CSCF PROPOSAL FORM - Send a · Web viewGLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW...

GLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW PROPOSAL FORM

SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT1.1 Lead organisation name Send a Cow

1.2 Main contact person Name: Dr Peg BavinPosition: Grants ManagerEmail: [email protected]: (0)1225 871921

1.3 2nd contact person Name: Martin LongPosition: Head of ProgrammesEmail: [email protected]: (0)1225 874 222

1.4 Please use this space to inform of any changes to the applicant organisation details provided in your Concept Note

No changes.

SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT2.1 Concept Note Reference No. IMP-01-CN-0480

2.2 Project title Developing farmers towards food & income security.

2.3 Country(ies) where project is to be implemented

Ethiopia

2.4 Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies)

Gamo Gofa & Wolayita zones of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, & People's Region.

2.5 Duration of grant request (in months)

36 MONTHS (JANUARY 2012 - DECEMBER 2014)

2.5 Total project budget? In GBP sterling

£844,537

2.6 Total funding requested from DFID in GBP sterling and as a % of total project budget

£578,724

68.5% of total project budget

2.7 Year 1 funding requested from DFID

£78,417 (NB for DFID financial year 2011/12; the first quarter of the project)

2.8 Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country

91% of project funds to be spent in Ethiopia9% of project funds to be spent by UK (incl external evaluation costs)

2.9 Total match funding and status (sources of match funding, amounts, and secured or not secured) - Please enter match-funding details in the table below

Source of funding Year 1 (£) Year 2 (£) Year 3 (£) Year 4 (£) Total (£) Secured? (Y/N)

IFAD (SAC invited to submit proposal)

£40,443 £63,521 £64,705 £42,691 £211,360 N

1

SAC Unrestricted £8,147 £18,508 £18,902 £8,896 £54,453 N

SECTION 3: FIT WITH GPAF IMPACT WINDOW3.1 CORE SUBJECT AREA - Please identify between one and three core project focus areas

(insert '1' for primary focus area; '2' for secondary focus area and; '3' for tertiary focus area) Agriculture Health (general)

Appropriate Technology HIV/AIDS / Malaria / TB

Child Labour Housing

Climate Change Income Generation

Conflict / Peace building Justice

Core Labour Standards Land

Disability Livestock

Drugs Media

Education & Literacy Mental Health

Enterprise development Reproductive Health / FGM

Environment Rural Livelihoods 2

Fisheries / Forestry Slavery / trafficking

Food Security 1 Water & sanitation

Gender 3 Violence against women/ girls/children

Governance

Other: (please specify)

3.2 Which of the following Millennium Development Goals is the project contributing to (if any)? - Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area and; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area) 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger 1

2. Achieve universal primary education

3. Promote gender equality and empower women 2

4. Reduce child mortality

5. Improve Maternal Health

6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

7. Ensure environmental sustainability 3

8. Develop a global partnership for development

None of the above (please explain in section 3.3)

3.3 Explain why you are focusing on these specific MDGs. Are the above MDGs “off track” in the implementing countries? Please state the source of the information you are using to determine whether or not they are “off track”. Your response should also inform section 4.4.

The project is focussing on these MDGs (1,3,7) as: they are off track in the project areas; they are

2

areas in which the expertise and focus of Send a Cow (SAC) and Kale Heywet Development Programme (KHDP) can have significant impact; they fit with the local government and Ethiopia’s Poverty Reduction strategies; and they fit with DFID’s priorities.MDG 1: The official MDG monitor puts Ethiopia as achievable for MDG1 but only if changes are made. Significant change has been achieved towards this goal through Ethiopia’s Poverty Reduction Strategies but the country still has a long way to go particularly in remote rural areas. Ethiopia is ranked at 80 in the Global Hunger Index (2010) with a rating of 'alarming' and the country’s population is 44% undernourished (FAO: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009). The Ethiopia Government indicates that MDG1 can be met if inequality, sustainability of growth and asset accumulation can be overcome (MDG report Sept 2010). In the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region (SNNPR) food insecurity and malnutrition are rated as high (UNOCHA Hotspot Map 04/08/10) and the farmers need help to overcome extreme poverty in the project woredas. The project will focus on food security, income generation and rural livelihoods.MDG 3: Although this goal is seen as ‘on-track’ Ethiopia-wide, the country itself admits there is still a lot to achieve to make this possible. Ethiopia’s MDG report highlights significant policy changes made to protect rights of women and girls (1995 Constitution, 2001 Family Code, 2005 revised Penal Code, PASDEP and GTP) but admits there are still challenges to overcome to change traditional attitudes in order to achieve MDG3. To bring families out of poverty women’s roles need to change in remote rural areas of SNNPR where customary rather than national laws are followed. (DFID’s Gender Equality & Action Plan states that poverty will only end if women have equal rights to men.) The project will focus on empowerment of women, women’s rights and girl child education.MDG 7: DFID’s annual report in 2009 places Ethiopia as on track to achieve the water target but off track in access to improved sanitation. Ethiopia’s 2010 MDG Report indicates that to ensure water is accessible family wells need to be encouraged; and with regards to land degradation emphasises the need to ensure, “community led environmental protection and sustainable use of environmental resources”. The project will focus on water, sanitation, natural resources and the environment.

3.4 Please list any of the DFID’s standard output and outcome indicators that this fund will contribute to? Note if stated here, these also need to be explicit in your logframe.

The primary focuses of the project are food security, income generation, gender and the environment (areas less represented by DFID standard indicators). The fund will contribute to DFID´s ‘standard’ output indicator “number of households provided with new/improved drinking water”, alongside several DFID ‘suggested’ indicators in ‘Food & Agriculture’, ‘Humanitarian’ and 'Water & Sanitation' areas - these are reflected in the logframe.

SECTION 4: PROJECT DETAILS4.1 ACRONYMS

Please list all acronyms used in your application in alphabetical order and explain them in full.

ARMing: Annual Review Meetings; CBO: Community Based Organisation; CFs: Community Facilitators; FGM: Female Genital Mutilation; FOMDALS: Farmer Owned & Managed Demonstration & Learning Site; GBV: Gender Based Violence; GTP: Five Year Growth & Transformation Plan; GTZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit; HH: Household; HTPs: Harmful Traditional Practices; IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development; IGA: income generating activities; KHDP: Kale Heywet Development Programme; NRM: Natural Resource Management; PASDEP: Plan for Accelerated & Sustained Development to End Poverty; PIF: Policy Investment Framework; PFs: Peer Farmers; PRS: Poverty Reduction Strategy; PSNP: Productive Safety Net Programme; SAC: Send a Cow; SACEth: Send a Cow Ethiopia; SNNPR: Southern Nations, Nationalities & Peoples Regional State.

4.2 SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines - Please provide a brief project summary including the overall changes that the initiative is intending to achieve and who will benefit. (This is for

3

dissemination about the fund and should relate to the purpose statement in the logframe).

The project will bring change to the lives of poor and vulnerable smallholder farmers in southern highlands of Ethiopia, especially women, to becoming food secure, productive and self-confident agents of their own development through increased farm productivity, improved environmental management, creation of new employment opportunities, establishment and development of community support systems, women’s empowerment and inclusion of socially marginalised groups.

4.3 PROJECT DESIGN PROCESSDescribe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? If a consultant or anyone from outside the lead organisation and partners assisted in the preparation of this proposal please describe the type of assistance provided.

Send a Cow Ethiopia (SACEth) has conducted and led an in-depth assessment into developing this proposal. A participatory bottom-up project design approach was followed. Two assessment sessions of 15 days each were carried out in the target areas by SACEth and KHDP staff (including country directors, gender experts, environment officers, community facilitators) in June 2010 and April 2011 with the aim of collecting relevant and comprehensive primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative information. Zonal and District Government representatives from Wolayita and Gamo Gofa Zones assisted the team throughout. Sample surveys and focus group discussions with women, men, elders and youth from extremely impoverished families were the basis for problem tree development, needs assessment, analysis of food quality and availability, income/expenditure analysis, wealth ranking and trend analysis on climate change. Coping/survival strategies of extremely poor community members, female condition and access to basic needs/services were discussed in detail and analysed. Household visits, individual interviews, and transect walks were conducted to integrate and substantiate all information. Relevant government offices from the woredas provided the team with secondary up-to-date quantitative socio-economic data and with information on service delivery gaps. Further quantitative data was collected from Omo Microfinance Institution, Gununo Soil and Conservation Research Centre and other development actors. Additional statistics and information were obtained from the National Census 2007, ad-hoc researches, and SACEth case studies to validate and triangulate the collected data. Government policies and strategies were an important guideline throughout the project design process. Problem analysis and development of project strategy were based on quantitative and qualitative information obtained from the field assessment. The development of objectives and related indicators was based on the above data integrated with baseline surveys carried out by SACEth and lessons learned from previous SACEth projects.

4.4 PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT)Describe the context for this project? What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What gaps in service delivery have been identified? How has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Why have these particular project locations been selected and at this particular time? Please also refer to your response to section 3.3 when answering this section.

Smallholder highland communities in rural Southern Ethiopia are suffering from shortage and unpredictability of rainfall, soil erosion, decrease of grazing land, rapid population growth and lack of skills and technology. As a result, their level of vulnerability is constantly increasing. In addition, the poorest farmers are frequently exploited by those who control local markets and are often denied access to loans, ending up in a vicious cycle of poverty and food insecurity. Needs assessments within the project woredas have identified 6 interlinked aspects of poverty:1) food insecurity: irregular and insufficient food production, extremely low food purchasing capacity, unequal food distribution within HHs, unbalanced diets and lack of knowledge of food conservation / post-harvest management have lead to severe malnutrition strongly contributing to existing vicious poverty cycles. Food insecure and unhealthy HHs in physical and psychological depression have less earning opportunities, are less efficient and less productive. (linked to MDG 1).

4

2) lack of sufficient and regular income from farm activities: smallholder farmers are suffering from extremely low agricultural crop and livestock productivity. Poor harvests and exploitative marketing structures exacerbate the problem. These factors contribute to a lack of regular income, causing desperate surviving strategies which include: child labour, sale of assets, leasing out land, seasonal migration, begging and taking up loans at extremely high interest rates. (linked to MGD 1).3) vulnerability from climate change and environmental degradation: in the project area unawareness and inability to manage natural resources sustainably, alongside overexploitation, contribute to depletion of water resources, soil erosion, land degradation and impoverishment of vegetation cover. As a result, productivity of land and other natural resources, upon which the livelihoods of the community depend highly, is increasingly declining. The growing vulnerability and exposure to climate change, ultimately contributes to perpetuation of poverty. (linked to MDG 7).4) lack of community support structures: people in the target area are not aware of the importance of community support structures and lack skills and abilities to develop efficient mutual support systems that can help them overcome natural/economic shocks and crises. As a consequence, community members think/act individually, are vulnerable, exploitable and do not have enough power to mitigate poverty. (linked to MGD 1).5) lack of employment: shortage of land, extremely limited access to loan/credit institutions, lack of saving culture, lack of technical knowledge and skills, unawareness of income generating activity (IGA) opportunities and infrastructure and service gaps, are factors contributing to the lack of non-farming employment opportunities and ultimately to poverty accentuation. (linked to MDG 1).6) gender inequality and social exclusion: continued practice of traditional law, seeing women as inferior, coupled with harmful traditional practices (HTPs) exacerbates poverty. Inequality of women and abuse of their rights prevents them from having space and skills, negatively affecting their productivity, ability to make decisions and self-esteem. Socially marginalised groups, families with disabilities, those affected/infected by HIV/AIDS, also suffer acutely from poverty. (linked to MDG 3).

Emergency aid measures, without long-term development strategies, provide the only support to the poorest population in the target area and large-scale interventions such as PSNP are not able to reach all those in need. Specifically, gaps in the following fields of service provision have been identified: financial and credit services, sanitation and health services, access to safe water, effective marketing infrastructure, access to information and appropriate technologies. The locations were selected being remote hard to reach areas reached by extremely limited service delivery. The few non-residential NGOs operating in the area focus on education, vaccination and child adoption, leaving a gap in food security and livelihood interventionss. If action is not taken soon, the socio-economic condition of smallholder farmers will irreversibly deteriorate: dramatic consequences of climate change, rapidly growing population, increasing local migration and school drop-out rates make this a crucial time for intervention. In addition, the collaborative attitude of local government officials, who learned of SACEth’s expertise and positive experiences in neighbouring woredas, can provide an extremely constructive support at this time.

4.5 TARGET GROUP (DIRECT AND INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES) Who will be the direct beneficiaries of your project and how many will be expected to benefit directly from the anticipated changes? Please describe the direct beneficiary group – differentiate where possible - and then provide a total number.

DIRECT: a) Description Extremely poor and food insecure smallholder families (mainly women-headed HHs, HHs with disabilities and socially marginalized families) with little or no access to infrastructure, services, employment opportunities.

b) Number 9,600 (1,600 self-help group members (70% women) x 6 family members per HH, according to SACEth baseline).

Who will be the indirect (wider) beneficiaries of your project and how many will benefit? Please describe the indirect beneficiary group and then provide a total number.

5

INDIRECT: a) Description Farming community members living around the direct beneficiaries´ HHs.

b) Number 48,000 (1,600 self-help group members x 5 estimated copy farmers x 6 family members per HH)

4.6 POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTPlease describe the anticipated real and practical impact of the project in terms of poverty reduction. What changes are anticipated for the main target groups identified in 4.5 within the lifetime of the project?

The project aims to change the lives of poor and vulnerable smallholder farmers to become food secure, productive and self-confident agriculturalists. The anticipated impact in terms of poverty reduction for the main target groups in the 6 areas listed in section 4.4 is:1) food insecurity: the anticipated change is target groups with knowledge, skills and tools to pro-duce improved and diversified agricultural and dairy products (vegetables, cereals, fruits, milk) for their own consumption to meet daily nutritional needs. They will be aware of the importance of bal -anced diets and fair food distribution within the HH. Increased productivity, reduction of post-harvest loss and improved conservation capacity will enable beneficiaries to overcome food insecure sea-sons and chronic hunger (MDG 1). In addition, the creation of new income opportunities will in-crease their food purchasing power. As a knock on effect, child morbidity and mortality in the area will be reduced (MDG 4) and maternal health will be improved (MDG 5).2) lack of sufficient and regular income from farm activities: the anticipated changes are increased crop and livestock productivity (much better soil fertility and structure, improved animal feed, efficient water harvesting systems), improved post-harvest management and better access to markets with a long-term effect of self-sustained families and communities (MDG 1). This in turn will reduce emergency-driven sale of assets, leasing of land, child labour and school drop-out (MDG 2), exploitation from traditional money lenders, seasonal migration and begging.3) vulnerability from climate change and environmental degradation: the anticipated changes are improvement of local environmental sustainability through ecosystem conservation practices and natural resource recovery measures which will, in the long term, be of crucial socio-economic im-portance for the beneficiaries’ community (MDG 7). Well-managed, productive and fertile soils as well as improved water conservation practices are a vital prerequisite for the livelihood security of present and future generations.4) lack of community support structures: the anticipated change is development of strong demo-cratic self-help groups (emerging CBOs) established by farmers and community members to provide mutual support to overcome economic and environmental shocks at family and community level. Groups will set up credit and savings schemes and have improved access to services through links with agriculture extension systems, government veterinary and health services. Self-help groups will gain improved bargaining power for rights of their members / communities. This will also reduce the poverty gap between impoverished/vulnerable groups and other community members.5) lack of employment: the anticipated change is development of employment opportunities provid-ing the long term effect of communities with diversified income sources, skilled trainers and new business enterprises (MDG 1). Trained farmers will become trainers themselves (Peer Farmers and Community Facilitators) who will be able to sell their knowledge and skills to other community mem-bers. Farmer-to-farmer employment opportunities will also be created. In addition, beneficiaries will take up new employment opportunities such as petty trade and small businesses that will reduce vulnerability and risk.6) gender inequality and social exclusion: the anticipated changes are gender parity with women having improved self-esteem, equal say, their rights respected, and by sharing roles and responsibilities with men (MDG 3). Women will have access to information about their legal rights and how to stand up against HTPs. They will control assets, have input into decision making (incl HH income spend / girl child education (MDG 2)). Women will play a significant role in taking families out of poverty within self-help groups, as Peer Farmers and community leaders. Socially excluded people will participate in all project phases and be accepted by the community.

6

4.7 PROJECT APPROACH / METHODOLOGYPlease provide details on the project approach (or methodology) proposed to address the problem(s) you have defined in section 4.4. You should also justify why you consider this approach to be the most effective way in which to achieve the project purpose. Please justify the timeframe and scope of your project and ensure that the narrative relates to the logframe and budget. Be realistic and not over ambitious.

The project approach will be based on the many years experience SAC and KHDP have in Ethiopia, using methods from successful programmes (past and existing) tailored to achieve the project purpose in the woredas identified. A range of activities to achieve the outputs outlined in the logframe (which are linked to the 6 aspects of poverty indentified in 4.4) are detailed below:- Output 1 relates to poverty aspects 1) and 3) in section 4.4. The approach has been developed to help families provide sufficient and nutritious food alongside the capacity to manage natural resources. The following methodology will be used: a) building on the existing agricultural system and appreciating local experience and indigenous knowledge to guarantee easy adaptation and adaptation by beneficiaries; b) a mixture of group training, workshops, on-farm demonstrations and exchange visits to existing SAC farmers to promote learning-by-doing; c) awareness building to encourage balanced diets and equal food distribution at HH level; d) promotion of diversification and better natural resource management to ensure sustainable and long-lasting agricultural activities; e) provision of agricultural inputs and livestock only after training to ensure successful asset management; f) participatory water conservation and harvest (spring capping and hand dug wells) to improve access to safe water.Output 2 relates to poverty aspects 2) and 5) in section 4.4. The approach has been developed to help farmers generate sustainable incomes from produce, marketing and self-employment. The following methodology will be used: a) diversification of production and income source to reduce economic risks; b) creating farmer entrepreneur mindsets and technical assistance to boost small-scale business development; c) establishment of linkages with local markets to improve farmers´ purchase and sale capacity; d) creation of group credit and saving schemes to enable purchase en masse or setting up of small group businesses.Output 3 relates to poverty aspect 6) in section 4.4. The approach has been developed to empower women in the home and community; increase their skills and raise awareness of their rights. The following methodology will be used: a) high female participation in all project activities (i.e. 70% of group members) to ensure empowerment and recognition; b) workshops and discussion forums for women, men, girls and boys to raise awareness on balanced household chores, importance of girls’ education and the harm caused by HTPs and gender-based violence (FGM, early marriage, abduction, rape, abuse); d) talks from professional women and leadership training to promote guiding roles for women and offer role models of change; e) self-awareness training and awareness of constitutional rights over traditional law to promote control over resources and improved decision making power at HH level. Output 4 relates to poverty aspect 4) in section 4.4. The project approach has been developed to establish self-reliant and influential self-help groups (emerging CBOs) in the community. The following methodology will be used: a) building the capacity of democratic, dynamic and committed self-help groups to increase community self-help-capacity; b) involvement of the whole family in training to promote inclusion; c) adaptation of SAC's 'cornerstone' values by groups (sharing resources, livestock, and caring for those less able such as the elderly, disabled, widows and people with HIV) to ensure support within the community; d) adoption of the SAC Pass-on strategy where project inputs will be passed-on to another household to take the project to the wider community and raise the self-esteem of farmers as they too become donors. The above approach will enable Send a Cow to deliver the project within the timescale (in this case 3 years), achieve the intended results and ensure long-term impact

4.8 SUSTAINABILITY AND SCALING-UPHow will you ensure that the benefits of the project are sustained? Please provide details of any ways in which you see this initiative leading to other funding or being scaled up through

7

others in the future. Describe how and when this may occur and the factors that would make this more or less likely.

Being a low physical-input project and focusing on changes in the beneficiaries’ mindsets and attitudes, the positive impact of the project will last long beyond the project implementation period. Acquisition and practice of knowledge and skills combined with well-functioning self-help systems put in place will also ensure long-term sustainability.CBOs: self-help groups established by the project will gradually grow to Community Based Organisations taking the form of cooperatives, unions, associations, and acting as permanent community development institutions with legal recognition. CBOs will initiate, finance, lead and manage development interventions and activities beyond the project implementation period. From previous SAC experience, after 3 years of project implementation, self-help groups will have the capacity and be in a position to develop into self-sufficient and effective CBOs.Peer Farmers: are farmers excelling among the group members who receive special training enabling them to facilitate learning within the larger community. By the end of 3rd year these farmers will share their knowledge, skills and experience, using demonstrations and home-to-home visits.Community Facilitators (local): will conduct training and follow up visits alongside Peer Farmers and Government Development Agents helping farmers beyond the project period to continue enhancing community development. They will earn an income through providing these services.Multiplier Effect: SACEth´s assessment shows that at least 5 neighbouring families learn from each project beneficiary, replicating practices and increasing their food production and income. This practice continues beyond the project period and is the result of SAC´s pass-on principle where each benefiting farmer passes on his/her knowledge, skills and inputs gained from the project.Government Development Agents: in Ethiopia projects implemented by NGOs sign an agreement with the government indicating roles and responsibilities of partners. Government Development Agents will be actively involved in the whole project cycle and closely work with project staff to establish self-help groups and continue supporting them beyond implementation. Promoting the SACEth and partners approach to increasing food security: All the farmers recently given Ethiopian Prime Minister awards for ‘progressive excellence in farming’ in the Gamo Gofa woredas were trained through the SACEth group development approach. The current SACEth/KHDP Gamo Gofa programme was voted at woreda level community development workshops as the most effective project in the woreda. Government Development agents are actively requesting SACEth training to broaden their knowledge and skills base. SACEth is promoting the achievements of trained farmers at all levels of Government Extension and is providing experience sharing visits to farms for Government decision makers. Using experienced staff and Peer Farmers SACEth will offer pilot training schemes at woreda and regional level for Development Agents, substantially increasing the scale up potential.

4.9 CAPACITY BUILDING, EMPOWERMENT & ADVOCACYIf your proposal includes capacity building, empowerment and/or advocacy components, please explain how they these elements contribute to the achievement of the project's purpose and outputs?

Capacity building plays a key role throughout the whole project cycle: farmers obtain training and inputs to increase their productivity (Output 1), generate employment and raise their income (Output 2) and establish community support systems (Output 4). Extensive and practical training will be given to project staff, self-help group members, government officials and community leaders. SACEth will also improve its capacity for supervision, technical backstop and monitoring through acquisition of capital inputs. With the new office in Wolayita SACEth will expand its work in SNNPR with a permanent presence able to reach remote communities across the region.Empowerment: a key element to the project is the empowerment of women (Output 3) including creating Social Peer Farmers that will advocate for the rights of women within families and communities. By changing mindsets around the role of women, and by increasing their skill set and confidence we can meet the needs of families, stop dependency on aid and create self reliance.

4.10 GENDER AND SOCIAL INCLUSION8

How was the specific target group selected and how are you defining social differentiation and addressing any barriers to inclusion which exist in the location(s) where you are working? Please be specific in relation to gender, age, disability, HIV/AIDS and other relevant categories depending on the context (e.g. caste, ethnicity etc.). How does the project take these factors into account?

Gender equality and equity are high priorities for this project (Output 3). The target group was selected working with the local woreda administration including offices of Women's and Children's Affairs. The needs assessment helped to identify families in most need, particularly female-headed and widowed HHs. Our experience is that negative attitudes towards women is one of the root causes of poverty in the project area and thus we have an Output to target this problem. Existing SACEth projects have seen a huge improvement in the relationship between husbands, wives and other family members working together, sharing household chores and taking joint responsibility to escape poverty. Full involvement of women in self-help groups (70% of members), small-scale farming and self-employment will provide them with responsibilities, skills and a voice. The project staffing is aiming for a balance of 50% women (an extraordinary figure in the Ethiopian context).Social exclusion will be addressed by the project. Disabled, elderly, HIV/AIDS affected/infected and other marginalized people will be given due attention during the beneficiary selection process. Community conversation will bring awareness and attention to help those worse off in such a way that the disadvantaged groups will equally enjoy the benefits of this project.

4.11 VALUE FOR MONEY (VFM)Please explain why you believe that the proposed project would offer optimum value for money. How have you determined that the proposed approach is the most cost efficient way of addressing the identified problem? Please ensure that your completed proposal and logframe demonstrate the link between activities, outputs and purpose, and that the budget notes provide clear justifications for the inputs and budget estimates.

Value for money: Send a Cow has recently been praised by the Ethiopian Government who conducted a Mid-Term Review for a project in Kotoba, West Shoa (March 2011) for its VFM teaching communities how to effectively use natural resources at very low cost. The review team told SACEth and partner AKAM that they were not only evaluating the project but also learning from it. 9,600 beneficiaries will directly benefit from the proposed project with a cost of approximately £88 per person. Considering the total amount of people expected to benefit, estimated to be 57,600 (9,600 direct + 48,000 indirect beneficiaries), the cost per person is less than £15 over 3 years. In addition, the project’s input and action will provide beneficiaries with new sources of income from farm activities and self-employment opportunities. Beneficiaries’ increased self-esteem and appreciation within the community add a value to the project that goes way beyond mere economic estimation. Cost-efficiency is guaranteed throughout the entire project cycle: a) working with existing community resources and provision of low-physical inputs reduces costs and ensures sustainability; b) project approach including pass-on activities, training by farmers and demonstration sites accessible to all community members ensures a long-term multiplier effect at a low cost; c) mindset and attitude change trigger development dynamics that do not need further monetary injection; d) proper community support structures and development of local employment opportunities provides the project with high value for money.

4.12 COUNTRY STRATEGY(IES) AND POLICIESHow does this project support the achievement of DFID’s country or regional strategy objectives? How would this project support national government policies and plans related to poverty reduction or other key sectoral areas (e.g. Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, etc.)?

The project fits a variety of DFID strategies and objectives. DFID's March 2011 Bilateral Aid Review - the project strongly fits UK AID’s goals following this review as it addresses the underlying causes of poverty. The proposed project will complement and supplement DFID’s planned work in Ethiopia: helping 9,600 direct and 48,000 indirect beneficiaries get enough food to avoid hunger; wealth creation; tackle the effects of climate change; better access to basic services; enable their

9

children to go to school; access clean water. DFID’s strategy and priorities for Ethiopia – we are aware the full updated strategy will be published on 18 May 2011 but the project fits with DFID’s 2008 priorities for: promoting human development – through teaching sustainable agriculture skills, helping families provide themselves with a regular income and helping farmers develop livelihoods through self employment and employing others locally; health – through providing farmers with the means to produce regular nutritious meals reducing sickness, disease and malnutrition; water and sanitation – through hand dug wells, spring capping and through teaching the importance of environmental and personal hygiene; education – through income generation opportunities enabling families to afford education for their children. DFID's Structural Reform Priorities: the project fits aspects of sections: 1.2 increased access to clean water; 1.3 supporting the development of local democratic institutions; 2.2 transparency through feedback and review from beneficiaries; 2.4 using results based management and focussing on risk reduction and value for money; 2.5 giving beneficiaries power and control over how aid is spent; 2.6 supporting small British NGOs to deliver results; 5.1 driving action to empower women and girls; 6 combating climatic shocks and supporting low carbon development.

The project also fits a variety of Ethiopia’s policies related to poverty reduction: Productive Safety Net Programme (which DFID contributes to) concentrating on food security at household level for very vulnerable families to achieve improved and sustainable household assets; create livelihood opportunities, and reduce environmental degradation. Five Year Growth & Transformation Plan 2010/11/2014/15 (GTP) The project is a tight fit with this programme contributing to pillars: 3.2 Maintaining agriculture as a major source of economic growth: through intensifying marketable farm products and enhancing the use of water resources. 3.5 Enhancing expansion and quality of social development: through education; water & sanitation; better food security and nutrition; better housing conditions. 3.6 Building capacity and deepen good governance: through strengthening democratic institutions; establishing citizen’s access to information. 3.7 Promote women and youth empowerment and equitable benefit: through empowering women to have “effect on the speed, equity and sustainability of Ethiopia growth and development”, in particular to “increase extension service to the women farmers in rural areas”. Policy Investment Framework 2010-2020 (PIF) The project fits its strategic objectives in agriculture, environment and food security particularly its development objective to “sustainably increase rural incomes and national food security”. Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty 2005/6-2009/10 (PASDEP) The project contributes to the previous PRS plan which is still very relevant and referred to across Ethiopia: Building all-inclusive implementation capacity through strengthening democratic institutions and woreda level capacity; Creating the balance between economic development and population growth through encouraging girls’ education and raising awareness on fertility rates and HTPs; Unleashing the potential of Ethiopia's women through supporting girls’ education, women’s health, shared workload, boosting women’s productivity in “agricultural extension, micro-credit, natural resource management, small business promotion” and protecting their rights; Strengthening the infrastructure backbone of the country through supporting access to clean water (hand dug wells and spring capping); Strengthening human resource development through supporting education, knowledge and skill improvement, gaining experiences; Managing risk and volatility through working to increase income and community development systems to mitigate vulnerability; Creating employment opportunities through developing small-scale business, petty trading and providing marketable skills to farmers and community workers. Ethiopia’s 1995 Constitution is supported by the project in relation to gender (in particular articles 25 and 35) as well as 2001 Family Code, 2005 revised Penal Code.

4.13 LESSONS LEARNED What lessons have you drawn on (from your own and others’ past experience) in designing this project? If this project is based on similar project experience, please describe the outcomes achieved and the specific lessons learned that have informed this proposal.

The project draws on the following lessons learned from previous projects supported by well-

10

experienced partners such as Heifer International, IFAD, Brooke: a) involvement of the community in the project planning/design process (bottom-up approach) guarantees efficient problem analysis and development of widely appreciated and shared strategy; b) group-based approach ensures dynamism and project ownership by the community; c) project staff living and working side-by-side with the community helps to understand and be understood by the beneficiaries; d) involving the whole family and the community at large in the project avoids exclusion and social tensions; e) government involvement from project inception adds value and ensures sustainability f) integrating social initiatives with sustainable agriculture provides an all-encompassing development approach in farming communities; g) focussing on available natural resources and local knowledge empowers and sustains the community’s self-help capacity; h) training farmers through Peer Farmers improves the learning process and raises the beneficiaries’ confidence to a high level; i) pass-on systems significantly improve the beneficiaries´ self esteem j) working toward bringing mindset and attitudinal changes ensures efficiency and long-term sustainability.

4.14 ENVIRONMENTPlease specify what overall impact (positive, neutral or negative) the fund is likely to have on the environment. What steps have you taken to assess any potential environmental impact? Please note the severity of the impacts and how the project will mitigate any potentially negative effects.

The project has no negative impact on the environment. On the contrary, many positive effects can be underlined: the project will significantly improve the sustainability of the local environment with ecosystem conservation practices and natural resource recovery measures promoted to the wider community. SAC’s unique approach teaches families integrated farming, bringing together crops and livestock, using less land and other resources, utilising natural inputs rather than chemicals. Farmers will learn soil and water conservation practices; apply organic matter to improve soil fertility; plant trees to improve vegetation cover; learn to make soil bricks and fuel-efficient stoves to reduce trees cut for construction and cooking, and minimise indoor air pollution. They will also improve live -stock management with the effect of reducing pressure on grazing land. The project will work with communities to ensure improved access to clean water. These measures will be of crucial import-ance for communities and are prerequisites for the livelihood security of future generations. In addi -tion, independent research suggests that SAC’s overall work captures carbon, thus making a contri -bution to reducing climate change.

SECTION 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Please outline the project implementation and management arrangements for this fund.This should include: A clear description of the roles and responsibilities of each of the partners. You must

also provide an organogram of the project staffing and partner management relationships.

A clear description of the added value of the each organisation within the project. An explanation of the human resources required (number of full-time equivalents, type,

skills, background, and gender).

Roles and responsibilities: The overall fund will be managed by SACUK who will be responsible for reporting to DFID as well as monitoring and evaluation of the work of project partners. The lead partner will be SACEth who will be responsible for overall project planning, staff capacity building, communication, monitoring, evaluation, linkage and documentation regarding both project sites. In particular SACEth will directly manage and implement the project in Wolayita Zone. Furthermore, KHDP, with close assistance and overseeing from SACEth, will manage and implement the project in Gamo Gofa Zone. Staff recruitment, office establishment and purchase of equipment and capital items will be part of management. Project office staff will be responsible for managing relationships with beneficiaries, Community Facilitators, self-help groups, government development agents and

11

other relevant stakeholders. An organogram of the project staffing and partner management relationships is attached.Added value of each partner: SACUK has been working in development projects in Africa for over 20 years, establishing quality partnerships with a wide range of donors (including DFID) and other development actors. Our experience will significantly contribute to the proposed project to change the lives of thousands of poor and destitute families. Securing match funding, plus timely and regular supervision and advice by SACUK will be an added value to this project. Moreover, SACUK will work towards informing and sensitising a wider UK public on actions that can alleviate poverty and food insecurity in Ethiopia. SACEth is a successful pioneer in integrating low-input agriculture with social development actions in Ethiopia. Specifically, SACEth´s unique experience in promoting farmers’ action-research and learning through practice will bring a remarkable added value to this project. This approach has been widely appreciated by partners such as the government, IFAD, Tearfund, Brooke and others. SACEth´s experience in providing technical backstopping to project implementing partners as well as in sharing wealth of best practices at different levels will make a significant contribution to the effectiveness of this project. As well as SACEth, KHDP has a deep knowledge of the project area (including culture and traditions of the community) and many years experience in bringing development to harsh and remote environments such as the proposed project area. KHDP´s experience in working with different international donors will also ensure quality implementation and reporting on this project.Human resources needed: FTE for project staff: 22.53 staff + 25 volunteers (who will be trained by/with the project to help them achieve new livelihoods as Community Facilitators – they will be paid only basic expenses). FTE for support staff: 15.41: finance, admin and office staff (guards, cashiers and cleaners). Total number of people involved in the project is 76. There will be 35 staff at project office level including project and support staff (23M/12F) plus the 25 volunteers (7M/18F); and 16 project and support staff from SAC Ethiopia and SAC UK(8M/8F). Support staff are included as they are an important element to the local economy, employing cleaners and guards who would be otherwise unemployed. Qualifications: the project management staff range from masters degree to bachelor degree; project implementation staff are at least diploma level; field facilitators/volunteers at least secondary school diploma/certificate level; and support staff at least secondary school diploma/certificate level. The back ground of all staff varies from highly qualified staff (in fields of: NRM, Improved Animal Management, gender, finance and admin) to practical experience (i.e. community facilitation).

5.2 NEW SYSTEMS, STRUCTURES AND/OR STAFFINGPlease outline any new systems, structures and/or staffing that would be required to implement this project. Note that these need to be considered when discussing sustainability and project timeframes.

New systems: This project will be using existing systems and methodologies already in place and proved to be effective and replicable. In addition, SACEth will integrate its systems with new learning (i.e. local agricultural practices, traditional social customs) deriving from the beneficiaries to ensure project adaptability and positive local reception. New structures: Offices: in Gamo Gofa the project will be managed and implemented by the office already set up and equipped by SAC and KHDP for a programme currently funded by IFAD and Brooke; in Wolayita the project will set up a new office in Gununo with all required equipments; in Addis Ababa the already established and equipped country programme office will be used for coordination and supervision. Vehicles: due to the extreme remoteness of beneficiary communities and project locations vehicles will be required: existing vehicles in Gamo Gofa will be used in addition to new motorbikes; in Wolayita new motorbikes and a vehicle are necessary to reach remote areas for procurement, delivery of inputs and farmer visits; the Addis Ababa office will have one vehicle for project supervision, technical backstopping and monitoring (the project is located over 500Km away from the capital). New staffing: New staff include project and support staff in Gamo Gofa and in Wolayita; and one driver in SACEth country programme office (Addis Ababa) will be recruited on a part-time basis.

5.3 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS

12

Include a list of all organisations to be involved in project implementation including offices of the applicant and any partners starting with the main partner organisation(s). Please only include those partners that will be funded from the project budget.

Applicant: SAC UK; Lead Partner: SAC Ethiopia; Partner: Kale Heywet Development Programme.

5.4 OTHER ACTORSInclude all other key stakeholders who will have a role in the project. Consider issues of integration with other programmes – especially those of the relevant government agencies – and how activities will be coordinated with others. How will you ensure that there will be no duplication of effort?

In-depth field assessment and baseline surveys have been conducted in the project area to identify existing stakeholders, avoid duplication of effort and elaborate strategies to make development actions and activities supplementary/complementary. a) government: Kebele (peasant association) and health and agriculture extension offices will be closely involved in planning, implementation and evaluation; their capacities will be built and used for community mobilisation, technical assistance and follow up. Selected beneficiaries will not include those benefiting from wider public assistance programmes such as PSNP to avoid duplication of effort; b) informal institutions: traditional community institutions have helped identify potential beneficiaries, and will provide and share information and experience; in turn they will learn from the process (group facilitation, leadership, financial management); c) NGOs: there are no NGOs based in the project woredas and the outreach services provided by the few NGOs in SNNPR do not cover livelihood development; collaboration will include: experience-sharing and directing beneficiaries to their services if required (health, education etc.); d) marketing cooperatives: the very few existing cooperatives in the surrounding area will be a learning ground for beneficiaries through experience-sharing and will serve as examples for group development; e) microfinance: only one government-run credit institution is offering microfinance services in the area; linkages with farmers will be built.

SECTION 6: MONITORING, EVALUATION, LESSON LEARNING This section should clearly relate to the project logframe and the relevant sections of the budget. Please note that you will be required to undertake a project evaluation towards the end of the funding period to assess the impact of the fund. Please allow sufficient budget for monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and note the requirements for external and independent evaluation.

6.1 How will the performance of the project be monitored? Who will be involved? What tools and approaches are you intending to use? How will your logframe be used in M&E? What training is required for M&E?

M&E of the project will take place at several levels and using different approaches:Self Help Group / Community levela) Group management committees and steering groups will define clear, measurable objectives that groups want to achieve (based on the logframe) and indicators to measure progress towards project outputs. Groups will hold monthly meetings (guided and facilitated by project staff) to discuss project progress, resolve any conflicts, discuss impact upon the community and use their findings to influence planned activities to ensure the project will deliver expected results. b) Group committees will oversee various project areas such as sustainable agriculture; NRM; gender; credit and savings. Each committee will be responsible for monitoring group progress in their area and will feedback monthly to project staff. c) Quarterly Self Review: Group members will use pictures to review project progress against logframe outputs. This fair and inclusive method will enable all beneficiaries to give feedback on output achievement whether beneficiaries are young, old, literate or illiterate. d) Peer Farmers & Community Facilitators will conduct regular farm visits to monitor progress of beneficiaries and feed back to project staff, informing the upcoming activities.Project Office levela) Field staff will conduct weekly updates and reflections to discuss progress, share learning and

13

inform plans for coming week. b) Monthly meetings will be held at either project offices in Wolayita / Gamo Gofa or head office. c) Quarterly review and planning meetings will take place with project and head office staff assessing project progress and revising the activity plan for the coming quarter. Quarterly reports will be sent to government offices, KHDP and SACEth head offices, and SACUK.SACEth and SACUK head office levelsa) Staff from Addis Ababa will conduct monthly monitoring visits to project staff and beneficiaries both in self help groups and on individual farms. b) Annual Review Meetings: SACEth has been highly commended for its annual Peer Review process (ARMing) across Ethiopia. ARMing will be conducted in the heart of project communities with representatives from all SACEth programme partners, beneficiary groups, community leaders, local government, stakeholders, project office, head office and SACUK. Annual review will be essential for peer learning, informing future plans, measuring progress against outputs and ensuring project is on track to achieve results. Annual reports will be produced for donors, project partners and SACUK. c) Mid Term Review: The Ethiopia Government evaluate all NGO projects – a Mid Term Review will be conducted by government representatives, an external consultant, and project staff. d) Final Evaluation: a final evaluation will be conducted by external assessors at the end of year 3.

M&E Training: Project staff and local government agents will be trained in Results Based Management by external consultants – these workshops are highly motivational in teaching staff and trainers to focus on results when running projects. Peer Farmers and Community Facilitators will be given training in monitoring other beneficiaries and members of the community, how to feedback findings to project staff and how to use their learning when training others.

6.2 Please use this section explain the budget allocated to M&E. Please state clearly in relation to evaluation costs and confirm your intention to commission an external evaluation.

Training and Workshops: £22,202 for training in Results Based Management; Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation; Beneficiary Self Review; experience sharing between stakeholders and project staff; and training Peer Farmers and Community Facilitators. Project locations and SACEth: £ 32,795 for experience sharing amongst past and new beneficiaries; bi-annual participatory monitoring, learning and review; ARMing (annual review); SACEth staff experience sharing; travel to farms and project locations for M&E. SAC and SACUK: £7,686 for sharing experiences with other SAC country programme offices in Africa; and for SAC UK staff to visit project location for M&E.Assessments and evaluations: £27,457 for Ethiopia Government mid and end term evaluations; impact assessment (follow up to needs assessment and baselines) and external evaluation at the end of the project.

6.3 Please explain how the learning from this fund will be incorporated into your organisation and disseminated, and to whom this information will be targeted (e.g. project stakeholders and others outside of the project). If you have specific ideas for key learning questions to be answered through the implementation of this project, please state them here.

Learning will be taken from follow-up visits on individual farms, group discussions facilitated by project staff and regular monitoring. Locally: learning will be documented and shared amongst beneficiaries, wider community, local administration and other stakeholders through posters, leaflets and community forums. Practical demonstrations will be held on beneficiary farms. Lessons will be used in training of local community and government workers. National: Exchange visits to FOMDALS and Peer Farmer Trainers from other SACEth projects will be arranged to learn from their experiences. Stakeholders, regional and national government, SACEth, KHDP will cross-learn through discussion forums, publications and dissemination of project reports. Organisationally: to the other SAC Country Programme Offices through Quarterly Reports, 3-Year Strategic Plans (updated annually) and SAC’s annual international programme meeting. Learning will inform future SAC programmes. Wider reach: through the publication of a project ‘curriculum’ using learning to establish methodologies which can be utilised across SAC’s and its partners’ Africa programmes. In addition SAC will inform a wider public on poverty and hunger alleviation in Ethiopia through:

14

magazines, brochures, meetings, internet.

SECTION 7: PROJECT RISKS AND MITIGATION7.1 Please outline the main risks to the success of the project indicating if the potential impact

and probability of the risks are high, medium or low. How will these risks be monitored and mitigated? If the risks are outside your direct control, is there anything you can do to manage their effects? If relevant, this may include an assessment of the risk of engagement to local partners. The risk assessment for your programme needs to clearly differentiate the internal risks and those that are part of the external environment and over which you will have less (or little) control.

Explanation of Risk Potential impact High/Medium/Low

Probability High/Medium/

LowMitigation measures

Weather: drought, flooding, unpredictable seasonal changes (ext)

high medium Use of simple / local water harvesting management and farming techniques. Explore alternative crops to adapt to climate changes

Crop and animal diseases (ext)

high low Train farmers on organic pesticides; & improved animal management incl. links with veterinary services.

Post-harvest loss (int) high medium Training on preservation techniques.

Lack of access to markets (ext)

medium medium Provide market information and introduce group marketing strategy.

Flooded market and drop in prices (ext)

low medium Work on demand-based production & low production costs using locally available inputs / farm diversification. Encourage water harvesting to extend growing season.

Ineffective group saving/credit (int)

high low Training in financial management with close support and follow-up.

Men continue to dominate (int + ext)

high medium Involvement of men in gender training & experience-sharing.

Women favour cultural traditions (ext)

high medium Training on HTP, experience sharing and employing female staff.

Lack of women’s self-confidence (int)

high medium High female group membership and supporting them in their roles.

Families don’t attend regular training (int)

medium low Training in / near HHs at convenient times covering critical issues.

Groups leaders are not democratic (int)

high low Training in group leadership and follow rotational leader elections.

Low trust among members (int)

medium medium Ensure groups transparency, equal involvement, shared vision, cohesion.

Monitoring against risk will include: field observation, community dialogue and reports, regularly checking government weather forecast, attending NGO forums, obtaining early warning information, risk assessment.

15

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner organisation

8.1 Name of Organisation Send a Cow (Applicant organisation)

8.2 Address The Old Estate YardNewton St LoeBathBA2 9BR

8.3 Web Site www.sendacow.org.uk

8.4 Registration or charity number (if applicable)

Charity registration number (England & Wales) 299717

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): £3,188,648Income (£ equivalent): n/aExchange rate: n/a

Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 1 July 2009To: 30 June 2010

8.6 Number of existing staff There are 33 on the UK payroll, 15 people work full time and 18 people work part time. Full time equivalents equals 27.6 staff member.

8.7 Proposed project staffing staff to be employed under this project (specify the total full-time equivalents - FTE)

Existing staff 0.34 FTE (utilising the time of 4 staff members)

New staff 0

8.8 Partner organisation category (Select a maximum of two categories)

Non-Government Org. (NGO) x Local Government

Trade Union National Government

Faith-based Organisation (FBO) Ethnic Minority Group or Organisation

Disabled Peoples’ Organisation (DPO) Diaspora Group or Organisation

Orgs. Working with Disabled People Academic Institution

Other... (please specify)

8.9 A) SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND B) FUNDING AMOUNT RESPONSIBLE FOR

16

A): Send a Cow (SAC) is the applicant and UK parent organisation of Send a Cow Ethiopia (SACEth). SAC's role is to coordinate the planning, budgeting, monitoring, evaluating and finances of the country programme SACEth. The SACEth country director reports to the UK programme coordinator. SAC will manage the DFID grant and ensure learning is shared widely. The SAC staff involved in the project are:- Programme Coordinator for Ethiopia who has many years first hand farming experience, and has been working on projects in Ethiopia for over12 years. He is aware of the environment and culture and able to adapt project activities to benefit Ethiopian farmers. He has been working closely with SACEth and KHDP staff as well as partners in Ethiopia, and is also in touch with donors for our Ethiopia projects. His role will be to oversee the project working closely with SACEth Country Director. Gender and Social Development Coordinator for SAC UK who is based in Uganda, has many years experience working across all of SAC programmes and has been instrumental in establishing SAC’s gender policy and capacity tool for learning. Her role will be to provide input and support to gender workshops and activities to empower women offering advice and mentoring to project staff. Programme Accountant who works across all SAC country programmes, will bring financial management support; and a Programme Support Officer will work with the project team in reporting progress to DFID and offering grant management support.

B): £73,652 over the 3 project years.

8.10

EXPERIENCE: Please outline the experience of your partner in relation to their role and responsibility in this fund (including technical issues and relevant geographical coverage)

Send a Cow’s experience extends over 22 years. It works in 7 countries in Africa. There are three direct country programmes, one is independently-registered, and in three countries SAC funds programmes with a partner organisation Heifer Project International. SAC has experience of successfully managing country programmes from the UK and sharing learning points across programmes. SAC has always had a strong and integrated practical approach to working with livestock and training poor households to receive and manage them and the positive impacts recorded by the farmers worked with indicates the successes of the programmes. Our experience has shown the importance of integrating crop and livestock techniques. Social development approaches have proved to be central to the long term success of farmers coming out of poverty. SAC has managed funding contracts from institutions (see below) both in the UK and in the country programmes.

8.11

FUNDING HISTORY Please provide a brief summary of your partner(s) funding history.

SAC’s funding has come principally from voluntary income from the general public, schools, groups, churches and rotary clubs. Public income grew rapidly from 1999 when SAC was selected for the Telegraph Christmas appeal. The development of the Gift Catalogue contributed to rapid growth in 2005-6. Grant income from Trusts & Foundations, Corporate Funds and Institutions has steadily grown since 2004 and now contributes 25-30% of income. Key donors include Comic Relief, DFID (DAF), Big Lottery, European Commission, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Heifer Project International and Baring Foundation. The economic recession reduced SAC income by 20%, but we had significant reserves built up to mitigate against this. Income is growing again in this financial year.

8.12

CHILD PROTECTION (funds working with children and youth (0-18 years only)What is your partner(s)’ capacity in relation to child protection? How will you work with your partner(s) to ensure children are kept safe?

Send a Cow has a strong, well-established child protection policy that is an integral part of its staff manual - finalised and agreed in 2006 – to which all staff and volunteers are required to adhere and which forms part of the contract of employment. This includes the requirement never to allow any allegations made by a child go without being reported to the appropriate authorities, in addition to a strict code of personal behaviour with and around children.

17

Within programmes, partners’ capacity building is a key element of our work. This involves supporting them to build and develop systems, policies and procedures, included in which is child protection. Current levels of partner understanding and capacity are limited, not least due to the different context in which they work – where child protection has a much lower profile - and the limited contact with children in programmes. Developing a child protection culture, awareness and systems is integral therefore to our support of partners.

8.13

FRAUD: Has there been any incidence of any fraudulent activity in your partner organisation within the last 5 years? How will you minimise the risk of fraudulent activity occurring?

Send a Cow has a zero tolerance attitude to fraud. Any suspected cases are investigated and dealt with swiftly. To minimise the risk of fraud within the organisation Send a Cow has minimum financial standards which draw extensively on best practice developed by MANGO and other organisations that set out the key requirements for all transactions. The policy includes segregation of duties, which ensures no transaction can be completed by one individual and procurement guidelines including quotations. There are limited bank signatories and above a low set level transactions must have two signatories. All staff with financial responsibilities receive the appropriate training to ensure that they understand their responsibilities. Send a Cow also has a Financial Best Practice policy in place that all partners participate in. This includes regular monitoring of projects, the review of reports, internal audits, review of sample transactions by UK staff and training on Send a Cow policies and minimum standards. In addition Send a Cow UK and all country programmes have annual external audits. There is also a Fraud and Whistle-blowing policy in place that sets out the expectations of the organisation, what to do if someone suspects fraud and how the organisation will respond to information.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner organisation8.1 Name of Organisation Send a Cow Ethiopia (Lead partner organisation)

8.2 Address Bole Sub-City, Kebele 13, Gurd Sholla area, Megenagna-CMC Road, T.S.B.G. Building next to Ministry of Mines, P.O.Box 19453, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

8.3 Web Site www.sendacow.org.uk


Ethiopia NGO Registration number: 0638

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): 7,043,772 BirrIncome (£ equivalent): £346,889Exchange rate: 20.31 Birr to £ (average)Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: July 2009To: June 2010

8.6 Number of existing staff 9


Existing staff 9

New staff 16 (plus 25 volunteers)


Non-Government Org. (NGO) x Local Government

Trade Union National Government18





8.9 A) SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND B) FUNDING AMOUNT RESPOSIBLE FOR

A): SACEth Country Programme Office will be responsible for: Overall planning, management and supervision of the project:; establishment and equipment of field office and purchase of capital items; recruitment of competent and committed staff; staff capacity building; supervision of key activities, such as beneficiary selection; technical backstopping; management of financial transactions and personnel administration; establishment and maintenance of relationships with partners, collaborators and stakeholders; management of agreements and contracts; overall monitoring and regular reviews; documentation; reporting to local government, in-country donors and SACUK; dissemination of information (best practices, case studies, stories etc.); evaluation and re-planning.

SACEth project office will be responsible for: Project implementation in Wolayita Zone; management of project activity budget; establishment and maintenance of contacts with local authorities; group establishment and follow-up; organization and delivery of training; purchase and distribution of inputs; technical support (soil & water conservation, organic agriculture, livestock management etc); community awareness raising; identification, selection and training of excelling farmers (Peer Farmers); facilitation of events, experience-sharing and pass-on-the-gift processes; management of support services (hand-dug wells, spring development etc.); monitoring and reporting on project progress to SACEth Country Programme OfficeB): £534,3068.10


SACEth has a wealth of experience in planning, managing and implementing projects with partners across Ethiopia, in line with local government plans and strategies for poverty alleviation, addressing poor and disadvantaged groups in rural areas. Specifically, SACEth has been implementing projects in the SNNPR for over 10 years; the social background and the natural environment are therefore well-known to SACEth. The local government regularly commends SACEth´s approach to development. For example, all excelling farmers awarded by the Ethiopian Prime Minster in 2009/10 in Gamo Gofa Zone were SACEth project beneficiaries. SACEth has competent and committed staff with strong management and technical backgrounds, and SACEth has a many years experience in identifying skills gaps and developing staff members. Training and workshops are attended both in-county and outside Ethiopia to enhance staff capacity (i.e. in the UK, Israel, Africa as well as experience-sharing in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda. Certified external auditors, assigned by the Ethiopian Government, annually check SACEth’s financial management, transparency and appropriateness of financial transactions. SACUK also regularly monitors SACEth’s fund management. SACEth monitors its programmes and activities on the ground through various consolidated strategies which include: field visits, group meetings, beneficiaries´ self-review, quarterly staff meetings, bi-annual and annual review meetings and mid-term reviews. Final evaluations are carried out in collaboration with the Government and relevant stakeholders, including communities, and external consultants. Specifically, in the last 5 years six mid and end-term evaluations have been conducted. On the ground SACEth is a highly regarded pioneer in integrating low-input agriculture with social development actions in various regions of Ethiopia. Bottom-up project design, full community involvement and group-based approach are the foundations for SACEth´s programmes´ success.

19

Currently, 129 groups, composed of 2,580 households, especially women-headed and marginalised families, are working under SACEth´s programmes to escape food insecurity and poverty through setting a common vision and goals with mutual support, pass-on, credit/saving schemes and improved income generation. In March 2011, the government mid-term evaluation of SACEth´s ‘Kotoba Sustainable Livelihood Project’ reported, “Significant changes have been observed on farmers´ attitudes towards adopting improved technologies, livelihood means, institution establishment, management and decision making”. 15,480 direct beneficiaries currently benefit from training on sustainable organic agriculture, improved management of natural resources, better management of livestock, nutrition and small-scale business development (in 2010 SACEth and its partners provided over 1,500 training sessions to the project beneficiaries). SACEth has well-established experience in providing technical expertise and assistance in low-input agriculture, livestock rearing, soil and water conservation, nutrition. Particularly, low-input, simple adaptable techniques and technologies such as vegetable gardening, composting, water diversion systems, feed improvement, tip-taps, drying racks, latrines, are contributing to the livelihoods and food security of direct and indirect beneficiaries estimated to be around 77,000 individuals. In November 2010 Endalech Chemo, a beneficiary farmer from Chencha stated “We used to share one small bread among 4 people in my family. That was our only daily meal. Due to insufficient food and inability to afford medical treatment, seven of my children died before they reached the age of 5.Our life used to be so miserable. Now, thanks to SAC´s project we eat 3 times a day, including vegetables like potatoes and cabbage.” Gender equity and equality is a high priority for SACEth´s programmes. Significant achievements have been made in improving women’s´ self-esteem, creation of space for female leadership and decision making, community awareness on HTPs, women rights and importance of girl child education. In October 2010, the report on the mid-term review of Wali-Dabarsa Women Livelihood Improvement Initiative (WaDa-WoLII), conducted by an external consultant, stated “The greatest impact seen by the review team was in the area of women empowerment. The attitude change of men has been extraordinary, and the greater empowerment and public confidence of the women was wonderful to behold”.

8.11


SACEth has in-country fund raising responsibilities and is currently receiving funds from The Brooke, Donkey Sanctuary, Heifer International, IFAD and Big Lottery UK. SACEth receives the majority its funds through SACUK fundraising principally from voluntary income from the general public, schools, groups, churches and rotary clubs. Public income grew very rapidly from 1999 when SAC was selected for the Telegraph Christmas appeal. The development of the Gift Catalogue contributed to rapid growth in 2005-6. Grant income from Trusts & Foundations, Corporate Funds and Institutions has steadily grown since 2004 and now contributes 25-30% of income. Key donors include Comic Relief, DFID (DAF), Big Lottery, European Commission, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Heifer International and Baring Foundation. The economic recession reduced SAC income by 20%, but we had significant reserves built up to mitigate against this. Income is growing again in this financial year.

8.12


SACEth has a 5 page child protection policy which staff are required to adhere to and sign as they join. This is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) put in place by the Ethiopian Government and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (Nov. 29, 1999). SACEth works to ensure that the basic rights of children to food, shelter and education are met and they are protected from abuse and exploitation, accepting their responsibility to meet the minimum standards of protection for children in its programmes. Staff are made aware of the problem of child abuse and the risks to children whilst committing to ensuring the welfare of children and safeguarding those with whom they come into contact with. Although children are integral to the work, SACEth team members will not work directly with any child without the presence of another

20

responsible adult. SACUK would take seriously any concerns raised and take positive steps to ensure the protection of children who are the subject of concern. SAC would also support staff or other people who raise concerns or are the subject of them and act in accordance with policy.

8.13


SACEth is the Ethiopia office of Send a Cow and adheres to its policy on fraud. SAC has a zero tolerance attitude to fraud. Any suspected cases are investigated and dealt with swiftly. To minimise the risk of fraud within the organisation SAC has minimum financial standards which draw extensively on best practice developed by MANGO and other organisations that set out the key requirements for all transactions. The policy includes segregation of duties, which ensures no transaction can be completed by one individual and procurement guidelines including quotations. There are limited bank signatories and, above a low set level, transactions must have two signatories. All staff with financial responsibilities receive the appropriate training to ensure that they understand their responsibilities. Send a Cow also has a Financial Best Practice policy in place that all partners participate in. This includes regular monitoring of projects, the review of reports, internal audits, review of sample transactions by UK staff and training on Send a Cow policies and minimum standards. In addition SACUK and all country programmes have annual external audits. There is also a Fraud and Whistle-blowing policy in place that sets out the expectations of the organisation, what to do if someone suspects fraud and how the organisation will respond to information.

SECTION 8: CAPACITY OF LEAD PARTNER ORGANISATION AND ALL PARTNER ORGANISATIONS (Max 3 pages each)Please copy and fill in this section for yourselves and each partner organisation8.1 Name of Organisation Kale Heywet Development Programme

8.2 Address P.O. box 2059 Arba Minch, Gamo Gofa Zone, Ethiopia

8.3 Web Site n/a


1218

8.5 Annual Income Income (original currency): 6,232,315 Birr Income (£ equivalent): £244,405Exchange rate: 25.5 Birr to £Start/end date of accounts (dd/mm/yyyy)From: 01/07/2010To: 30/06/2011

8.6 Number of existing staff 90 (KHDP South-West Zone)


Existing staff 19

New staff 3


Non-Government Org. (NGO) V Local Government

Trade Union National Government




21


8.9 A) SUMMARY OF EXPECTED ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES AND B) FUNDING AMOUNT RESPONSIBLE FOR

A): KHDP project office will be responsible for:-Project implementation in Gamo Gofa Zone : management of project activity budget; establish and maintain contact with local authorities; group establishment and follow-up; organisation and delivery of training; purchase and distribution of inputs; technical support (soil & water conservation, organic agriculture, livestock management etc); community awareness raising; identification, selection and training of excelling farmers; facilitation of events, experience-sharing and pass-on-the-gift processes; management of support services (hand-dug wells, spring development etc.); monitoring and reporting on project progress to SACEth Country Programme Office;

B): £236,5798.10


KHDP has gained very rich experience from implementing projects in southern highlands of Ethiopia for over 20 years. It has accumulated a wealth of experience in community mobilisation and utilisation of local resources. Culture, traditions, values, and aspirations of communities in the project area are therefore well known to KHDP, helping problem identification, participatory and bottom-up planning, development of shared strategies and project ownership of the community. KDHP was SAC’s first partner in Ethiopia. Over the last 10 years, with SACEth sharing its gender community development and sustainable agricultural livelihoods experience from Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya, KDHP and SACEth have pioneered the Highland Community Development Project. This has proven to be KHDP’s most effective project and has been commended in many different forums by government. Specifically, the government mid-term evaluation on this project in January 2010 stated “The project objectives and activities are complementary to government development objectives and address communities´ needs. Project management and partnership with stakeholders is also efficient and effective”. KHDP has a solid experience in managing and implementing projects funded by international donors, in collaboration with local partners and stakeholders, developing project activities and achievements on the ground, timely donor-tailored report submission, documentation and dissemination of results. In particular, bringing projects and activities to remote areas is KHDP´s area of excellence. On the ground, KHDP is appreciated for its contribution in changing destitute families´ lives in 7 zones in SNNPR in the fields of livelihood improvement, agricultural development, women and child education. Currently, with SACEth support, 44 groups, composed of 765 households, especially women-headed and marginalised families, are working under KHDP´s programmes in Gamo Gofa Zone adopting, adapting and influencing SACEth´s intervention methodology. KHDP has long experience and reputation in training and technically assisting smallholder highland communities on crop and livestock farming. Specifically, KHDP has excelled in introducing and improving highland fruit farming (apple, pears, plums etc.) and developing fruit marketing cooperatives in Gamo Gofa Zone. Experienced KHDP technical experts and community facilitators are assisting beneficiaries in low-input agriculture, livestock rearing, soil and water conservation, nutrition. In March 2011 Memheru Dabulo, beneficiary farmer from Boreda stated, “Before I joined the project I had livestock but unproductive. I had land but unfruitful. I had spring water passing by my farm, but I didn´t know how to make appropriate use of it. Thanks to KHDP´s training I am now able to care for and cultivate my land and produce vegetables 3 times/year. My meals diversified, my income increased and I am now able to pay for my son´s education at a nursing college”. KHDP is working in an inclusive manner and all its programmes focus on changing

22

communities´ attitudes towards women, marginalised groups and minorities. The lessons SACEth and KHDP have learned have shaped the approach for all of SACEth’s project development across Ethiopia. KHDP continues to be a committed partner to SACEth in mutual development learning through continued partnership and the regular SACEth peer review ARMing process.

8.11


Funded by:- EED Germany since 1993 (Women Education), - HFB Germany since 1998 (Community Leadership), - WER-UK since 2000 (Child Education), - Send a Cow since 2001 (Livelihoods programmes), - REK-Netherlands 2010 (Agricultural development).

Experience in local fundraising (mainly through Church communities)

8.12


SACEth has worked with KHDP for over 10 years and both SAC and SACEth ensure that KHDP follows the same child protection policy as SACEth. For this project KHDP staff will be made aware of SACEth’s child protection policies and practice and SACEth will ensure they understand the rights of children and commit to safeguarding children in project families. Project staff will not work directly with any child without the presence of another responsible adult. SAC would take seriously any concerns raised and take positive steps to ensure the protection of children who are the subject of concern. SAC would also support staff or other people who raise concerns or are the subject of them and act in accordance with policy.

8.13


There has been no incidence of fraud at KHDP in the last 5 years. SAC will ensure the KHDP adheres to its policy on fraud. SAC has a zero tolerance attitude to fraud. Any suspected cases are investigated and dealt with swiftly. To minimise the risk of fraud within the organisation SAC has minimum financial standards which draw extensively on best practice developed by MANGO and other organisations that set out the key requirements for all transactions. The policy includes segregation of duties, which ensures no transaction can be completed by one individual and procurement guidelines including quotations. There are limited bank signatories and, above a low set level, transactions must have two signatories. All staff with financial responsibilities receive the appropriate training to ensure that they understand their responsibilities. Send a Cow also has a Financial Best Practice policy in place that all partners participate in. This includes regular monitoring of projects, the review of reports, internal audits, review of sample transactions by UK staff and training on Send a Cow policies and minimum standards. In addition SACUK and all country programmes have annual external audits. There is also a Fraud and Whistle-blowing policy in place that sets out the expectations of the organisation, what to do if someone suspects fraud and how the organisation will respond to information.

23

SECTION 9: CHECKLIST OF PROPOSAL DOCUMENTATION 9.1 Please check boxes for each of the documents you are submitting with this form.

All documents must be submitted by e-mail to: [email protected] Mandatory Items Check

Y/NProposal form (sections 1-7) YProposal form (section 8 - for applicant and each partner) YProject Logframe YProject Budget (with detailed budget notes) YMost recent set of organisational annual accounts YProject organisational chart / organogram YProject bar or GANTT chart to show scheduling Y

9.2 Please provide comments on the documentation provided (if relevant) None.

24

CSCF PROPOSAL FORM - Send a · Web viewGLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW...

Documents

Transcript of CSCF PROPOSAL FORM - Send a · Web viewGLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW...