 3   Taqusa          8         2003            0          0         0         0
                                                                                       so far
     Gondar
 4                   2         2001           2.8         16                  16
     Zuria
 5   Dembia          2         2002            5          24                  24
 6   Debark          3         2002            3           3                   3
     Lay
 7                   3         2001          8.25         28        2         30
     armachiho
     Gondar
 8                   1         2001          0.42         1                   1
     town
                     23                     30.47        108        7        115


In relation to development of plantations, different types of technologies namely farm boundary
plantations, homestead plantation and private wood lots were introduced and benefited 47102
beneficiaries of which 2847 are females.

With regard to bio-mass energy saving stoves, the technologies are very much important in many
ways. First and for most they reduce the workload and health problems of women, they play
pivotal role in forest resources management and finally they are becoming alternative livelihood
options in which some beneficiaries trained by the program started to gain up to 1800.00 per
month. In relation to this technology, 5820 Mirit energy saving stoves are distributed to 5820
households of which 4667 (80%) are women households.

To strengthen and capacitate woreda and zone level offices of Environmental Protection, Land
Administration and Use (EPLAU) to be in a position to perform all activities of rural land
administration without any uncertainty the program offer the necessary material for woredas and
zone department of EPLAU. To enhance measurement of parcels and plots about 7 RTK GPSs
are purchased and delivered for DoEPLAU. In addition to this, to facilitate the activity of
cadastral survey and computerized registration, the program also support one desk top and 3
laptop computers for DoEPLAU. About 9 kebele land administration offices are constructed for
model kebeles with in 9 woredas. Construction of kebele land administration offices are found to
reduce unnecessary wastage of labor of landholders to find information about their holdings at
woredas. Therefore, some woredas are initiated to build offices for kebele land administration
committee with their own expense. Moreover, to be able to undertake computerized registration,
the program supports about 10 woredas offices of EPLAU in procuring computers.


                                              47
Starting its implementation the program has been providing different technologies to the targeted
beneficiaries. As it was indicated in the survey, Out of the total 133 respondents who were
received different technologies (Equipment) from the program, 17(12.8%) were taken modern
behave. Likewise, 55, 138, 45 and 93 were taken artisans, cotton weaving, carpentry and pottery
equipments respectively.
Regarding beneficiaries, the total of 19223 of which 14141 male and 5082 female beneficiaries
were participated in result 5 alone in the program. On the other hand, the total of 316653 of
which 280690 male and 35963 female beneficiaries were participated in result 6 in five years
program implementation period.

       b) For institution /per each results/
In relation to equipment, the main beneficiaries are North Gondar zone department of agriculture
and woreda offices of agriculture. It is clear that the program uses the government structure to
implement activities at watershed level and natural resources activities are implemented by
woreda offices of agriculture. Therefore 117 hand held GPS are supplied to woreda agricultural
offices one soil augur to north Gondar department of agriculture to be utilized for activities
related to natural resources management.

Instituions has to be strength through training and material support to craeate conducive
environment and enhance their capacity of implementations. Based on this material support in
the form of comuters , printers and furntiures worth one hundred thousand and fifity thousand
has been provided to GARC and DOA library respectively. In addition to this, one computer and
one printers has been provided to 19 program woredas of DOA and DoFED and 12 computer for
Gorgar Training center.

To capacitate the woreda institutions specifically AI technicians and program focal persons 43
motorcycles procured and distributed to 19 program woredas, Alatish National park and SMNP



3.5.5. Summary and total beneficiaries /per each result/

               3.5.5.1. Benefited directly from income generating technologies
As discussed earlier, income generating technologies in integrated watershed development are,
bio-mass energy saving stoves, small scale irrigation (motor pumps), and different types of forest
development technologies. However the bio-mass energy saving stoves will not be taken as
direct income generating. Because most of the beneficiaries use them for own use. The other two
direct income generating technologies contribute:- developed forests 41255 male and 5847
female total 47102 and motor pumps 108 male and 7 female total 115.Total beneficiaries from
these two activities will be 41363 male 5854 female total 47217. This figure does not include
beneficiaries of bio-mass energy saving stoves and small scale irrigation schemes.

Regarding result 5 beneficiaries, the total of 599 of which 449 male and 150 female beneficiaries
were participated in result 5 alone in income generating activities in the program where as in




                                               48
result 6 9700 numbers of households are             Benefited directly from income generating
technologies.
More than 15000 beneficiaries directly benefited from income generating technologies of crop,
fruit and vegetables production.

              3.5.5.2. Overall beneficiary
As indicated on 5 years beneficiary table, there are 148,900 total beneficiaries in integrated
watershed development result area from which 37969 are female participants (26%). The total
households in the 36 watersheds are 14644 (10665 male and 3979 female). About 27% of
households are female this means the 26% participation in integrated watershed development
area directly matches to the target the program set in gender mainstreaming i.e. most of the
beneficiaries are households.

As it is illustrated in the annex table, 1,430,001 rural people are benefited from rural land
administration result area, of which 369,435 are women. Among 11952 beneficiaries from land
use right certification 62,168 are beneficiaries are women and 57,344 are men. 18,757 land users
on both communal and private lands are benefited from the activity of surveying and mapping, of
which 5627 are women users. For about 339303 land users total information on their holdings is
registered using the Information System for Land Administration (ISLA), of which 101,790
users are women. In strengthening the awareness of land users 75,9137 are participated on the
mass education and awareness about the rural land administration rules, regulations and
proclamations agenda with the support of the program. On this activity 30% of the beneficiaries
are estimated to be women. Different trainings are delivered for landholders and experts of
woredas and zone EPLAU. About 2,919 land users are benefited from trainings provided for
Kebele land administration and conflict resolving committee members. On the other hand, about
918 Kebele, woredas and zone level experts are participated in surveying, mapping and
computerized registration which is delivered by the support of the program.


In crop, fruit and vegetables production the overall beneficiaries are 37469 among them 5347 are
females.

With regard to capacity development, in the 5 year plan it was planned to enhance the capacity of
stakeholders through provision of training i.e. 3000 HHs beneficiaries, 255 experts, 250 FREG
members. In this regard, the 3,556 HHs beneficiaries, 560 experts, 538 FREG members were
trained in different technologies with an achievement of 118.5%, 219% and 215% respectively.
Over all participants of the result areas were 13,915 beneficiaries of which 80% were men and
20% were women. However, one has to consider the confounding factor in the number of
beneficiaries as one beneficiary can be participated on more than one activity.


3.5.6. Achievements in Knowledge Management and Communication
After the first phase out come assessment the findings pointed out the gaps of the program in
relation to promoting the programs work, documenting and organizing the programs best
practice by using d/t media tools (media, producing different pamphlets, magazine, and


                                               49
exhibitions). In relation to this the recruitment of the expert has done and addressed the
perceived gaps. The necessary changes, trends, best practices which have been developed
throughout the program intervention was documented, our air time in radio fana is going well
(focal persons, PCU experts and beneficiaries) witnessed in the media about the contribution of
the program.

The secondary data which is obtained from the report indicated that the result achieved 90% in
developing, sharing, documenting & functioning best practices starting from 2011.According to
the establishment of knowledge management activities most of the program woredas (100%)
are functional through support with office materials. The data which is obtained from the
outcome assessment indicated that 4.7% of respondents gets information from the programs air
time in the radio fana. In relation to documenting & publicizing the programs achievement by
using different media tools (producing magazine, pamphlet documentary film) the program
achieved 110% in the pro gram life.

3.5.6.1. Documentation

The necessary changes, trends, best practices which have been developed throughout the
programs intervention were documented. Even if still there is a clarity problem in identifying the
way how to prepare /organize documentary film and best practice almost all woredas prepared
and publicized the programs contribution.

 The program achievement are document and publicized (magazine, pamphlet, leaflets, and
documentary films) 4 times in the program life. The success, good experience, program history
and the overall program intervention, documentation was taken

[   3.5.6.2. Provide physical facilities and internet to partners

To achieve the goals and objectives of the program and to create strong relationship with the
partners, the program gives attention in providing materials support 62 computers and 52 printers
have been purchased and provided for different sectors. 19 woredas are functional through
support with office materials & 9 sectors at zonal and woreda level are getting internet service by
the program support. In relation to library 14 woredas were started functioning with full
materials.

3.5.6.3. Communications

3.5.6.3.1. Media
The air time of the program from the radio fana is going well in publicizing the programs
contribution depending on the program of each Result .The pcu experts, program coordinator,
focal persons, and beneficiaries presents about the overall achievement of the program &
witnessed in the media about the contribution of the program.

3.5.6.3.2. Exhibition



                                                50
The program participated in one exhibition which is prepared by bahre negash advertising
organization and civil service department. The program prepares banners, documentary films,
which describes about the program achievements in each result and the program awarded
certificate.

3.5.7. Program support on gender, HIV/AIDS and environment issue
       3.5.7.1. Strategic support on gender


For Austrian supported projects/programs mainstreaming of gender is not a new phenomenon. In
highly patriarchal societies where women and girls experience the effect of generic
vulnerabilities more acutely than do men, and where the burden of poverty on women,
inequalities and inadequacies in access to resources and training are prominent, gender sensitive
and pro-poor interventions were the main focus of the program. In this program (SRMP), high
attention was given to women’s participation in most program/project activities. To achieve its
gender mainstreaming results, the program planned and executed gender sensitive and poverty
alleviating activities. Studies on participation of women and poor households, gender analysis,
gender mainstreaming trainings, establishing and supporting HIV/AIDS infected/affected groups
(large number of members are women) and engaging them in income generating activities,
promotion of family planning and cross-learning visits to model communities were
accomplished. The credit scheme and alternative income generation activities made affirmative
targeting of women and vulnerable households. This is particularly true in view of interventions
such as sheep breeding and rearing and provisions made to facilitate cross-bred heifer ownership.
Particularly, women were able to improve their technical capacity in livestock management and
other relevant agricultural activities, which had opened opportunities for generating additional
income. Awareness raising and extension work emphasized on reducing or easing the women’s
workload as well as on the utilization of the income by women. Furthermore, the representation
of women in most of planning, implementation and evaluation endeavors was strengthened.

        3.5.7. 2. HIV/AIDS infected and affected groups Support
The HIV/AIDS epidemic in the country is expanding at a very alarming rate. This killer disease
is mainly affecting the potential labor force on the farm . There are many contributory factors
underlying the increase of the HIV rate in Ethiopia. Poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, gender
inequality, cultural barriers that promote denial, stigma and discrimination, etc, all contribute.
Women are disproportionately affected in all these areas. The link between poverty and
HIV/AIDS is well established, they reinforce each other through direct and indirect routes. To
date attention has been given by the authorities to the links between food insecurity and
vulnerability to HIV/AIDS infection and development programs. SRMP-NG has emphasized in
the fight against HIV/AIDS. Based on this, three HIV/AIDS infected/affected groups in three
woredas are established and participated in income generating activities. The major income
generating activates were fatting, irrigation development, crop production, ggrinding mill etc…
This kind of support to the people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) specifically addressed the
issue of stigmatization and discrimination of infected individuals and affected households, larger
numbers of whom are women. The support enabled the targeted PLWHAs, which would have
otherwise remained highly vulnerable, to become self sufficient. The supported groups has now


                                               51
grown to a level that they can support members covering the cost of hospitalization for serious
cases that need referrals. The members witnessed that they are now well integrated to the
community as the result of various awareness rising and, discrimination and stigmatization are
no more problems. Besides stigma and discrimination problem, their members avoid the problem
of food shortage, this in turn help them to take their medication on time and as required. In
general the support given to these PLWHAs has a very positive impact on their living situation.

       3.5.7. 3. Environmental Issue
What environmental impacts can the program bring and how the negative ones are to be
remediated is the main concern here. Most interventions of Natural Resources Management are
environmental friendly. They are interrelated and supplement each other; we can name any
activity and see what it brings to the environment. Some examples can clarify this, the physical
and biological soil and water conservation activities reduce soil erosion, increase infiltration,
decrease siltation and flooding of down streams. By then, there will be high ground water
recharge, water quality improvement, agricultural production increase and environmental
rehabilitation. Degraded area rehabilitation of the program had brought ecosystem rehabilitation
and improved eco-system services like reemerging of streams, plant and animal species. Natural
forest protection on the arid and semi-arid woredas enables to protect remnant forests and
important tree species nearly endangered. These natural forest areas are found in the western
lowlands of Ethiopia bordering Sudan and they are connected (not patches) to each other. In
addition to these forests, the protection of Alatish National Park which is over 267,000 hectares
is going on by the program and the park management. The location and the situation of these
sites clearly indicate the regional (beyond national) importance of the interventions in terms of
environmental protection and climate change. Promotion of bio-mass energy saving stoves,
development of plantation and other activities reinforce natural forest protection in one way or
anther.

The program is also working actively in the development and protection of Simen Mountains
National Park which is about 412 Sq Km. and the conservation activities in and around SMNP
brought environmental restoration and this intervention is going on to bring effect to the lager
Tekeze watershed in the future. In this case also it is clear that the effect has regional importance.

More than this the program has commissioned environmental monitoring study to assess the
environmental impacts of its interventions. The study report highlighted that most interventions
are bringing positive impacts. So it can be generalized that there is high concern and motivation
by the program to protect the environment from further degradation besides embarking on huge
rehabilitation and restoration undertakings.

3.5.8. Program management
       3.5.8.1. Steering committee involvement
The program management is composed of the steering committees (SC) at regional, zonal and
woreda levels, the focal person at woreda, and watershed committees at program implementation
site level. The Steering Committee is responsible for the program implementation in approving
plans and budget, overseeing the overall program implementation and coordination, making



                                                 52
operational decisions, monitoring and reviewing program performances, scaling up good
practices and lessons for expansion.

It was planed to conduct 10, 20 and 864, regional, zonal and woreda steering committee meeting
respectively. The compiled report revealed that 10, 19 and 490 meeting has been conducted at
regional, zonal and woreda level steering committee respectively. These are 100%, 95% and
60.5%, achievement in relation to the target of the five years.

       3.5.8.2. Management Information system
The installation of MIS at PCU office was implemented as planned. The system is fully
operational and accessible through the World Wide Web internet (www.srmp.org.et). But, lack
of internet access from woredas side because of Ethiopian Telecommunication poor coverage
service it created difficulties to make it operational the system. This situation undermine its
intended contribution.

       3.5.8.3. Status of Progress/ performance reports
The SRMP-NG established a reporting and monitoring system using management information
system that will provide necessary information for result based decisions. Monitoring and
evaluation activities were undertaken at both PCU, and woreda level on ongoing basis as part of
the program M&E system. PCU and Woreda reported at activities level on quarterly basis and
the compiled data revealed that reporting achieved at the level of 88.1% and 85% respectively in
relation to the five year target. The achievement of PCU report will be reach 100% in the
remaining quarters. But, the woreda report frequency may not bring significant progression even
if 100% report submitted in the remaining quarters. Moreover, the reports which were prepared
in the previous years at woreda level suffered from variations and delays that need attention by
concerned stakeholders.




                                              53
3.6. Development trend and livelihood options in the intervention area
3.6.1. Development trend in the past five years
So as to indicate the program contribution in the development arena we tried to see the trends of
intervention of livelihood options derived from crop, livestock, non-farm and related activities
performance based on the data analyzed from the survey in comparison with today’s
performance with the past five years.
From the total of 229 respondents 154(67.2%), 136(59.4%), 18(7.9%) and 33(14.4) were crop
and related, livestock and related, livestock and non-farm activities participation in livelihood
options ranked 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th respectively in the last ten years. Likewise, from the total of
229 respondents 175(76.4%), 150(65.5%), 13(5.7%) and 40(17.5) were crop and related,
livestock and related, livestock and non-farm activities participation in livelihood options ranked
1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th respectively in the present days. This indicates that there is no difference the
choice livelihood intervention by the farmers (Table D R5).

3.6.2. Gender development in the past ten year
The existence of male dominant (patriarchal) culture, norms, traditions, religion dogmas and
high level of illiteracy are some of the major influencing factors that create social and
psychological as well as economical burden on women. Particularly, these factors are much
worse in rural areas. This is evident by the poverty status of women, their low social status in
the household and the community, low participation in the decision making process, having less
or no accesses to resources, etc. To avoid/ minimize these major problems on women, different
efforts are made by the government and NGOs to address gender issues and to empower rural
women.

Data were collected in the intervention area to assess the status of current gender development by
comparing current status with before ten years. Based on the survey result (XXXX) 99.6% of
respondents’ opinion revealed that currently the vulnerability of females for different problem
has been declining compared to the situation before ten years. 97.4% of respondents also assure
that “participation of women in HH level decision making” improved progressively.

Regarding “Women’s right in HH resource use”, 97.4 % of respondent perceived the existence of
improvement. The improvement of participation of women in community level decision making
was also confirmed by 96.1% respondents. Among the respondents, 95.6% and97.4% also
explained that there is improvement in the “role of women in productive activities” and “right to
use and order in own land” respectively. At the same time 72.6%of respondents reveal that
women participate in tourism activities.

Thus, it has been noted that after the intervention of the Program, there has been increased
involvement of women in natural resource management and in income generating activities.




                                                  54
3.6.3. Livelihood options in the last ten year
So as to indicate the program contribution in the development arena we tried to see the trends of
intervention of livelihood options derived from crop, livestock, non-farm and related activities
performance based on the data analyzed from the survey.
From the total of 229 respondents 154(67.2%), 114(49.8%), 17(7.4%) and 35(15.3) were crop
and related, livestock and related, livestock and non-farm activities participation in livelihood
options ranked 1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th respectively in the last ten years. Likewise, from the total of
229 respondents 175(76.4%), 150(65.5%), 13(5.7%) and 40(17.5) were crop and related,
livestock and related, livestock and non-farm activities participation in livelihood options ranked
1st , 2nd , 3rd and 4th respectively in the present days. This indicates that there is no difference the
choice livelihood intervention by the farmers(Table D R5).




                                                  55
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1. Conclusions
Compiled reports, field visits and analysis of sample survey data revealed most of the five years
targets of the result area are attained (over 90%) and the quality of achievements is to the
required standards. They are also more likely to be sustainable as they are mostly private
undertakings (woodlots, farm boundary, homestead plantations, stoves, and motor pumps) or
they are economically rewarding (small scale irrigations, developed springs, area closures, and
natural forest protection, soil and water conservations). More than this the program was using the
existing government structure and with genuine participation of beneficiaries and hence there
will not be any gap for the continuation of development interventions.

To improve the overall status of the SMNP, different conservation measures have been made in
participatory fashion and the park is relatively in better conservation status especially in terms of
wildlife increment. As a result of promotion works improved park conservation and integrated
financial and technical support, the number of tourist arrival and the associated total income
from the sector to both community and government has increased significantly. Based on data
gathered from the SMNP office, the average stay of tourists has increased from 3 to 5 days.
Before the program intervention considerable number of people were generating income from
the tourism sector but after the program intervention the number declined highly due to the fact
that more people are in need of getting the opportunity to provide tourist services and the chance
of a household to get a single turn in a given calendar year becomes very minimal.



Land Administration for Sustainable Development is a resource for economic development,
environmental and resource management, poverty alleviation, social equity, and indigenous
rights management. Land administration provide security of tenure, security for legally acquired
real property rights, security in transfer of real property rights, security and transparency in land
and real property valuation, transparency in land use and land use planning and transparency and
sustainability of land development. Land administration is based on data from registers on land
and other real property objects and rights over them.


Security in legal transfer of real property rights can be reached if legal framework is established
defining how property rights can be legally transferred between persons and latter on registered

Legal framework should cover:
1. types of real property rights in respective jurisdiction
2. possible types of real property transfers (e.g. contracts, inheriting, etc.)
3. real property register and procedures for registration




                                                   56
4.2. Recommendations


From the development of the above successive parts of this report, achievements had gone well
as planned. The program had performed nearly all what is required, however many activities and
systems need further scaling up and adoption by relevant stakeholders. Experiences of integrated
watershed development have been planned and implemented only by this program for the first
time. These experiences and the necessary documentation need to be transferred to line offices or
relevant stakeholders. The importance of some activities needs more focus and attention and may
not be achieved by one program or project life time only.

The protection of remnant natural forests of the arid and semi-arid areas is one area which needs
special attention. What the program has tried to do may be enough from the time and financial
resources available perspective and it can help as a background to start from and expand the
intervention in area and intensity. Other wise the magnitude of the problem calls more
development partners to act collaborate and continuously. Many unprotected forests and
woodlands are being cleared at an alarming state. So protection of the existing natural forests and
introduction of other important species and ultimately increase the economic importance of these
resources to local communities must be a primary focus.

 Development of private plantations and introduction of highland bamboo to the highlands can
bring means of income improvement and to alleviate fuel and construction wood shortage.

Promotion of bio-mass energy saving stoves has high importance in many ways and it is also
simple to use. There should be large scale engagement as a nation not only for the program
purpose. The constraints in relation to cement cost and related quality problems need to get
solution, there are chances to improve and intensify its utilization.



For better community based tourism development and participatory park conservation, there is
still a need to design a strategy for sharing the benefits from tourism at all levels and also
consider and considerably support the relocation program of SMNP to remove the property from
the list of “World Heritage Site in Danger” but community awareness creation and equity of
benefit sharing from the tourism sector still requires urgent concern for positive attitude and
interest driven collaborative community based park management.




Efficiency of land registration authorities as well as transparency of recorded data and
registration procedures is therefore essential for land administration. In doing so, support of the
program was found essential and will be. Security of tenure means a constitutional or legal
guarantee that a person who occupies land or other real property is protected if they have
acquired the real property in a legal way. Real property can then become a place to begin
economic activity; therefore security of tenure is essential for economy as well as for real estate


                                                57
market. On this basis, real property rights are well known and accepted by all the members of
society and state authorities. Acceptance of legally established real property rights and data in
real property are therefore essential for real estate market.



Security in legal transfer of property rights is ultimate goal of activities on real estate market.
Transparency in land use and land use planning, as well as transparency of possible use of other
real estate objects is essential to ensure that real property is used in a legal way and is developed
for the benefit of a community in such a way that the value of real property is protected.
Therefore these transparencies are essential for real estate market and economy and will ensure
that economic activity will go on at a location on which certain type of economic activity is
legally possible



Transparency and sustainability of land development means that all holders of real property
rights will be part of process of land development, that their real property rights will be protected
in the land development process and that development will be sustainable for the community in
which one has real property rights



In general, the following are fundamental points that require consideration at all levels to
condense poverty, protect environment from farther degradation and to reduce conflict among
community raised from improper land administration.

    Security of tenure
    Security of real property rights
    Security in legal transfer of real property rights
    Security and transparency in real property valuation
    Transparency in land use and land use planning and transparency and sustainability of land
    development
    Transparent registration which is efficient and effective




                                                 58
                                              ANNEXES




1. Survey finding /per each result/


        Cash income from natural resources

                                                           Sex of       N     Mean
 Responses                                                 Respondent
If yes, income gained from sale of wood in birr before     Male          37      891.9
                                                           Female         8      322.5
                                                           total         45      790.7
Income gained from seedling sale before                    Male          13      243.4
                                                           Female         4      258.6
                                                           Total         17       247
Income gained from natural resource product before         Male          37      592.1
                                                           Female        13      368.5
                                                           Total         50      533.9
Sum of Natural resource cash income before                 Male          63      921.7
                                                           Female        21      400.2
                                                           Total         84      791.3
If yes, income gained from sale of wood in birr in after   Male          50     1335.2
                                                           Female         4       710
                                                           Total         54     1288.9
Income gained from seedling sale in after                  Male           9     3644.4
                                                           Female         1       400
                                                           Total         10      3320
Income gained from natural resource product in after       Male          55     1093.5
                                                           Female        14     1435.1
                                                           Total         69     1162.8
Sum of natural resource cash income After                  Male          84     1901.2
                                                           Female        17     1372.4
                                                           Total        101     1812.2
income from wood sale in birr after with the program       Male          31     1051.8
support /subset                                            Female         2       425
                                                           Total         33     1013.9
Income gained from seedling sale with the support of       Male           4      1375
program/subset                                             Female         1       400
                                                           Total          5      1180
                                                           Male          32     1190.8
Sum of Natural resource income from Program support        Female         2       625
                                                           Total         34     1157.5
PCU 2012 survey data analysis


                                                    59
Status of fuel source utilization by respondents
Ranks of fuel sources       Fuel sources                  Sex of Respondent
                                                  Male          Female      Total
                                             Count Column Count Column Count Column
                                                       N%            N%         N%

                            Private
                                              64        41.0%    18   24.7%    82    35.8%
                            afforestation
                            natural forest    68        43.6%    37   50.7%    105   45.9%
                            purchasing of
Major fuel source before                       1        0.6%     1    1.4%      2    0.9%
                            wood
rank 1
                            Animal residue    23        14.7%    14   19.2%    37    16.2%
                            Crop residu        0         0.0%     2    2.7%     2     0.9%
                            Charkol            0        0.0%     0    0.0%      0    0.0%
                            Fuel gas           0        0.0%     1    1.4%      1    0.4%
                            Total             156       100.0%   73   100.0%   229   100.0%
Major fuel source in 2004
                            Not Selected       0        0.0%     0    0.0%      0    0.0%
rank 1



                                                   60
                                Private
                                                          113             72.4%          28          38.4%              141            61.6%
                                afforestation
                                natural forest                33          21.2%          27          37.0%              60             26.2%
                                purchasing of
                                                              0           0.0%               1          1.4%             1              0.4%
                                wood
                                Animal residue                8           5.1%           16          21.9%              24             10.5%
                                Crop residu                   2           1.3%               1          1.4%             3              1.3%
                                Charkol                       0           0.0%               0          0.0%             0              0.0%
                                Fuel gas                   0               0.0%           0           0.0%               0              0.0%
                                Total                     156             100.0%         73          100.0%             229            100.0%


Below here are annexes that are used for crop production write-up.

                                                                                                 Sex of Respondent

                                                                             Male                           Female                      Total

                                                                     Count       Column N          Count         Column       Count          Column
                                                                                     %                            N%                              N%

                                              Yes                            9       5.8%                   0       0.0%               9          3.9%
Did you participate in Apple production
                                              No                          147       94.2%               73       100.0%               220         96.1%
before
                                              Total                       156       100.0%              73       100.0%               229     100.0%
                                              Yes                          44       28.2%                   3       4.1%               47         20.5%
Did you participate in Apple production
                                              No                          112       71.8%               70         95.9%              182         79.5%
after
                                              Total                       156       100.0%              73       100.0%               229     100.0%
                                              Yes                          44       100.0%                  3    100.0%                47     100.0%
Did you participate in Apple production
                                              No                             0       0.0%                   0       0.0%               0          0.0%
after
                                              Total                        44       100.0%                  3    100.0%                47     100.0%




                                         Income from Apple Production Before and After
                                                                                         Sex of Respondent
                                                                   Male                           Female                                Total

                                                      N            %       Mean          N          %           Mean         N              %       Mean
If yes number of Apple seedling planted before            9        100     17.78             0          0                        9          100      17.78
Income gained from Apple in Birr before                   9        100     22.22             0          0                        9          100        22.22
If yes number of Apple seedling planted after         44           93.6    21.14             3      6.4         13.67            47         100        20.66
Income gained from Apple in Birr after                44           93.6    29.32             3      6.4            0             47         100        27.45




                                                               61
                                                                               Wealth status
                                                      Poor                           better off                                 Total
                                           Count        Column N %             Count      Column N %                Count          Column N
                                                                                                                                       %
Did you participate in    Yes                     1                  1.0%                  8               6.3%                9        3.9%
Apple production          No                    101                 99.0%                119              93.7%              220       96.1%
before                    Total                 102                100.0%                127             100.0%              229      100.0%
                          Yes                    13                 12.7%                 34              26.8%               47       20.5%
Did you participate in
                          No                     89                 87.3%                 93              73.2%              182       79.5%
Apple production after
                          Total                 102                100.0%                127             100.0%              229      100.0%
                          Yes                    13                100.0%                 34             100.0%               47      100.0%
Did you participate in
                          No                      0                  0.0%                  0               0.0%                0        0.0%
Apple production after
                          Total                  13                100.0%                 34             100.0%               47      100.0%




                                         Income from Apple Production Before and After
                                                                                  Sex of Respondent
                                                               Male                       Female                              Total

                                                      N        %      Mean       N             %        Mean        N         %       Mean
If yes number of Apple seedling planted before            9    100    17.78          0             0                    9     100      17.78
Income gained from Apple in Birr before                   9    100     22.22         0             0                    9     100      22.22
If yes number of Apple seedling planted after          44     93.6     21.14         3         6.4      13.67           47    100      20.66
Income gained from Apple in Birr after                 44     93.6     29.32         3         6.4          0           47    100      27.45




                           Cash income from crop with program support
                                  Sex of Respondent             N           Mean                Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Cash income from crop with        Male                         82           5061.9512              6862.45042        757.83087
the program support after         Female                       22           5268.8636              4685.67674        998.98964
                                                               104            5105.72
Apple incom from program          Male                          7            184.2857                   151.53186              57.27366
/subset of total                  Female                       0a                   .                           .                     .
                                                                7              184.29
Income from Irrgation             Male                         19           2276.3158                  4376.08299            1003.94229
production with the support
                                  Female                                       666.6667                 288.67513             166.66667
of program /subset of total                                     3
                                                               22             2056.82
Sum of Crop cash income           Male                         88           5222.9545                  7081.56879             754.89777
from Program support              Female                       24           4913.1250                  4676.37955             954.56198
                                                               112            5156.56




                                                              62
                                      Consumption income of crop
                             Sex of Respondent           N            Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean
Subsistence/consumption      Male                       157           5158.7898      3523.79979              281.22984
income from crop before      Female                     64            4486.3828      5257.08324              657.13540
                                                        221             4964.07
Subsistence/consumption      Male                       158           9140.8465      9195.67599              731.56870
income from crop After       Female                     69            5687.6957      5256.80346              632.84477
                                                        227             8091.21
Subsistence/consumption      Male                       83            2500.4819      3421.53596              375.56236
income from crop with the
                             Female                                   2634.4318      2342.83837              499.49482
program support after                                   22
                                                        105             2528.55



Asset created before intervention
                                                 Group Statistics
                             Sex of Respondent           N            Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean
Estimated price of Apple tree Male                            9       3555.5556      2185.81284             728.60428
                                                                  a
asset before                 Female                           0               .                    .                 .
                                                                        3555.56




Asset created after intervention
                                                 Group Statistics
                             Sex of Respondent           N            Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean
Number of Apple seedling     Male                             44        21.1364        74.44292              11.22269
planted as Asset After       Female                           3         13.6667        11.50362               6.64162
                                                                          20.66
Estimated price of Apple tree Male                            44      4227.2727    14888.58410             2244.53851
assets After                 Female                           3       2733.3333      2300.72452            1328.32392
                                                                        4131.91




Asset created with the program support
                                                 Group Statistics
                             Sex of Respondent           N            Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean



                                                      63
                                                                                  a
 Apple seedling planted with        Male                                      0                           .                       .                      .
                                                                                  a
 the program support After          Female                                    0                           .                       .                      .


 Estimated price of Apple tree Male                                           44            4254.5455               14884.00819               2243.84866
 asset created with program
                                    Female                                    3             2733.3333                2300.72452               1328.32392
 support
                                                                                                  4157.45




Result 5:
TableA
                                                                                      Sex of Respondent
                                                          Male                                Female                                  Total
                                             Count         Column N %                 Count        Column N %            Count         Column N %
                                Yes                  34              21.8%                    7               9.6%            41                17.9%
 Did you participated in
                                No              122                  78.2%                  66                90.4%          188                82.1%
 animal fattening before
                                Total           156                  100.0%                 73            100.0%             229               100.0%
                                Yes                  33              21.2%                    9               12.3%           42                18.3%
 Did you participated in
                                No              123                  78.8%                  64                87.7%          187                81.7%
 animal fattening after
                                Total           156                  100.0%                 73            100.0%             229               100.0%


Table B: credit from different institution
                                                                                                    Sex of Respondent
                                                                       Male                                   Female                             Total
                                                                 N                    %                N                 %                N              %

                                     Yes                              61                  46.9                 13            21                74            38.5
 Did you get credit
   from different                    No                               69                  53.1                 49            79               118            61.5
 institution before
                                   Total                             130                  100                  62         100                 192            100
Did you get credit in                Yes                              47                  31.1                 14         19.2                 61            27.2
 the last four years
                                     No                              104                  68.9                 59         80.8                163            72.8
   from different
      institution                  Total                             151                   100                 73          100                224             100
                                     Yes                              42                  41.2                 40         64.5                 82            50.0
  If yes, have you
   repay the loan                    No                               38                  37.3                 9          14.5                 47            28.7
        timely                                                        22                  21.6                 13         21.0                 35            21.3
                           It is not time to repay


Table C: Saving

                                                                                       Sex of Respondent
                                                      Male                                       Female                               Total
                                             Count          Column %                  Count          Column %             Count               Column %



                                                                      64
Saving before      Yes                          35         22.4%                 8         11.0%                43        18.8%
                   I have income
                   but I don't want             48         30.8%                 12        16.4%                60        26.2%
                   to save
                   I don't have
                   money to be                  73         46.8%                 53        72.6%               126        55.0%
                   saved
                   Total                       156         100.0%                73       100.0%               229       100.0%
Saving in 2002     Yes                          60         38.5%                 10        13.7%                70        30.6%
                   I have income
                   but I don't want             17         10.9%                 5             6.8%             22            9.6%
                   to save
                   I don't have
                   money to be                  79         50.6%                 58        79.5%               137        59.8%
                   saved
                   Total                       156         100.0%                73       100.0%               229       100.0%



                                           Sex of Respondent
                                    Male        Female            Total
                                    Mean        Mean            Mean
If you have saving,
amount of money saved               2305.00       864.20        2099.17



Table D: livelihood trends

                                                                                  Sex of Respondent
                                                           Male                           Female                          Total
                                                  Count         Column %          Count         Column %         Count         Column %
Before 10 years          Not ranked                        0          .0%                 0           .0%                0           .0%
first rank livelihood    Crop and related              103           66.0%                51          69.9%          154             67.2%
                         livestock and
                                                          47         30.1%                12          16.4%              59          25.8%
                         related
                         NR and related                    6              3.8%            5            6.8%              11           4.8%
                         non farm                          0              .0%             5            6.8%              5            2.2%
                         Total                         156          100.0%                73          100.0%         229             100.0%
Before 10 years          Not ranked                       10              6.4%            14          19.2%              24          10.5%
second rank              Crop and related                 53         34.0%                18          24.7%              71          31.0%
livelihood
                         livestock and
                                                          80         51.3%                34          46.6%          114             49.8%
                         related
                         NR and related                   13              8.3%            4            5.5%              17           7.4%
                         non farm                          0              .0%             3            4.1%              3            1.3%
                         Total                         156          100.0%                73          100.0%         229             100.0%
Before 10 years          Not ranked                       66         42.3%                41          56.2%          107             46.7%
third rank               Crop and related                  3              1.9%            1            1.4%              4            1.7%
livelihood
                         livestock and
                                                          10              6.4%            7            9.6%              17           7.4%
                         related
                         NR and related                   69         44.2%                23          31.5%              92          40.2%
                         non farm                          8              5.1%            1            1.4%              9            3.9%
                         Total                         156          100.0%                73          100.0%         229             100.0%



                                                               65
Before 10 years        Not ranked             122           78.2%            64       87.7%        186          81.2%
forth rank             Crop and related           1           .6%            0          .0%            1          .4%
livelihood
                       livestock and
                                                  1           .6%            1         1.4%            2          .9%
                       related
                       NR and related             4          2.6%            1         1.4%            5         2.2%
                       non farm                   28        17.9%            7         9.6%            35       15.3%
                       Total                  156           100.0%           73       100.0%       229          100.0%




                                                                     Sex of Respondent
                                                   Male                      Female                     Total
                                          Count         Column %     Count        Column %     Count        Column %
Before 5 years first   Not ranked                 5          3.2%            5         6.8%            10        4.4%
rank livelihood        Crop and related       107           68.6%            47       64.4%        154          67.2%
                       livestock and
                                                  38        24.4%            13       17.8%            51       22.3%
                       related
                       NR and related             5          3.2%            4         5.5%            9         3.9%
                       non farm                   0           .0%            4         5.5%            4         1.7%
                       7.00                       1           .6%            0          .0%            1          .4%
                       Total                  156           100.0%           73       100.0%       229          100.0%
Before 5 years         Not ranked                 8          5.1%            8        11.0%            16        7.0%
second rank            Crop and related           43        27.6%            15       20.5%            58       25.3%
livelihood
                       livestock and
                                                  95        60.9%            41       56.2%        136          59.4%
                       related
                       NR and related             10         6.4%            6         8.2%            16        7.0%
                       non farm                   0           .0%            3         4.1%            3         1.3%
                       Total                  156           100.0%           73       100.0%       229          100.0%
Before 5 years         Not ranked                 62        39.7%            40       54.8%        102          44.5%
third rank             Crop and related           1           .6%            1         1.4%            2          .9%
livelihood
                       livestock and
                                                  11         7.1%            7         9.6%            18        7.9%
                       related
                       NR and related             72        46.2%            23       31.5%            95       41.5%
                       non farm                   10         6.4%            2         2.7%            12        5.2%
                       Total                  156           100.0%           73       100.0%       229          100.0%
Before 5 years         Not ranked             122           78.2%            61       83.6%        183          79.9%
forth rank             Crop and related           0           .0%            1         1.4%            1          .4%
livelihood
                       livestock and
                                                  0           .0%            2         2.7%            2          .9%
                       related
                       NR and related             8          5.1%            2         2.7%            10        4.4%
                       non farm                   26        16.7%            7         9.6%            33       14.4%
                       Total                  156           100.0%           73       100.0%       229          100.0%




                                                                     Sex of Respondent
                                                   Male                      Female                     Total
                                          Count         Column %     Count        Column %     Count        Column %




                                                       66
Today first rank     Not ranked                       0           .0%            0         .0%           0        .0%
livelihood           Crop and related                132        84.6%          43         58.9%        175      76.4%
                     livestock and
                                                      20        12.8%          25         34.2%         45      19.7%
                     related
                     NR and related                   4           2.6%           3        4.1%           7       3.1%
                     non farm                         0           .0%            2        2.7%           2        .9%
                     Total                           156        100.0%         73        100.0%        229     100.0%
Today second         Not ranked                       5           3.2%           7        9.6%          12       5.2%
rank livelihood      Crop and related                 18        11.5%          23         31.5%         41      17.9%
                     livestock and
                                                     118        75.6%          32         43.8%        150      65.5%
                     related
                     NR and related                   13          8.3%           9        12.3%         22       9.6%
                     non farm                         2           1.3%           2        2.7%           4       1.7%
                     Total                           156        100.0%         73        100.0%        229     100.0%
Today third rank     Not ranked                       48        30.8%          41         56.2%         89      38.9%
livelihood           Crop and related                 7           4.5%           4        5.5%          11       4.8%
                     livestock and
                                                      7           4.5%           6        8.2%          13       5.7%
                     related
                     NR and related                   84        53.8%          21         28.8%        105      45.9%
                     non farm                         10          6.4%           1        1.4%          11       4.8%
                     Total                           156        100.0%         73        100.0%        229     100.0%
Today forth rank     Not ranked                      117        75.0%          63         86.3%        180      78.6%
livelihood           Crop and related                 0           .0%            0         .0%           0        .0%
                     livestock and
                                                      1           .6%            1        1.4%           2        .9%
                     related
                     NR and related                   6           3.8%           1        1.4%           7       3.1%
                     non farm                         32        20.5%            8        11.0%         40      17.5%
                     Total                           156        100.0%         73        100.0%        229     100.0%



Result 6

Table A. Livestock asset created by sex and wealth status

                                                                      Baseline of
                                                                                      Additional
                                                                       samples
                             Before                 After                            income from         Program
                                                                        getting
        Categories        Intervention          Intervention                           program         contribution
                                                                       program
                                                                                      supported            in %
                                                                       support
                      N         Mean        N         Mean          N    Mean        N      Mean
        Sex
   Male                155      19394.25    158        38444.75     63    23180.89   63      6356.43
   Female                 60    10265.23        69     22630.58     54     7607.35   54      7263.52
   Total                            16847                 33638             15993             6775
   t-test                  4.809 (.000)          5.140 (.000)        5.870 (0.000)   -.913 (0.363)
        Wealth
   Poor                102      10365.98    113        23668.76     67     8626.58   67      7093.96




                                                           67
     Better                   113     22696.40          114     43519.39           50    25864.24            50    6347.80
     Total                              16847                     33638                    15993                     6775
     t-test                      -6.885 (.000)             -6.141 (.000)            -5.783 (0.000)            .744 (.458)
Source: Compiled from the 2012 outcome assessment survey data, ***,**,* Significant at less than 1 %, at 1 % , at 5*, NS non Significant




Table B

                                                    Participation in Livestock
                                                                                                 Sex of Respondent
                                                                                 Male                   Female                     Total
                                                                           N            %            N            %         N              %
Did you participated in livestock                     Yes                  149           95.5         70          95.9      219            95.6
production
                                                      No                     7             4.5          3          4.1        10            4.4
                                                      Total                156            100           73         100      229             100
Did you get income from livestock sold                Yes                   64              52          14        24.6        78           43.3
before
                                                      No                    59              48          43        75.4      102            56.7
                                                      Total                123            100           57         100      180             100
Did you particpate in dairy production                Yes                   69           44.2           16        21.9        85           37.1
before
                                                      No                    87           55.8           57        78.1      144            62.9
                                                      Total                156            100           73         100      229             100
Did you have private dairy production                 Yes                   90           57.7           23        31.5      113            49.3
after
                                                      No                    66           42.3           50        68.5      116            50.7
                                                      Total                156            100           73         100      229             100
Did you have program supported dairy                  Yes                   19           12.2           1          1.4        20            8.7
production after
                                                      No                   137           87.8           72        98.6      209            91.3
                                                      Total                156            100           73         100      229             100


Table C:


                                                                                             Sex of Respondent
                                                                   Male                             Female                                  Total
                                                      Count          Column N %            Count         Column N %            Count           Column N %
                                       Yes                    52              33.3%                 7               9.6%               59            25.8%
 Did you particpated in honey
                                       No                   104               66.7%                66             90.4%               170            74.2%
 production before
                                       Total                156             100.0%                 73             100.0%              229           100.0%




                                                                                           Sex of Respondent
                                                               Male                                Female                                  Total



                                                                      68
                                                    Count          Column N %              Count           Column N %          Count              Column N %


                        Traditional                         49              94.2%                  6              85.7%                  55              93.2%
Type of behaive         Transition                          2                3.8%                  0               0.0%                    2              3.4%
                        Moderen                             1                1.9%                  1              14.3%                    2              3.4%
                        Total                               52              100.0%                 7              100.0%                 59              100.0%




                                                                                              Sex of Respondent
                                                                  Male                                 Female                                    Total
                                                     Count            Column N %            Count           Column N %             Count           Column N %
                                      Yes                    53               34.0%                    9            12.3%                  62              27.1%
Did you particpated in honey
                                      No                    103               66.0%                 64              87.7%                 167              72.9%
production after
                                      Total                 156              100.0%                 73             100.0%                 229             100.0%




participated in animal feed production
                                                                                                       Sex of Respondent

                                                                                       Male                   Female                    Total

                                                                                N             %             N        %         N                %
Did you participated in animal feed production                   Yes            57             36.5          11      15.1      68               29.7
before
                                                                 No              99            63.5          62      84.9      161              70.3
                                                                 Total          156            100           73        100     229              100
Did you participated in animal feed production                   Yes             76            48.7          13      17.8          89           38.9
after
                                                                 No              80            51.3          60      82.2      140              61.1
                                                                 Total          156            100           73        100     229              100

Did you get the support of the program in feed                   Yes             62            81.6           6      46.2          68           76.4
production after
                                                                 No              14            18.4           7      53.8          21           23.6
                                                                 Total           76          10000           13     10000          89           100




Particpation in stall feeding

                                                                              Sex of Respondent
                                                     Male                             Female                               Total
                                            Count        Column %             Count          Column %             Count        Column %
 Did you           Yes                              52       33.3%                    18         24.7%                    70       30.6%
 participated in   No                           104              66.7%                55           75.3%               159              69.4%
 stall feeding
 before            Total                        156              100.0%               73           100.0%              229          100.0%



                                                                       69
Did you            Yes            101             64.7%          25             34.2%         126             55.0%
participated in    No               55            35.3%          48             65.8%         103             45.0%
stall feeding
in after           Total          156           100.0%           73             100.0%        229          100.0%


Reasons for applying stall feeding before

                                                                 Sex of Respondent
                                              Male                         Female                         Total
                                   Count          Column %      Count            Column %     Count           Column %
If yes for to
prevent open         Yes                   19          36.5%                4        22.2%            23            32.9%
grazing before
                     No                    33          63.5%            14           77.8%            47            67.1%
                     Total                 52         100.0%            18          100.0%            70           100.0%
If yes for
fattening            Yes                   21          40.4%                5        27.8%            26            37.1%
purpose before
                     No                    30          57.7%            13           72.2%            43            61.4%
                     Total                 52         100.0%            18          100.0%            70           100.0%
If yes to care
animals before       Yes                   31          59.6%            12           66.7%            43            61.4%
                     No                    20          38.5%                6        33.3%            26            37.1%
                     Total                 52         100.0%            18          100.0%            70           100.0%




Reasons for applying stall feeding after

                                                               Sex of Respondent
                                           Male                        Female                         Total
                                 Count          Column %       Count            Column %     Count         Column %
If yes for to
prevent open        Yes                  41          40.6%             5            20.0%            46           36.5%
grazing in after
                    No                   60          59.4%             20           80.0%            80           63.5%
                    Total            101             100.0%            25         100.0%         126              100.0%
If yes for
fattening           Yes                  25          24.8%             4            16.0%            29           23.0%
purpose in after
                    No                   76          75.2%             21           84.0%            97           77.0%
                    Total            101             100.0%            25         100.0%         126              100.0%
If yes to care
animals in after    Yes                  44          43.6%             16           64.0%            60           47.6%
                    No                   57          56.4%             9            36.0%            66           52.4%
                    Total            101             100.0%            25         100.0%         126              100.0%
If yes, other
reasons after       Yes                  20          19.8%             2            8.0%             22           17.5%
                    No                   81          80.2%             23           92.0%        104              82.5%
                    Total            101             100.0%            25         100.0%         126              100.0%




                                                      70
Table D:


                                      Livestock cash income before
                               Sex of Respondent          N            Mean        Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Income from sold livstck       Male                             86    1793.4419       1609.24688        173.52955
before                         Female                           20    1691.0000       2062.50206        461.18948
                                                               106      1774.11
                               Male                              5     266.8000       247.44939             110.66273
Income from milk sold before
                               Female                            3     300.0000        60.00000              34.64102
                                                                 8       279.25
If yes amount of birr gaind    Male                             35    1108.0000       904.79377             152.93806
from fattening before          Female                            6     866.6667       913.05349             372.75252
                                                                41      1072.68
Income gained from honey       Male                             40     266.7500       213.50719              33.75845
production in birr befor       Female                            5     262.0000       265.93232             118.92855
                                                                45       266.22
Income in birr gained from     Male                              8     256.8750       229.79708              81.24554
feed sold before               Female                            1     500.0000               .                     .
                                                                 9       283.89
Income in birr gained from     Male                            105     203.0762       293.01656              28.59549
animal products before         Female                           33     113.8485        95.97367              16.70687
                                                               138       181.74
Sum of Livstock cash           Male                            138    1655.0580      1786.26655             152.05711
income before                  Female                           38    1197.0263      1731.12479             280.82552
                                                               176      1556.16

Table:E


T test for cash income
                                                   Group Statistics

                               Sex of Respondent           N           Mean         Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean

Income from sold livstck       Male                             86     1793.4419       1609.24688             173.52955
before                         Female                           20     1691.0000       2062.50206             461.18948
                               Male                             5       266.8000        247.44939             110.66273
Income from milk sold before
                               Female                           3       300.0000         60.00000              34.64102
If yes amount of birr gaind    Male                             35     1108.0000        904.79377             152.93806
from fattening before          Female                           6       866.6667        913.05349             372.75252
Income gained from honey       Male                             40      266.7500        213.50719              33.75845
production in birr befor       Female                           5       262.0000        265.93232             118.92855
Income in birr gained from     Male                             8       256.8750        229.79708              81.24554
feed sold before               Female                           1       500.0000                     .                  .
Income in birr gained from     Male                            105      203.0762        293.01656              28.59549
animal products before         Female                           33      113.8485         95.97367              16.70687
Sum of Livstock cash           Male                            138     1655.0580       1786.26655             152.05711
income before                  Female                           38     1197.0263       1731.12479             280.82552
If yes, birr gained from       Male                             24     1717.5000       1943.60769             396.73726
seasonal labour before         Female                           8      1091.2500       1066.38826             377.02519



                                                        71
                                                 Group Statistics

                             Sex of Respondent           N            Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean

Income gained from non       Male                             22      1287.1818      1168.54140             249.13386
farm in birr before          Female                           16       730.3125       934.92329             233.73082
income from Tourism          Male                             37       348.2973       547.69745              90.04091
activities before            Female                           8        243.1250       156.86522              55.46023
Amount of birr gain from     Male                             78      4113.9103      4453.60985             504.27202
sold livestock After         Female                           43      2019.8837      1927.46024             293.93493
Amount of birr gain from     Male                             4       3606.2500      4100.93358            2050.46679
meet After                   Female                           3        900.0000       458.25757             264.57513
                                                                  a
Cash income from hen and     Male                             0               .                    .                 .
                                                                  a
egg in birr After After      Female                           0               .                    .                 .
Net income from fattening    Male                             3       4800.0000      2778.48880            1604.16126
                                                                  a
after                        Female                           0               .                    .                 .
Gross Income in birr from    Male                             39       464.2821       458.86874              73.47780
only private behive          Female                           4        270.2500       408.53427             204.26714
Gross Income in birr from    Male                             22       637.5455      1002.58792             213.75246
only program support behive Female                            1        350.0000                    .                 .
Income in birr gained from   Male                             7        511.4286       665.89360             251.68412
feed sold in after           Female                           2       1250.0000      1060.66017             750.00000
Income in birr gained from   Male                            113       887.7876      1785.51115             167.96676
animal products in after     Female                           35       233.5429       362.11628              61.20882
Income gained from slod      Male                             3       4800.0000      2778.48880            1604.16126
                                                                  a
breed animals in birr        Female                           0               .                    .                 .
Sum of livstock cash income Male                             139      3598.1511      5006.61741             424.65575
After                        Female                           57      1783.5088      1902.14682             251.94550
If yes, birr gained from     Male                             14      2562.8571      2776.46823             742.04235
seasonal labour after        Female                           5       1040.0000       776.53075             347.27511
Income gained in birr from   Male                             39      1849.2308      2278.80575             364.90096
non farm in after            Female                           15       631.8000       601.35088             155.26813
Birr gained per year from    Male                             3       1500.0000       500.00000             288.67513
stove production             Female                           3       1190.0000       643.66140             371.61808
income from Tourism          Male                             25       323.6000       231.55057              46.31011
activities After             Female                           5        624.0000       799.45607             357.52762
Income from IGA              Male                             1       1000.0000                    .                 .
                                                                  a
/Livelyhood option           Female                           0               .                    .                 .
HH Total Cash income After   Male                            155      8331.2424      7776.35105             624.61155
intervention                 Female                           68      4558.5000      4188.17379             507.89067
Income generated from        Male                             29      2962.7586      3801.74762             705.96681




                                                      72
                                                  Group Statistics

                              Sex of Respondent           N             Mean            Std. Deviation           Std. Error Mean

livstock sold with the
                              Female                           40       1797.8750          1828.10638                 289.04900
program support
Net income from fattenibg     Male                             18      11037.7778         14920.44927                3516.78362
after with the program
                              Female                           7        3914.2857          2181.30586                 824.45612
support /subset
Gross Income of behive in     Male                             22        637.5455          1002.58792                 213.75246
birr from only program
                              Female                           1         350.0000                           .                     .
support behive
Income from feed after with   Male                             3         300.0000             86.60254                  50.00000
the program support /subset   Female                           1         500.0000                           .                     .
Sum of Livstock income        Male                             62       4831.0645          9655.80707                1226.28872
from Program support          Female                           47       2131.1702          2060.68246                 300.58143
Birr gained per year from     Male                             3        1500.0000            500.00000                288.67513
stove production              Female                           3        1190.0000            643.66140                371.61808
income from Tourism           Male                             25        323.6000            231.55057                  46.31011
activities After              Female                           5         624.0000            799.45607                357.52762
Income from IGA               Male                             1        1000.0000                           .                     .
                                                                   a
/Livelyhood option            Female                           0                   .                        .                     .
HH Total Cash income with     Male                            129      13411.4806         20406.37459                1796.68110
the support of program        Female                           59       7827.9661         11601.46142                1510.38163
a. t cannot be computed because at least one of the groups is empty.




Table F:

livestock cash income After
                              Sex of Respondent          N              Mean           Std. Deviation           Std. Error Mean
Amount of birr gain from      Male                       78            4113.9103          4453.60985                 504.27202
sold livestock After          Female                     43            2019.8837          1927.46024                 293.93493
                                                        121              3369.75
Amount of birr gain from      Male                        4            3606.2500          4100.93358                2050.46679
meet After                    Female                      3             900.0000           458.25757                 264.57513
                                                          7              2446.43
Net income from fattening     Male                        3            4800.0000          2778.48880                1604.16126
after                         Female                      0                    .                        .                     .
                                                          3              4800.00
Gross Income in birr from     Male                       39             464.2821           458.86874                  73.47780




                                                       73
only private behive               Female                     4              270.2500        408.53427               204.26714
                                                             43               446.23
Gross Income in birr from         Male                       22             637.5455       1002.58792               213.75246
only program support behive Female                           1              350.0000                     .                     .
                                                             23               625.04
Income in birr gained from        Male                       7              511.4286        665.89360               251.68412
feed sold in after                Female                     2             1250.0000       1060.66017               750.00000
                                                             9                675.56
Income in birr gained from        Male                      113             887.7876       1785.51115               167.96676
animal products in after          Female                     35             233.5429        362.11628                61.20882
                                                            148               733.07
Income gained from slod           Male                       3             4800.0000       2778.48880              1604.16126
breed animals in birr             Female                     0                      .                    .                     .
                                                             3               4800.00
Sum of livestock cash             Male                      139            3598.1511       5006.61741               424.65575
income After                      Female                     57            1783.5088       1902.14682               251.94550
                                                            196              3070.42


livestock cash income After by wealth

                                                                                 Baseline of         Additional income
                        Before Intervention       After Intervention           samples getting         from program
  Wealth Status
                                                                              program support            supported
                           N           Mean           N          Mean          N       Mean           N       Mean
Poor                        79       1321.9114         95    2143.6421         56        755.7500            56     2117.6071
Better                      97       1746.9485        101    3942.1485         53       1548.7925            53     5303.8679
       Total               176        1556.16     196            3070.42      109         1141.36    109             3666.89
t-test                         -1.627 (.106)                -2.961(.004)            -2.673 (.009)                 -2.202 (.032)


Cash income Blaine of program supported participants in livestock only
                                                  Group Statistics

                                  Sex of Respondent          N              Mean        Std. Deviation        Std. Error Mean

Sum of Livstock cash              Male                             62      1600.3387       1814.29729               230.41599
income before                     Female                           47       535.8936        891.40310               130.02451

                                                                  109        1141.36
t.value                           4.023 (000)
Sum of Livstock income            Male                             62      4831.0645       9655.80707              1226.28872
from Program support              Female                           47      2131.1702       2060.68246               300.58143
                                                                  109        3666.89




                                                            74
t.value
                               2.138 (0.036)


Table G:

                        Cash income from livestock with program support
                               Sex of Respondent          N            Mean        Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Income generated from          Male                       29           2962.7586      3801.74762        705.96681
livstock sold with the
                               Female                                  1797.8750      1828.10638             289.04900
program support                                           40
                                                          69             2287.46
Net income from fattenibg      Male                       18          11037.7778    14920.44927             3516.78362
after with the program
                               Female                                  3914.2857      2181.30586             824.45612
support /subset                                           7
                                                          25             9043.20
Gross Income of behive in      Male                       22            637.5455      1002.58792             213.75246
birr from only program
                               Female                                   350.0000                    .                 .
support behive                                             1
                                                          23              625.04
Income from feed after with    Male                        3            300.0000        86.60254              50.00000
the program support /subset    Female                      1            500.0000               .                     .
                                                           4              350.00
Sum of Livstock income         Male                       62           4831.0645      9655.80707            1226.28872
from Program support           Female                     47           2131.1702      2060.68246             300.58143
                                                          109            3666.89

Table I
Asset created before intervention
                                                   Group Statistics
Estimated value of livestock   Male                            155      19394.25       15226.291              1223.005
asset before                   Female                           60      10265.23       11247.501              1452.046
                                                                          16847
Total Asset before             Male                            157    26033.2548    28337.16284             2261.55180
interventation                 Female                           64    10659.1250    11831.66010             1478.95751
                                                                        21581.02



Asset created after intervention
                                                   Group Statistics
                               Sex of Respondent           N           Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean
                                                                          12314
Total Asset crated from        Male                             16     5487.5000      3039.92873             759.98218
breeding service from not
                               Female                           1      1600.0000                    .                 .
sold bulls and heifer
                                                                         5258.82




                                                        75
Estimated value of liifestock   Male                            158      38444.75       28014.617              2228.723
asset After                     Female                           69      22630.58       17617.858              2120.941
                                                                           33638
Total Asset After               Male                            158    51236.5823    42996.40221             3420.61010
interventation                  Female                           70    24576.2857    18568.07133             2219.30901
                                                                         43051.40



Asset created with the program support
                                                    Group Statistics

                                Sex of Respondent           N           Mean        Std. Deviation       Std. Error Mean

                                                                          4157.45
Total Asset crated from         Male                             16     5487.5000      3039.92873             759.98218
breeding service from not
sold bulls and heifer           Female                           1      1600.0000                    .                  .
program
                                                                          5258.82
                                                                          6373.43
Estimated value of livestock Male                                63       6356.43        4752.599               598.771
asset with the program
                                Female                           54       7263.52        5993.175               815.568
support
                                                                            6775
Total Asset After intervention Male                             113     9659.0708    15693.93341             1476.36107
with the support of the
                                Female                           57     7581.5789      6404.83684             848.34136
program

                                                                          8962.50




                                                Independent Samples Test
                                                                  Levene's Test for
                                                                Equality of Variances           t-test for Equality of Means
                                                                                                                            Sig. (2-
 By sex                                                                  F          Sig.         t             df           tailed)
Estimated value of livestock asset     Equal variances assumed           7.405        .007      4.218            213            .000
before                                 Equal variances not                                      4.809        144.535            .000
                                       assumed
Estimated value of liifestock asset    Equal variances assumed           9.089        .003      4.327             225          .000
After
                                       Equal variances not                                      5.140        197.032           .000
                                       assumed
Estimated value of livestock asset     Equal variances assumed            .127        .723       -.913           115           .363
with the program support               Equal variances not                                       -.897       100.559           .372
                                       assumed



                                                         76
                                                Group Statistics

                                Wealth status           N                Mean        Std. Deviation   Std. Error Mean

Estimated value of livestock    Poor                            102      10365.98         9238.819           914.779
asset before                    better off                      113      22696.40        16366.468          1539.628
Total                                                                      16847
T value                                             -6.885 (.000)

Estimated value of liifestock   Poor                            113      23668.76        17773.901          1672.028
 asset After                    better off                      114      43519.39        29537.733          2766.462
Total                                                                      33638
T value                                             -6.141 (.000)

Estimated value of livestock Poor                                67       7093.96         5846.467           714.260
asset with the program
                                better off                       50       6347.80         4642.514           656.551
 support
Total                                                                       6775
T value                                              .744 (.458)



Baseline only fore benefited of livestock asset by sex
                                                Group Statistics

                                Sex of Respondent           N             Mean

Estimated value of livestock    Male                             63      23180.89
asset before                    Female                           54       7607.35
Total

                                                                            5.870
T value
                                                                           (0.000)



Baseline only fore benefited of livestock asset by wealth

Group Statistics

                                Wealth status       N             Mean

Estimated value of livestock    Poor                    67            8626.58
asset before                    better off              50        25864.24
Total                                                                  15993

                                                                       -5.783
T value
                                                                      (0.000)




                                                        77
Table:         Participation in Training and Experience Sharing




                                                                                           Sex of Respondent
                     Participation                                      Male                      Female                           Total

                                                                  N             %             N            %                  N             %

Participation in Training     Yes                                     116           74.4           51          69.9               167           72.9

                              No                                        40          25.6           22          30.1                62           27.1

                              Total                                   156           100            73          100                229           100

Importance of Training        Not important                               1          0.9            0           0.0                   1          0.6

                              Important                                 19          16.4           17          33.3                36           21.6

                              Very Important                            86          74.1           32          62.7               118           70.7

                              I didn't understand its
                              importance                                10           8.6            2           3.9                12            7.2

                              Total                                   116           100            51      100.0                  167       100.0

Participating in Experience Yes                                         22          14.1            2           2.7                24           10.5
sharing tour                  No                                      134           85.9           71          97.3               205           89.5

                              Total                                   156           100            73          100                229           100


                                                     Table: Source Information
                                                                               Sex of Respondent
                                                         Male                        Female                           Total

                                                 N              %               N             %            N                      %
                                Yes                137           87.8               62         84.9            199                 86.9
Did you get information
                                No                   19          12.2               11         15.1              30                13.1
about SRMP Activities
                                Total              156          100.0               73        100.0            229                100.0
Radio 1                                              16            5.9                1          1.1             17                  4.7
Training 2                                              85        31.4              33            35.1          118                32.3
field day 3                                             9           3.3              0             0.0            9                   2.5
Neighbor farmer 4                                       35        12.9               6             6.4           41                11.2
Agricultural personnel 5                             122          45.0              54            57.4          176                48.2
others 6                                                4           1.5              0             0.0            4                   1.1

                                                   271            100               94            100          365                 100




                                                                    78
Table: Participation in Different Technologies
                                                                                            Sex of Respondent
         Participation in different technologies from the program              Male                Female          Total

                                                                             N         %          N       %      N      %
 Did you received different technologies from the program            yes      99      63.4        34     46.6    133   58.0
                                                                     no       57      36.5        39     53.4     96   42.0
                                                                     Total   156      100         73      100    229       100
 NRM equipment                                                                22      20.6         1      2.9     23   16.2
 Modern beehive                                                               17      15.9         0      0.0     17   12.0
 Politely equipments                                                           0          0.0      0      0.0      0       0.0
 waving equipments                                                             0          0.0      0      0.0      0       0.0
 Carpenrary equipments                                                         0          0.0      0      0.0      0       0.0
 Other equipment                                                              68      63.6        34     97.1    102   71.8
 Total                                                                       107      100         35     100    142    100

                                                                             Sex of Respondent
                                                       Male                          Female                            Total
                                               Count        Column %         Count              Column %        Count        Column %
 Females               Improved                    155          99.4%                73            100.0%           228          99.6%
 vulnerability for     same                            1             .6%             0                 .0%             1           .4%
 different problem
                       worsen                          0             .0%             0                 .0%             0           .0%
                       Total                        156        100.0%                73           100.0%            229          100.0%
 Participation of      Improved                     151             96.8%            72            98.6%            223          97.4%
 women in HH           same                            0             .0%             0                 .0%             0           .0%
 level decision
 making                worsen                          5            3.2%             1                 1.4%            6          2.6%
                       Total                        156        100.0%                73           100.0%            229          100.0%
 Women’s right in      Improved                     151             96.8%            72            98.6%            223          97.4%
 HH resource use       same                            0             .0%             0                 .0%             0           .0%
                       worsen                          5            3.2%             1                 1.4%            6          2.6%
                       Total                        156        100.0%                73           100.0%            229          100.0%
 Participation of      Improved                     149             95.5%            71            97.3%            220          96.1%
 women in              same                            2            1.3%             1                 1.4%            3          1.3%
 community level
 decision making       worsen                          5            3.2%             1                 1.4%            6          2.6%
                       Total                        156        100.0%                73           100.0%            229          100.0%
 Role of women in      Improved                     147             94.2%            72            98.6%            219          95.6%
 productive role       same                            4            2.6%             0                 .0%             4          1.7%
                       worsen                          5            3.2%             1                 1.4%            6          2.6%
                       Total                        156        100.0%                73           100.0%            229          100.0%
 Right to use and      Improved                     151             96.8%            72            98.6%            223          97.4%
 order in own land     same                            0             .0%             0                 .0%             0           .0%
                       worsen                          5            3.2%             1                 1.4%            6          2.6%




                                                              79
                     Total                 156         100.0%         73        100.0%         229         100.0%
Participation in     Yes                    37         72.5%          8            72.7%           45         72.6%
Tourism activities   No                     14         27.5%          3            27.3%           17         27.4%
before
                     Total                  51         100.0%         11        100.0%             62      100.0%



2. Five years (2008 – 2012) activity achievement /per each result/




3. Secondary data from different institution /per each result/

                      Watershed beneficiary households data
                                           Year of                                    Number of households
S/      Name of the                                                        Area in
                               Woreda     delineatio       Category
N        watershed                                                         hectars     M      F         Total
                                              n
1
                                            2008                            4221       606   132        738
     Embuhara                G/Zuria                    critical ws
2    Ferengi wiha            G/Zuria        2009        micro ws            640        193    48        241
3                            L/Armachih     2008                            1894       405    55        460
      Dimaza                 o                          critical ws
4                            L/Armachih     2009                            5032       400    65        465
      Ethiopia carta         o                          critical ws
5                            L/Armachih
                                            2008                           728.34      215    65        280
     Shinta                  o                          micro ws
6
                                            2008                           550.8       368   300        668
     Fereskele fikrit        Wogera                     micro ws
7    Chigasa                 Wogera         2009        micro ws            351        180   130        310
8    Chikimit                Wogera                     micro ws           288.5       182    89        271
9
                                            2008                           330.26      117    10        127
     Godinigie               Dabat                      micro ws
10
     China                                  2009                            450        84    529        613
     teklhaymanot            Dabat                      micro ws
11                                                                         1034.1
      Sendlti-                              2009                                       182    48        230
     Janamora                Metema                     micro ws             9
12
                                            2008                            316        298    62        360
     Aman Amba               Debark                     micro ws
13
                                            2009                            360        240   170        410
     Milky                   Debark                     micro ws


                                                   80
                                       Year of                                Number of households
S/     Name of the                                                  Area in
                           Woreda     delineatio       Category
N       watershed                                                   hectars    M      F     Total
                                          n
14   Teshaymeucha        Debark         2009        micro ws         278      157    125     282
15    May teklit         Adi Arkay      2009        micro ws        877.03    343    169     512
16   myhagay             Adi Arkay      2010        micro ws        221.99     29     11      40
17                       Tach
                                        2009                         1158     121     48     169
      Sikiet             armachiho                  critical ws
18                       Tach
                                        2010                         1404      81     8      89
     Tesbel Amba         armachiho                  critical ws
19                                                                  1065.8
                                        2008                                  528    147     675
      Sgie               Taqusa                     critical ws       7
20    Asratie            Taqusa         2009        micro ws         525      284    130     414
21   Agera               Taqusa                                                98     10     108
22                                                                  10965.
                                        2009                                  962    498    1460
       Sadga             Janamora                   critical ws       3
23    Akli wenz                                                     438.12
                                        2008                                  212     7      219
     /Guragurie          Alefa                      Micro ws          5
24    Chebchebit         Alefa          2009        Micro Ws        742.49    226     48     274
25   Zabizit             Alefa          2011        Micro Ws        415.5     238    109     347
26
                                        2008        Microwatershe    540      222     63     285
      wujibra/antra      Chiliga                    d
27    Terariti           Chiliga        2010        Micro Ws         208      156    100     256
28   Ambacho             Chiliga        2009        Micro Ws         590      235     27     262
29                                                  Microwatershe
                                        2009                         728      135     27     162
      Adisilso           Beyeda                     d
30                       Debark
                                        2009                         635       92     37     129
      lema/Afaf slasie   ketema                     micro ws
31                       Debark                     micro
                                        2009                         744      116     25     141
       sawrie            ketema                     watershed
32   Ambriko/            Debark                     micro
                                        2010                         500      370     80     450
     wesengie            ketema                     watershed
33    Kidanemihiret/     Debark                     micro
                                        2010                         388      164     36     200
     Lemat tabia         ketema                     watershed
34   Tantikura/dnejan
                                        2008                         2000     1213   165    1378
     a qobela            Dembiya                    critical ws
35                       Gondar                                     1898.9
                                        2008                                  554    128     682
      Angereb            ketema                     critical ws        5
36    Kechinie           Gendewuha      2009        micro ws         725.1     659   278     937
                                                                              1066   397
                                                                                            14644
     Total                                                                       5     9
     Participation %                                                            73    27     100




Table G (To be annexed) time series data on tourist arrival and income (to be annexed)


                                               81
       Year E/C         Arrival/No           Community            Government income
                         tourists              income
         2000              8460               1161992                   956071
         2001             11648               2060200                  1439790
         2002             14016               2523484                  3281275
         2003             17566               4127423                  4314592
         2004             15995               4498905                  4450810
     Source SMNP office 2012




     Source SMNP office 2012




1. Number of seedlings planted from SMNP nursery produced seedling from 2008 -2012 by SRMP
      support
                                             On degraded lands                     Enriching plantation
                                            Number         hectare             Number              hectare
           Plantation with in SMNP      343508            35               160332          14.5
     Source SMNP office 2012

2.       Number of people living in and around the park area participated and benefited from eco-tourism
      activities/livelihood options including cooks, guides, renters, vehicle service facilitators, volunteer
      militiamen souvenir shop and ''Negist marefia 'beneficiaries


                   18.1 Total beneficiaries living within and around the park area
                                    living within the park area              living around the park area
                                      M                    F                   M                 F
          HH                   457                 92
          people               3976
          Total                                                         30000
     Source SMNP office 2012




                                                          82
3.       Number of endemic wild animals living in the park
                     Year                    Walia              Semin Fox                  Gelada Baboons
            2008                    683                   78
            2009                    740                   84
            2010                    751                   84
            2011                    829                   42                       15011
            2012                    889                   100




To accomplish the park infrastructure development with the support of the program
                                                          Current overall
                                                          number of park         Only the additional number by
                                                           infrastructure            the program Support

     1        Outposts Increased                     15                      11
     2        Toilet                                 19                      14
     3        Spring Hand Dug Well & shallow well    13                      4
     4        Solar V.P.S                            10                      1
     5        Radio                                  14                      -




     The implementation of the Park Management Plan



1                                                      No                   38                    18
         Number of kebele park advisory committee                                                  members
         established strengthened                                                                  per kebele
2        Number of the committee members involved                           684
         in the implementation of the Park
         Management Plan




                                                      83
3         Level of park management plan
          implementation (additional to what has been
          indicated)
                         Not implemented

                       Partially implemented                                   *
                        Fully implemented
              Implementation Problems /if any:

                         Shortage of budget                          *
4         Level of community participation in the                              Medium
          implementation of park management plan
          (low, medium, high,)
                                                                  Direct dependence
                                                                 on farming and
                        Problems associated                      livestock
     4.       Relocation of HHs from the park in 2008-            146
            2012


     5.       Relocation of                                       273
     6.


Attitude of local community towards park conservation


                         Attitude                          Bad               Good          Better         Best
    before program intervention /2008                                    
    After program intervention /currently                                                   


Total program beneficiaries (including and training and everthing)

                                                                                            Number
     Sn                              No of beneficiaries
                                                                                    M               F
              Tourism and park management                                           3453            565




                                                           84
                                                                                     achiev       Achiev
S.No.                      activity                                                                             remarks
                                                            unit        plan         ement         in%
        Training of data clerks and experts on
        computerized registration system (ISLA)               No.          116          104           90
        Train of surveyors and technicians on
        surveying and mapping                                 No.              85       115          135
        Training of kebele land administration
        agents                                                No.          565          723          107




3.5.1.2. Farmers’ Participation in Training
                                                                                    Achiev
S.No.                  activity                                                                                remarks
                                                  unit     plan     Achiev.          in%
        Training of Communal Land                                                          Because number of CLAC
        Administration Committee (CLAC)                                                    members are smaller than the
        members                                     No.    2160          1058           49 target
        Training Kebele land administration
                                                                                              Some
        committee members                           No.     800          1105          138
        Training Kebele level conflict
        resolving committee members                 No.     480           756          158



3.5.1.3 Experience sharing study tours
                                                                          achiev      Achiev                   Beneficiary
S.No.                  activity
                                                   unit      plan         ement        in %         Male               Female
        Experience sharing tour on land
        administration
            Experts                                 No.           57           59           123                 51             6
            Peasents                                No.            6            6                                6             0



                                                                                                   achiev       Achifv.
S.No.   Type of equipment provided
                                                                        unit          plan         ement         in %
        Procurement of surveying equipments/RTK GPS/                  No.                     6            7          117
        Construction of model kebele land administration office       No.                     8            9          113
        Procurement of office furniture for kebele land              No. of
        administration                                               kebele                   6            6          100
        Procurement of computer
             Desk top                                                  No.                   9        11             122
               Lap top                                                 No.                   3            3          100
                                                                     No. of
               Office furniture(Table, Chair and Shelf)
                                                                    woredas                   8            8          100




                                                      85
Table—Status of Land ownership
                                                            Sex of Respondent
                                            Male                 Female               Total
                                               Column                Column               Column
                                        Count      %        Count       %        Count       %
Do you have private land        Yes       151    96.8%          61     83.6%        212     92.6%
ownership                        No          5     3.2%         12     16.4%         17       7.4%
                                Total     156     100%          73      100%        229      100%

Table—Status of Certification and conflict of land users
                                                                        Sex of Respondent
                                                          Male               Female                  Total
                                                             Column              Column                  Column
                                                    Count       %       Count       %          Count        %
Have you received land holder    Yes                   96       63.6%       41      67.2%         137       64.6%
certificate                      No                    55       36.4%       20      32.8%          75       35.4%
                                 Total                151      100.0%       61    100.0%          212      100.0%
Whose name appears in the        MHH                   11       11.5%        3       7.3%          14       10.2%
certificate that you have        FHH                     2       2.1%       20      48.8%          22       16.1%
                                 Husband & wife        83       86.5%       18      43.9%         101       73.7%
                                 No certificate          0        .0%        0        .0%            0        .0%
                                 Total                 96      100.0%       41    100.0%          137      100.0%
Did you face conflict before     Yes                   45       29.8%       10      16.1%          55       25.8%
certification?                   No                   106       70.2%       52      83.9%         158       74.2%
                                 Total                151      100.0%       62    100.0%          213      100.0%
If yes what was the cause?       Border                33       73.3%        7      70.0%          40       72.7%
                                 Transfer                1       2.2%        2      20.0%            3       5.5%
                                 gift issue              3       6.7%        0        .0%            3       5.5%
                                 land rent               2       4.4%        0        .0%            2       3.6%
                                 holding                 6      13.3%        1      10.0%            7      12.7%
                                 Total                 45      100.0%       10    100.0%           55      100.0%
Did you face conflict after      Yes                   10       10.2%        3       6.7%          13        9.1%
certification?                   No                    88       89.8%       42      93.3%         130       90.9%
                                 Total                 98      100.0%       45    100.0%          143      100.0%
If yes what was the cause?
                             Yes                     1       10.0%          2     66.7%              3     23.1%
       Inheritance          No                      9       90.0%          1     33.3%            10      76.9%
                             Total                  10      100.0%          3    100.0%            13     100.0%
                             Yes                     4       40.0%          0        .0%             4     30.8%
    Gift                    No                      6       60.0%          3    100.0%              9     69.2%
                             Total                  10      100.0%          3    100.0%            13     100.0%
                             Yes                     1       10.0%          0        .0%             1      7.7%
    Rent                    No                      9       90.0%          3    100.0%            12      92.3%
                             Total                  10      100.0%          3    100.0%            13     100.0%
                             Yes                     4       40.0%          0        .0%             4     30.8%
    Ownership               No                      6       60.0%          3    100.0%              9     69.2%
                             Total                  10      100.0%          3    100.0%            13     100.0%
                             Yes                     0          .0%         1     33.3%              1      7.7%
    Others                  No                     10      100.0%          2     66.7%            12      92.3%
                             Total                  10      100.0%          3    100.0%            13     100.0%
Table-- Respondents Perception on the development activities with the consequence of land certification
                                                                    Sex of Respondent
                                                        Male            Female                   Total
                                                          Column             Column                  Column
                                                  Count      %      Count      %            Count      %


                                                       86
Perceived land conflict       Minimized       129    82.7%       62      84.9%          191   83.4%
status                        Same             15     9.6%        6       8.2%           21    9.2%
                              Increased        12     7.7%        5       6.8%           17    7.4%
                              Total           156    100.0%      73     100.0%          229   100.0%
Perceived soil conservation   Minimized         2     1.3%        1       1.4%            3    1.3%
practice status               Same              5     3.2%        6       8.2%           11    4.8%
                              Increased       149    95.5%       66      90.4%          215   93.9%
                              Total
                                              156    100.0%      73     100.0%          229   100.0%
Perceived afforestation       Minimized         7     4.5%        3       4.1%           10    4.4%
status                        Same             21    13.5%       17      23.3%           38   16.6%
                              Increased       128    82.1%       53      72.6%          181   79.0%
                              Total
                                              156    100.0%      73     100.0%          229   100.0%
Perceived land rent without   Minimized        13     8.3%        5       6.8%           18    7.9%
frustration                   Same             15     9.6%        9      12.3%           24   10.5%
                              Increased       128    82.1%       59      80.8%          187   81.7%
                              Total
                                              156    100.0%      73     100.0%          229   100.0%


Table—Landholding status of beneficiaries before and after certification
                                                          Sex of Respondent
                                                     Male      Female       Total
                                                     Mean       Mean        Mean
 Amount of land owned before in Ha                       1.55         1.11       1.43
 Amount of land owned in Ha after                        1.70         1.11       1.52
 Amount of land contracted in before in Ha                .96          .88        .94
 Amount of land contracted in Ha after                    .76          .81        .77
 Amount of land contracted out before in Ha               .28          .75        .44
 Amount of land contracted out after in Ha                .77         1.65       1.14
 Amount of land shared in before in Ha                    .68          .46        .65
 Amount of land shared in Ha after                        .77          .92        .78
 Amount of land shared out before in Ha                   .63          .53        .58
 Amount of land shared out after in Ha                    .63          .75        .69
 Amount of land gained in gift before in Ha               .35          .40        .37
 Amount of land gained in gift after in Ha                .46          .55        .50
 Amount of land gigted out before in Ha                  1.00         1.00       1.00
 Amount of land gifted out after in Ha                   1.13          .50        .81




4. Five year program indicator (Log frame matrix) /per each result/



                                                87
5. Five year program beneficiaries /per each result/


6. List of documents produced by external consultants /per each result/
      Documentation of best practices about 9 best practices were highlighted by a consultant

      Simen Mountains National Park General Management Plan

      The early impacts of rural land registration and certification program and challenges in North

       Gondar

      Value chain study

      Revolving fund credit provision and repayment modalities

      Privatizing of artificial insemination service

      Privatizing of Veterinary service privatization study documents

      Open nucleus Gumuz sheep breeding study

      Private feed mills processing plant feasibility study

      SRMP_NG Capacity Development - Training Need Assessment

      Research Thematic Areas Identification and Research Grant Fund Establishment

      Gender Analysis on Selected Kebeles of North Gondar Zone

      Assessment Study on Women’s Participation and benefit Sharing under SRMP-NG

      Socio-economic Baseline Survey in North Gondar Zone of Amhara Region

      Monitoring and Evaluation Guideline of Sustainable Resource Management Program- North

       Gondar




7. Other data /per each result/


                                                    88

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Tags: 000001
Stats:
views:175
posted:11/19/2012
language:Latin
pages:103