FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA...2 Table of Contents ACRONYMS 4 OVERVIEW OF AGP2 M&E SYSTEM...

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

AGRICULTURAL GROWTH PROJECT II

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

MANUAL

2

Table of Contents

ACRONYMS 4

OVERVIEW OF AGP2 M&E SYSTEM 6

AGP2 M&E SYSTEM 6 AGP1 M&E LESSONS 6 PURPOSE OF THE M&E MANUAL 7 INSTITUTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR M&E 8 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM 11

RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND OTHER OUTCOME INDICATORS: INDICATORS INDEX CARDS 11

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE INDICATORS 12 COMPONENT 1: AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SUPPORT SERVICES INDICATORS 21 COMPONENT 2: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INDICATORS 27 COMPONENT 3: SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION INDICATORS 34 COMPONENT 4: AGRICULTURE MARKETING AND VALUE CHAINS INDICATORS 42 COMPONENT 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING AND MONITORING AND

EVALUATION INDICATORS 45

MONITORING OF INPUTS, OUTPUTS, SELECTED OUTCOMES AND PROCESSES 46

MONITORING ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY WORK PLANSAND BUDGET PROGRESS 46 TRACKING FEASIBILITY STUDIES/NEEDS ASSESSMENTS PROGRESS 47 MONITORING AND REPORTING OF SELECTED INDICATORS TO TRACK PROGRESS 47 COMPONENT 1: AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SUPPORT SERVICES 48 COMPONENT 2: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 51 COMPONENT 3: SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION 53 COMPONENT 4: AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND VALUE CHAINS 54 COMPONENT 5: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING AND MONITORING AND

EVALUATION 57 SETTING, ASSESSINGAND USING INDICATORS PERFORMANCE TARGETS 58 SAFEGUARDS MONITORING 59

PROJECT EVALUATION 59

EVALUATION OF OUTCOME AND IMPACT 59 EVALUATION OF CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES AND IMPACT 61 GENDER IMPACT EVALUATION 61 LEARNING WORKSHOPS AND FORA 61 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT 62

MAINSTREAMING GENDER, NUTRITION AND CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE IN PLANNING AND M&E 62

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR M&E 63

ANNEX 1: FEASIBILITY STUDIES/NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANFOR FINANCING SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS 64

3

ANNEX 2: REPORTING FORMATS 74

REPORTING ON ARDPLACS 74 REPORTING FORMAT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGENTS ON FARMING TRAINING CENTER

STATUS AND FARMING TRAINING CENTER ACTIVITIES 75 REPORTING ON DEMONSTRATIONS OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGIES AT FARMER

TRAINING CENTER OR FARMERS PLOT OR FARMER FIELD DAYS BY DEVELOPMENT

AGENT 78 REPORTING FORMAT FOR QUEEN REARING CENTERS 80 ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND FEED RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE 80 REPORTING FORMAT FOR FISH HATCHERY CENTER AMHARA REGION 81 ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND FEED RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE 81 REPORTING FORMAT FOR HERD PERFORMANCE RECORDING AND ELECTRONIC DATA

MANAGEMENT AT SEMEN PRODUCTION CENTER 82 REPORTING FORMAT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH CLINICS 83 ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER 83 REPORTING FORMAT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH POSTS 85 ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER 85 REPORTING FORMAT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORIES 87 REPORTING FORMAT FOR VEGETABLES AND TREE NURSERIES 88 DEVELOPMENT AGENTS/FARMERS 88 REPORTING ON BEST PRACTICES 89 MOA TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT 89 REPORTING ON SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE 90 REPORTING ON WATER USERS ASSOCIATION 94 REPORTING ON COMMUNITY WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT 97 REPORTING ON ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE 100 REPORTING ON MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE 103

ANNEX 3: QUARTERLY/ANNUAL REPORTS FORMAT 106

WOREDA REPORT (TO BE DEVELOPED BY PCU) 106 REGION AND FEDERAL REPORT (TO BE DEVELOPED BY PCU) 106

ANNEX 4: FEDERAL AND REGIONAL M&E OFFICER TERMS OF REFERENCE 107

FEDERAL M&E OFFICER 107 REGIONAL M&E OFFICER 109

ANNEX 5: SELECTED INDICATORS TO TRACK PROGRESS MATRIX 111

ANNEX 6: RESULTS FRAMEWORK 112

ANNEX 7: FREGS PARTICIPATORY M&E AND LEARNING 113

ANNEX 8: CROSS FARMER GROUP MONITORING 118

ANNEX 9 ASSESSING QUALITY AND TIMELINESS OF WOREDA REPORTS 120

ACRONYMS

ADPLAC Agriculture Development Partners Linkage Advisory Council

AGP1 First Agricultural Growth Project

AGP2 Second Agricultural Growth Project

BoA Bureau of Agriculture

BoW Bureau of Water

CASCAPE Capacity Building for scaling up of evidence based best practices

in agricultural production in Ethiopia

CBSP Community Based Seeds and forage Production groups

CDSF Capacity Development Support Facility

CIG Common Interest Group

CLPP Community Level Planning Process

CSA Climate Smart Agriculture

CU Coordination Unit

DA Development Agent

DFATD Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of

Canada

DSM Direct Seed Marketing

EIAR Ethiopian Institute of Agriculture Research

ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework

ESMP Environmental and Social Management Plan

ET Ethiopian Birr

FAR-CU Federal Agricultural Research Coordination Unit

FCA Federal Cooperative Agency

FCU Federal Coordination Unit

FHH Female Headed Household

FREG Farmer Research and Extension Group

FSC Federal Steering Committee

FTC Farmer Training Center

ha Hectare

HHI Household Irrigation

IA Implementation Agency

IWUA Irrigation Water User Association

KDC Kebele Development Committee

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MHH Male Headed Household

MHIS Micro-irrigation and Household Irrigation Systems

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

MTR Mid Term Review

PDO Project Development Objective

PIM Project Implementation Manual

MIS Management Information System

RAR-CU Regional Agricultural Research Coordination Unit

RCU Regional Coordination Unit

RARI Regional Agricultural Research Institute

5

RUSACCO Rural Savings and Credit Cooperative

SC Steering Committee

SMS Subject Matter Specialist

SNNPR Southern Nations, Nationalities and People’s Region

SSI Small Scale Irrigation

TC Technical Committee

THH Total Households

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VC Value Chain

WCU Woreda Coordination Unit

WDC Woreda Development Committee

WOA Woreda Office of Agriculture

WoFED Woreda Office of Finance and Economic Development

WSC Woreda Steering Committee

ZOA Zonal Office of Agriculture

OVERVIEW OF AGP2 M&E SYSTEM

AGP2 M&E SYSTEM

A robust M&E system is critical for effective management of the Agricultural Growth program 2.

The AGP2 M&E system will build on the existing AGP1 system and will have the following

characteristics:

i. It generates continuously information on progress, some processes, and performance

through the project cycle from design to end of project;

ii. The continuous flow of information generated by the M&E system is useful for project

management at all levels of the project (national, region, woreda, kebele) and external partners;

iii. It validates, analyzes and aggregates data generated at various levels to track progress,

assess if specific targets are met and monitor process quality, outputs, outcomes, program

impacts, and sustainability:

iv. It identifies implementation gaps and challenges for proactive corrective actions as well

as documents and incorporates lessons learned into program implementation.

v. It includes effective channels of communication from the field to the national level and

back to: (i) inform management decisions and ensure that corrective action are taken if necessary;

(ii) disseminates key lessons from evaluations to project implementers, beneficiaries and external

partners; and (iii) provides access to and displays project key information at all levels to enhance

transparency and accountability.

vi. It supports continuous M&E capacity building of implementers and PCU staff.

vii. It pays particular attention to the crosscutting themes (gender, nutrition and CSA).

AGP1 M&E LESSONS

Despite AGP1 Federal and Regional Coordination Unit strong commitment to M&E, there are

still deficiencies and inconsistencies in the AGP1 M&E system in terms of quality of data and

timeliness. The efficiency of the AGP1 M&E system is being particularly affected by (i) the lack

of M&E capacity of implementers and CU staff; (ii) the lack of tailored guidelines and reporting

formats for implementers; and (iii) the lack of commitment of certain IAs to reporting.

What will be different from AGP1 M&E system?

The AGP2 M&E system gives particular attention to: (i) developing tailored made simple M&E

guidelines for IAs at all level (kebele, woreda, region and Federal)based on the content of this

M&E manual; (ii) capacity building support to all actors/IAs involved in M&E activities (with a

“learning by doing” approach with DFATD capacity development support facility); (iii) more

robust triangulation of data through diverse sources and methodologies (more contracted

evaluations); (iv) enhanced monitoring and evaluation of processes and quality of implementation

of the project; (v) tailored monitoring and evaluation of cross-sectoral issues (gender, nutrition

and climate smart) from annual plan of activities to final project evaluation and (vi) clear

reporting of additional indicators outside of annual plans.

7

PURPOSE OF THE M&E MANUAL

This manual has been developed considering AGP1 lessons and the new requirements and

activities under AGP2. It is the guiding document for component leaders and M&E specialists at

FCU and RCU. This M&E manual will:

Identifies M&E roles and responsibilities for AGP2 implementers.

Provides common references for results framework indicators.

Defines the characteristics of AGP2 monitoring and tools

Identifies additional indicators to track AGP2 progress.

Guides on setting, assessing and using indicators performance targets.

Defines the purpose and type of AGP2 evaluations and studies.

Guides on mainstreaming gender, nutrition and climate smart agriculture in planning and

M&E.

This manual will be the foundation to develop user-friendly guidelines for each AGP2

implementers. AGP2 implementers requiring M&E guidelines and reporting formats tailored to

their responsibilities under the project are:

DAs.

Woreda Coordinators

Federal/Regional Agriculture Research Coordination Unit

Soil Laboratories

Bureau of Water/Focal person at woreda

Federal/Regional Cooperative Agencies

Etc.

This M&E manual is a living document and will be updated as the Project Implementation

Manual and project activities evolve.

AGP2 Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Tools

Activities Main Tools

Evaluation Evaluation of project outcome and impact (household survey)

Gender impact evaluation

Qualitative studies of extension services and adoption of technologies.

Qualitative studies of the FREGs.

Qualitative evaluation of efficiency use of water combined with

technical audit and cost benefit analysis of infrastructures.

8

Various qualitative evaluation of trainings.

Other evaluations to be determined

Monitoring of inputs,

outputs, selected outcomes

and processes

Quarterly and Annual Progress reports

Work and Budget Plan

Matrix to report on indicators

Indicators Index Cards

Feasibility studies/needs assessments progress matrix

IAs reporting formats

Internal Learning CASCAPE learning case studies

Federal and Regional workshops

Community learning fora

Cross-farmer monitoring

Selected case studies

Lessons learned

Story telling

To be determined with project knowledge management strategy

Information dissemination FTCs display board

Leaflets

To be determined with project communication strategy

INSTITUTIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR M&E

The responsibility for M&E of AGP2 will take place at four levels: federal, regional, woreda, and

kebele/sub-kebele. All IAs will report on performance.

Federal level. Overall M&E will be coordinated at the federal level from the CU by AGP2 M&E

Officers in collaboration with M&E Officers based at the RCU. The coordination of all M&E

activities of the AGP2 comprises overseeing data collection, analysis and reporting on the

implementation and progress of each component, sub-component, cross cutting issues, and

regions of the AGP2. It also includes managing occasional evaluations and impact evaluations

carried out by external firms and supporting M&E staff in the regions, zones, and woredas as well

as relevant directorates/departments of MoA/BoA (WAD for instance) with regard to M&E

requirements, capacity development, and M&E tools (manuals, etc). The FCU will submit

quarterly reports for review by the FSC, the World Bank, and other DPs. In addition, the content

of the quarterly M&E reports will be summarized in annual reports whose release will be timed to

coincide with the completion of the financial year. Tasks also include conducting staff trainings

(on basic M&E, reporting formats, M&E manual, etc.) and providing feedback on performance to

regional M&E Officers, woreda coordinators, etc.

Regional level. The M&E Officer at each RCU will coordinate M&E for their respective

woredas, ensuring that M&E data are collected regularly in accordance with agreed upon

procedures. The M&E Officers will compile and cross-check reports submitted by woreda. They

will also provide M&E TA and training including on how to collect and analyse data on cross

cutting issues. They will advise woredas based on inputs and outputs reported and will provide

feedback on performance to regional M&E Officers, woreda coordinators, etc. In addition, the

M&E Officers will undertake timely qualitative case studies of activities (such as beneficiary

interviews, lessons learned, and pictures of sub-projects) and a yearly qualitative analyses of

M&E data. The regional M&E Officers will receive in depth training in M&E and computer

skills. The RCU will submit quarterly reports to the FCU M&E Officer.

9

Implementation Agencies (IAs). EIAR, BoWs, Soil Fertility Laboratories, Bureaus for

Cooperative Promotion, and others IAs will report quarterly on their activities following the

required formats to the regional M&E Officers The format will be developed in a way that

progress on integration of cross cutting issues are captured.

Woreda level. The woreda AGP2 Coordinator will coordinate reporting, compiling and cross-

checking data collected by the DAs and IAs. The coordinator will also provide TA, training, and

advice based on inputs and outputs reported by DAs and IAs. Woreda AGP2 Coordinator will

work closely with SMSs and DAs and conduct regular field visits to kebeles and sub-kebeles to

engage directly with DAs and verify that M&E activities are being implemented properly. The

woreda coordinators will receive training in M&E (including reporting), facilitation, reporting,

use of reporting formats, and computer skills. The woreda coordinators will submit monthly

reports to the regional M&E Officers copied to the zone for review.

Kebele/sub-kebele level. At the kebele level, DAs will be responsible for submitting the data

collected by DAs to woreda coordinators. SMSs will ensure that information from project

implementation activities and progress is posted on FTCs’ boards. The DAs will receive training

on reporting, use of reporting formats, documentation and facilitation.DAs will collect project

information from beneficiaries using the required reporting format and submit the reports to

SMSs. In addition, DAs will create information from project activities and progress available at

FTCs. The community learning facilitator (a member of the kebele) with the support of DAs will

organize community-learning fora.

Farmers. Farmers will actively participate in community learning fora. It will be mandatory for

community learning facilitators to facilitate and ensure female farmers active engagement. This

could mean for example providing them transport and childcare.

Institutional roles and responsibilities for each results framework indicators are

further defined in each results framework indicator index card.

11

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM

AGP2 will continue building/strengthening the MIS system launched under AGP1. It will include

assessing the equipment and staffing need in terms of MIS Officers at regional and federal level.

Significant capacity building of the MIS system will be conducted of MIS Officers, M&E

Officers and other PCU staff. Support to undertake these activities, will be provided by the

Capacity Building Facility. The updating of the MIS system for AGP2 in terms of content will

also require updating the indicators handbook once the M&E manual is finalized and indicators to

be tracked have been defined. Once the MIS is fully functional between Region CU and Federal

CU, the MIS will be piloted at the woreda level (woreda will be selected based on access to

connectivity). The MIS system will be supported by an MIS Officer at the Federal level and at the

Regional level (as need arise for the Regions).

RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND OTHER OUTCOME INDICATORS: INDICATORS INDEX CARDS

The RF design builds on the strength and weaknesses of AGP1. As such, the RF includes tailored

indicators to capture progress and results in terms of gender equality, quality of capacity

development and M&E, which have been weak under AGP1. It provides high-level attention to

these issues, quality of implementation and processes. In addition, gender equality, nutrition and

climate smart agriculture results are tracked through a consistent disaggregation across most

indicators as well as some specific indicators. The results framework is only one small part of the

overall M&E system. Significant project progress and results will be tracked through additional

outcome indicators outside the results framework (identified in section X Monitoring of inputs,

outputs, selected outcomes and processes) and studies/evaluations (quantitative, qualitative, and

quality of implementation and processes) targeting specific results.

The Results Framework is used to monitor progress towards achieving the PDO. The current

targets of the RF indicators are not final, they will be updated once a full fledge baseline is

conducted the 1st year of the program. The indicators of the results framework under the PCU

responsibility will be reported regularly and frequency of reporting on the indicators is defined in

each indicator index card.

Results framework indicators index cards contribute to increasing data quality. It ensures

that all stakeholders/implementers have a common understanding of each indicator of the RF in

terms of:

- Definition

- Justification

- Unit

- Frequency of data collection

- Data source

- Calculation and data collection Methodology.

- Baseline value, target value and current value of the indicator.

12

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE INDICATORS

The Project Development Objective (PDO) is to increase agricultural productivity and

commercialization of smallholder farmers targeted by the project contributes to dietary

diversity and consumption at HH level. Five indicators in the RF measure the PDO (see index

cards below) and some additional indicators relating to nutrition linkages with production and

consumption have been included. Progress on indicators will be tracked through contracted

evaluation, except for the indicator relating to the number of beneficiaries, which is under the

PCU responsibility (see index card 5). Some of the indicators definition will be updated based on

the methodology discussion for collecting the baseline data.

Indicator 1

PDO

Indicator

(RF)

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN YIELD FOR SELECTED CROPS IN

TARGETED HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITING DIRECTLY FROM THE

PROJECT (Disaggregated in 2 indexes: cereals/pulses (MHH and FHH) and

vegetables/fruits (MHH and FHH))

Definition Assess agricultural productivity with yield for selected key crops in targeted

households (MHH and FHH). The proposed key crops are the following: cereals

(teff, wheat, maize, barley and sorghum), pulses (chickpea, fava bean), oil crops

(sesame), stimulants (coffee), vegetables (tomato, potato and onion) and fruits

(banana and mango).Two indexes will be developed based on the selected crops

((i) cereals and pulses and (ii) vegetables/fruits). The results are disaggregated

by male headed household (MHH) and female head of household (FHH).

Justification

This indicator allows the tracking of the productivity of male headed household

(MHH) and female head of household (FHH) in AGP2 selected crops value

chains.

Unit Percentage

Frequency

The indicator will be reported on at mid-term review and end of project. The

value of the indicator at baseline will be collected in August 2016 and indicator

targets will be defined based on baseline results. The baseline value is expressed

in quintals/hectare/HH.

Data Source

Data will be collected by CSA with the support of a consulting firm to be

contracted by AGP PCU.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Two indexes will be developed based on the selected crops ((i) cereals and

pulses and (ii) vegetables/fruits). A full fledge baseline will be conducted and

based on results targets will be set for the indicator. Data will be collected

through a household survey.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH

FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

13

MHH

FHH

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21.

Indicator 2

PDO

Indicator

(RF)

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN YIELD FOR SELECTED ANIMAL

PRODUCTS IN TARGETED HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITING DIRECTLY

FROM THE PROJECT (disaggregated in MHH and FHH)

Definition Assess agricultural productivity by a proxy with yield for selected key livestock

products in targeted households (MHH and FHH). The proposed selected key

livestock products at this stage are the following: honey and cattle milk. An

index will be developed based on the selected livestock products. This indicator

definition has been updated since the PAD, as it will be too difficult to

measure cattle and shoat meat. Therefore, the project will track the number of

animal sold disaggregated per type (chicken, cattle and shoat), as it is easier to

measure. The project will also track animal mortality per household.

Justification

This indicator allows the tracking of the productivity of male-headed household

(MHH) and female head of household (FHH) in AGP2 selected livestock value

chains. The baseline will be expressed in quintal/animal/HH.

Unit Percentage

Frequency



targets will be defined based on baseline results.

Data Source



Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

An index will be developed based on the selected livestock products. A full

fledge baseline will be conducted and based on results targets will be set for the

indicator. Data will be collected through a household survey. To be further

defined.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

MHH

FHH


Indicator 3

PDO

Indicator

(RF)

PROPORTION PRODUCTION SOLD BY TARGETED HOUSEHOLDS

FOR SELECTED CROPS

(Disaggregated in 2 indexes: cereals/pulses (MHH and FHH) and

vegetables/fruits (MHH and FHH))

14

Definition Assess the level of commercialization of the crop production by targeted

households (MHH and FHH) for selected key crops. The proposed key crops are

the following: cereals (teff, wheat, maize, barley and sorghum), pulses

(chickpea, fava bean), oil crops (sesame), stimulants (coffee), vegetables

(tomato, potato and onion) and fruits (banana and mango). The indicator is

disaggregated by cereals/pulses and vegetables/fruits.

Justification

This indicator allows the tracking of the commercialization of male headed

household (MHH) and female head of household (FHH) in AGP2 selected crops

value chains.

Unit Percentage

Frequency




in quintals.

Data Source



Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

An index will be developed based on the selected crop products. A full fledge

baseline will be conducted and based on results targets will be set for the

indicator. Data will be collected through a household survey.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH


Indicator 4

PDO

Indicator

(RF)

PROPORTION OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION SOLD BY TARGETED

BENEFICIARIES FOR SELECTED PRODUCTS (disaggregated by male

and female)

Definition Assess the level of commercialization of the livestock production by targeted

beneficiaries for selected key livestock products. At this stage, the livestock

products are the following: poultry (meat), honey, cattle milk (cow), dairy

products (yogurt, butter, cheese, etc.), cattle and shoats (meat) and hide and

skins. The current list of livestock products will be further defined.

Female refers to Female Headed Household and married females.

Justification

This indicator allows the tracking of the commercialization of male and female

in AGP2 selected livestock value chains.

Unit Percentage

15

Frequency




in kilograms

Data Source



Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

An index will be developed based on the selected crop products. A full fledge

baseline will be conducted and based on results targets will be set for the

indicator. Data will be collected through a household survey. It might be useful

to identify products that would be produced and commercialized by women to

develop the methodology to collect this indicator for women (women

responsibilities in MHH).

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH


Indicator 5

PDO

Indicator

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN ENERGY PRODUCED FROM NONE-

STAPLE CROP BY TARGETED HOUSEHOLD

Definition

Justification

Unit Percentage

Frequency

Data Source

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

16

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21. If there is a drought, it also

helps assessing the resilience (when there is food crisis it drops). It

also provides a nutrition point view. It looks at diversification from

staple.

Indicator 6

PDO

Indicator

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN NUTRITIONAL YIELD BY TARGETED

HOUSEHOLD

Definition

Justification

Unit Percentage

Frequency

Data Source

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21. Ethiopian Institute has

identified a gap in Vitamin A and Zinc per hectare.

Indicator 5

PDO

Indicator

(RF)

NUMBER OF DIRECT PROJECT BENEFICIARIES

PERCENTAGE OF FEMALE BENEFICIARIES

Definition Direct beneficiaries are people or groups who directly derive benefits from an

17

intervention:

Men and women farmers benefiting from specific trainings at FTCs

Men and women farmers in CIGs

Men and women farmers in IWUAs

Men and women farmers in FREGs

Men and women farmers being linked to the market by the project

Men and women farmers using animal health services

Men and women farmers members of cooperatives supported by the project

Men and women farmers members directly benefiting from USAID

component

Female beneficiaries directly derive benefits from an intervention (as above)

Female refers to Female Headed Household and married females. This results

might include some level of double counting of beneficiaries.

Justification

This indicator allows the tracking of the number of direct beneficiaries and

specifically women farmers.

Unit Number

Frequency

Bi-Annually

This indicator will be reported on twice a year (2nd quarter and 4th quarter)

starting FY17 of the project (August 30rd, 2016).

DAs/SMSs will report bi-weekly to woreda coordinator.

Woredacoordinator will report on January 5th and July 5th of each year to Region

Coordination Unit and RMoA (5 days after end of quarter).

RARIs will report on January 5th and July 5th of each year to EIAR (5 days after

end of quarter).

Region Coordination Unit will report (submit to FCU and RMoA) January 25th

and July 25th each year to Federal Coordination Unit (25 days after end of

quarter).

EIAR will report (submit to FCU) January 25th and July 25th each year to

Federal Coordination Unit (25 days after end of quarter).

Federal Coordination Unit will report on February 29th and August 30th of each

year submit to World Bank and MoA (60 days after end of quarter)

Data Source

Data will be collected by DAs/SMSs, Regional Research Centers (with the

Crop, Livestock/Forage, Soil and Water and Agriculture Implements Research

Directorates) project research component staff, Irrigation specialists from BoW.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Data will be collected using the project reporting formats and transmitted to the

coordination unit with quarterly reports. The Woreda coordinator, Region and

Federal component specialists and M&E specialists at the RPCU and FCU will

be responsible for cross-checking the quality of data and aggregating data. The

Federal M&E specialist will be calculating the indicator. The targets are

cumulative targets.

Year FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

18

Baseline

Total

Percentage

female

0

NA

Target Value

Total:

Percentage female

Need to

be

defined

Need to

be

defined

Need to

be

defined

1,597,730

Current Value

Total

Percentage female

40%

40%

40%

40%


Indicator 7

PDO

Indicator

PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN PROJECT AREA

REPORTING THAT CHILDREN HAVE A MINIMALLY

ACCEPTABLE DIET

Definition This indicator measures the proportion of households with a children 6-23

months of age who receive a minimum acceptable diet (MAD), apart from

breast milk. The “minimum acceptable diet” indicator measures both the

minimum feeding frequency and minimum dietary diversity, as appropriate for

various age groups. If a child meets the minimum feeding frequency and

minimum dietary diversity for their age group and breastfeeding status, then

they are considered to receive a minimum acceptable diet.

Justification

Consumption of foods from at least 4 food groups out of 7 on the previous day

would mean that in most populations the child had a high likelihood of

consuming at least one animal-source food and at least one fruit or vegetable

that day, in addition to a staple food (grain, root or tuber).

CUT-OFF (Available)

The cut-off of at least 4 of the above 7 food groups above was selected because

it is associated with better quality diets for both breastfed and non-breastfed

children.

METHODOLOGY (Standardized): This indicator is published by a large

technical stakeholder group (WHO, UNICEF, USAID, AED, FANDA, UC

Davis, IFPRI)*.

Unit Percentage

Frequency

Baseline, midterm, end line

Data Source

HH survey (DHS, MICS, etc)

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Tabulation of the indicator requires that data on breastfeeding, dietary diversity,

number of semi-solid/solid feeds and number of milk feeds be collected for

children 6-23 months the day preceding the survey. The indicator is calculated

from the following two fractions:

19

1.“Breastfed children 6-23 months of age in the sample who had at least the

minimum dietary diversity and the minimum meal frequency during the

previous day” divided by “Breastfed children 6-23 months of age in the sample

with MAD component data”

AND

2.” Non-breastfed children 6-23 months of age who received at least 2 milk

feedings and had at least the minimum dietary diversity not including milk feeds

and the minimum meal frequency during the previous day” divided by “Non-

breastfed children 6-23 months of age in the sample with MAD component

data”

Minimum dietary diversity for breastfed children 6-23 months is defined as four

or more food groups out of the following 7 food groups (refer to the WHO

IYCF operational guidance document cited below):

1. Grains, roots and tubers2. Legumes and nuts3. Dairy products (milk,

yogurt, cheese)4. Flesh foods (meat, fish, poultry and liver/organ meats) 5.

Eggs6. Vitamin-A rich fruits and vegetables7. Other fruits and vegetables

Minimum meal frequency for breastfed children is defined as two or more

feedings of solid, semi-solid, or soft food for children 6-8 months and three or

more feedings of solid, semi-solid or soft food for children 9-23 months.

For the MAD indicator, minimum dietary diversity for non breastfed children is

defined as four or more food groups out of the following six food groups:

1. Grains, roots and tubers2. Legumes and nuts3. Flesh foods (meat, fish,

poultry and liver/organ meats) 4. Eggs5. Vitamin-A rich fruits and

vegetables6. Other fruits and vegetables

Minimum meal frequency for non breastfed children is defined as four or more

feedings of solid, semi-solid, soft food, or milk feeds for children 6-23 months.

For non-breastfed children to receive a minimum adequate diet, at least two of

these feedings must be milk feeds.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


4.3%

Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

4%? 4.5% 4.7% 5.2% 5.6%

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH

20

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21. AGP2 contributes to

improvement in consumption, which is a higher outcome.

Improvement in consumption is the combination of AGP2 activities

with the ministry of health particularly health DAs and the ENGINE

project.

Indicator 8

PDO

Indicator

PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS IN PROJECT AREA

REPORTING THAT WOMEN HAVE A MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLY

DIVERSE DIET

Definition This indicator reflects consumption of at least five of ten food groups (1. All

starchy staple foods, 2. Beans and peas, 3. Nuts and seeds, 4. Dairy, 5. Flesh

foods, 6. Eggs, 7. Vitamin A rich dark green leafy vegetables, 8. Other Vitamin

A rich vegetables, 9. Other vegetables, 10. Other fruits), and can be generated

from surveys.

Justification

Women of reproductive age (15-49 years) are at risk for multiple micronutrient

deficiencies, which can jeopardize their health and ability to care for their

children and participate in income generating activities. Maternal micronutrient

deficiencies during lactation can directly impact child growth and development

but the potential consequences of maternal micronutrient deficiencies are

especially severe during pregnancy, when there is the greatest opportunity for

nutrient deficiencies to cause long term, irreversible development consequences

for the child in-utero. Dietary diversity (assessed here as the number of food

groups consumed) is a key dimension of a high quality diet with adequate

micronutrient content; and thus, important to ensuring the health and nutrition

of both women and their children.

This indicator has been validated as an indicator of likelihood of micronutrient

adequacy among women of reproductive age. There is a recent global consensus

on this indicator as the best, most valid measure of women’s dietary diversity; it

replaces the WDDS (women’s dietary diversity score) that had been previously

developed by FAO and FANTA. Unlike former measurements, it offers a

threshold for women’s micronutrient needs.

CGIAR and USAID Feed the Future have mainstreamed the use of this

indicator in their evaluations. EU is scaling up its use.

Unit Percentage or Number (for mean dietary diversity score)

Frequency

Baseline, midterm, endline

Data Source

HH survey

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Data are collected on the foods and beverages consumed in the previous 24

hours which are aggregated into 10 distinct food groups.

CUT-OFF (Available)Women who consume foods from at least 5 out of 10

food groups have a higher likelihood of micronutrient adequacy.

Several indicators can be derived from the basic data, including (i) proportion of

HH reporting that women in the HH have minimal dietary diversity (5/10 food

groups) (ii) proportion of women who consume 5 or more food groups out of

ten, (iii) mean dietary diversity score, (iv) proportion of women consuming any

specific food group such as animal source foods.

21

A simple questionnaire could be added to the Module 9 of the AGP MTR

survey, similar to the HH dietary diversity section.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


11.7%

Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

12% 12.3% 12.9% 14.0% 15.2%

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21. AGP2 contributes to

improvement in consumption, which is a higher outcome.

Improvement in consumption is the combination of AGP2 activities

with the ministry of health particularly health DAs and the ENGIN

project.

COMPONENT 1: AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SUPPORT SERVICES INDICATORS

Component Objective: To increase access to public agricultural services for smallholder

farmers.

Indicator 6

(RF)

PERCENTAGE OF FARMERS USING PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL

SERVICES (male and female farmers)

Definition The percentage of farmers using public agricultural services (male and female)

will be analyzed per type of services: (i) extension services (through (a) farmers

training and demonstration at FTCs by DAs; (b) farmer field days; (c)

advice/demonstrations by DAs (crops, livestock, NRM) on farmers plots and

other site); (ii) animal health services (farmers using animal health clinics and

animal health posts); and (iii) farmers benefiting from insemination services for

their livestock.

Female: refers to Female Headed Household and married females.

Justification It informs on progress in terms of access and usage of public agricultural

services by male and female farmers.

Unit Percentage

Frequency



targets will be defined based on baseline results.

Data Source



Calculation

and

Data will be collected through household survey/ evaluation. In addition, a

qualitative study of extension services will be conducted to assess the quality of

22

Collect

Methodology

access to extension for male and female farmers. It will be conducted by

Consulting firm/university under responsibility and supervision of CU M&E

Officer and TC.

Year

Baseline

Total

Male

Female


Target Value

Male

Female

Current Value

Total

Male

Female


Indicator 7

(RF)

NUMBER OF GENDER SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGIES

DEMONSTRATED IN THE PROJECT AREA

Definition The term technology includes a change in practices compared to currently used

practices or technologies (seed preparation, planting time, feeding schedule,

feeding ingredients, post-harvest, storage, processing, etc). If one specific

technology is demonstrated in more than one location in the project area, it will

count as one technology. If the project introduced or promotes a technology

package in which the benefit depends on the application of the entire package

(e.g., a combination of inputs such as a new variety and advice on agronomic

practices such as soil preparation, changes in seeding time, fertilizer schedule,

plant protection, etc) – this will count as one technology.

This indicator assesses the number of gender sensitive technologies

demonstrated by the project.

Gender sensitive technologies are defined as: (i) technologies based on needs

and interest of female farmers; (ii) technologies that reduce time and labor for

women farmers; and (iii) technologies that are accessible and affordable by

women farmers.

Technologies for nutrition refer to technologies: (i) increasing production and

consumption for a range of diverse nutrient dense food; and (ii) improving post-

harvest handling, preservation and processing to improve availability of good

nutritional quality and safe food.

CSA technologies under the project refer to technologies that increase

productivity and resilience (adaptation). Not all technologies are gender

sensitive or contributing to improved nutrition or climate smart, but it is still

critical to know for the project how many are being promoted to public

extension services.

Demonstrated:Includes advice given or demonstrated by producer

organizations, cooperatives, extension service, etc. Technologies can be

demonstrated during field days, at FTCs training, on farmers’ plot, etc.

Justification

Demonstrating gender sensitive technologies increase of women adopting these

technologies. In addition, technologies reducing women farm labor and the time

that women farmers need to perform household duties could enable them to

23

devote more time to productive farm activities.

Unit Number

Frequency Annually

This indicator will be reported on once a year (4th quarter) starting FY17 of the

project (August 30rd, 2016).




Region Coordination Unit will report (submit to FCU and RBoA) July 25th each

year to Federal Coordination Unit (25 days after end of quarter).

Federal Coordination Unit will report on August 30th of each year submit to

World Bank and MoA (60 days after end of quarter)

Data Source

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology





Federal M&E specialist will be calculating the indicator. In addition, a

qualitative study of gender sensitive technologies demonstrations will be

conducted to assess the quality of these technologies and quality of

demonstrations for female farmers. It will be conducted by Consulting

firm/university/Capacity Building Facility under responsibility and supervision

of CU M&E Officer and TC. The targets are cumulative targets.

Year

Baseline

Total


0

Target Value

Total

7 20 60 90

101

Current Value

Total

Comments:

Indicator 8

(RF)

PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN CROP DIVERSITY (number of HH

cultivating 3 or more crops) IN TARGETED HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITING

DIRECTLY FROM THE PROJECT Disaggregated by female head of household.

Definition The increase in crop diversity refers to the increase in production crop diversity

of households benefiting directly from AGP2. Crop diversity is based on the

Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women’s food groups. AGP2 production crop

diversity will be considered achieved if the household produces crops in at least

3 of the following food groups: (i) all starchy staple food; (ii) beans and peas;

(iii) nuts and seeds; (iv) vitamin A-rich dark green leafy vegetables; (v) other

vitamin A-rich vegetables and fruits; (vi) other vegetables and (vii) other fruits.

Justification

This indicator assesses nutritional diversity of AGP2 households cropping

system. This indicator provides an intermediate indication of AGP2 contribution

to improve production diversity and diet diversity of households within AGP2

woredas.

24

Unit Percentage

Frequency



targets will be defined based on baseline results. The baseline value is in

number of households and number FHH.

Data Source



Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

For each household data on crop cultivated will be collected. The analysis of the

crops cultivated by HH will be compared to AGP2 standards (based on

Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women’s food groups) and each household

meeting these standard will be accounted as targeted households cultivating

crops reflecting crop diversity.

Percentage HH/FHH cultivating crops reflecting crop diversity = Total

households cultivating crops reflecting crop diversity / Total households

interviewed in the sample survey.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21 (2020).

Indicator 8 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

DIVERSITY IN TARGETED HOUSEHOLDS BENEFITING DIRECTLY

FROM THE PROJECT Disaggregated by female head of household.

Definition The increase in agricultural production diversity refers to the increase in crop

and animal production diversity of households benefiting directly from AGP2.

Production diversity is based on the Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women’s

food groups. AGP2 agricultural production diversity will be considered

achieved if the household produces in at least 5 of the following food groups:

(i) all starchy staple food; (ii) beans and peas; (iii) nuts and seeds; (iv) dairy; (v)

flesh foods; (vi) eggs; (vii) vitamin A-rich dark green leafy vegetables; (viii)

other vitamin A-rich vegetables and fruits; (ix) other vegetables and (x) other

fruits. It will require the production of at least 3 crops in the above food groups

and at least 2 animal products in the above food groups.

Justification

This indicator assesses nutritional diversity of AGP2 households agricultural

production system. This indicator provides an intermediate indication of AGP2

contribution to improve production diversity and diet diversity of households

within AGP2 woredas.

25

Unit Percentage

Frequency



targets will be defined based on baseline results. The baseline value is in

number of households and number FHH.

Data Source



Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

For each household data on crop and animal production will be collected. The

analysis of the production by HH will be compared to AGP2 standards (based

on Minimum Dietary Diversity – Women’s food groups) and each household

meeting these standard will be accounted as targeted households meeting

production diversity.

Percentage HH/FHH with crop and animal production reflecting agricultural

production diversity = Total households/FHH reflecting crop and animal

production diversity / Total households interviewed in the sample survey.

Year

Baseline

Total

MHH

FHH


Target Value

Total:

MHH

FHH

Current Value

Total

Total:

MHH

FHH

Comments: Project will close October 10th of FY21 (2020).

Indicator 9

(RF) CLIENTS WHO HAVE ADOPTED AN IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL

TECHNOLOGY PROMOTED BY THE PROJECT (TOTAL)

CLIENTS WHO HAVE ADOPTED AN IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL

TECHNOLOGY PROMOTED BY THE PROJECT (FEMALE)

Definition The term technology includes a change in practices compared to currently used

practices or technologies (seed preparation, planting time, feeding schedule,

feeding ingredients, post-harvest, storage, processing, etc). If one specific

technology is demonstrated in more than one location in the project area, it will

count as one technology. If the project introduced or promotes a technology

package in which the benefit depends on the application of the entire package

(e.g., a combination of inputs such as a new variety and advice on agronomic

practices such as soil preparation, changes in seeding time, fertilizer schedule,

plant protection, etc) – this will count as one technology.

Adoption refers to a change of practice or change in use of a technology that was

26

introduced/promoted by the project.

The term technology includes a change in practices compared to currently used

practices or technologies. It will assess the proportion of technologies adopted

per type: (i) gender sensitive; (ii) nutrition; and (iii) CSA.

Female: refers to Female Headed Household and married females.

Justification

It tracks the level of adoption of technologies by male and female farmers

demonstrated by AGP2.

Unit Number

Frequency

Annually





Coordination Unit and RBoA (5 days after end of quarter).

Region Coordination Unit will report (submit to FCU and RBoA) July 25th each




Data Source






Region Coordination Unit will report (submit to FCU and RMoA) July 25th each




Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology





Federal M&E specialist will be calculating the indicator.In addition, a qualitative

study of technologies adopted will be conducted to assess the quality of these

technologies in general and specifically for gender (quality of technologies for

female farmers), nutrition and CSA. This evaluation will also look at the benefits

for farmers having adopted these technologies and the number of years the

technologies adopted are implemented by farmers. It will be conducted by

Consulting firm/university under responsibility and supervision of CU M&E

Officer and TC. The targets are cumulative targets.

Year

Baseline

Total:

Female:


0

0

Target Value

Total:

Female:

700,000

300,000

1,400,000

500,000

1,530,000

608,800

Current Value

Total:

Female:


27

COMPONENT 2: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INDICATORS

Component Objective: To increase the supply of demand-driven agricultural technologies,

which directly link to the other components.

Indicator 10

(RF)

NUMBER OF TECHNOLOGIES PROMOTED TO PUBLIC

EXTENSION SERVICES (total and disaggregated by gender sensitive,

nutrition and Climate Smart Agriculture)

Definition Technologies developed: are defined as technologies, which have

successfully been validated, tested by research and are ready to be promoted

to extension services. The technologies developed include both new and

improved technologies. Only technologies financed/supported by the project

funds are accounted for.

Total technologies includes: (i) multi-purpose technologies (that cannot

easily be categorized as gender, nutrition or Climate Smart Agriculture but

contribute overall to the project objective.); (ii) gender sensitive

technologies; (iii) nutrition technologies; and (iv) Climate Smart Agriculture

technologies.

Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs

and interest of female farmers; (ii) technologies that reduce time and labor

for women farmers; and (iii) technologies that are accessible and affordable

by women farmers.

Technologies for nutrition: refer to technologies (i) increasing production and

consumption for a range of diverse nutrient dense food; and (ii) improving

post- harvest handling, preservation and processing to improve availability of

good nutritional quality and safe food.

CSA technologies under the project refer: to technologies that increase

productivity and resilience (adaptation).

Not all technologies are gender sensitive or contributing to improved

nutrition or climate smart, but it is still critical to know for the project how

many are being promoted to public extension services.

Technologies will be disaggregated by major type: (i) gender sensitive

technologies; (ii) technologies for nutrition; and (iii) climate smart

agriculture technologies.

Justification

Assesses if technologies developed by research reach the stage of being

promoted to public extension services.

- If gender sensitive technologies are developed by research reach the stage

of being promoted it is assumed that it would contribute to adoption of

technologies by women.

- If technologies for nutrition are developed by research reach the stage of

being promoted it is assumed that it would contribute to adoption of

technologies for nutrition by farmers.

- If CSA technologies are developed by research reach the stage of being

promoted it is assumed that it would contribute to adoption of CSA

technologies by farmers.

Unit Number

28

Frequency

Bi-annually, starting year 2



Regional Agriculture Research Institutes will report on January 5th and July

5th of each year to Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (5 days after end

of quarter).

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute will report (submit to FCU and

RMoA) January 25th and July 25th each year to Federal Coordination Unit (25

days after end of quarter).

Federal Coordination Unit will report on February 29th and August 30th of

each year and submit to World Bank and MoA (60 days after end of quarter).

Data Source

Data will be collected the Regional Research Centers (with the Crop,

Livestock/Forage, Soil and Water and Agriculture Implements Research

Directorates) project research component staff and National Research

Institute project research component staff (with the Crop, Livestock/Forage,

Soil and Water and Agriculture Implements Research Directorate). Data will

be collected based on the list of technologies validated provided by the

centers and using the reporting formats developed by the project.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Data will be collected at National and Regional level using the project

Reporting formats and transmitted to the coordination unit with quarterly

reports. The regional research centers reporting data are only the research

centers supported by the project to develop technologies under the project.

The expert of the coordination unit at the National Research Institute in

charge of the research component of the project will be responsible for cross-

checking the quality of data coming from the Regional Research Centers,

collecting data from the National Research Institute, aggregating (National

and Regional data) and calculating the indicator.

The targets are cumulative targets. For the disaggregation in terms of gender,

nutrition and CSA, it is possible to have double counting of some

technologies as some technologies might contribute to both gender and

nutrition or gender and CSA. Some technologies won’t fit in any of the

disaggregation.

Year

Baseline

Total

Gender

Nutrition

CSA


0

0

0

0

Target Value

Total

Gender

Nutrition

CSA

20

7

7

4

50

20

15

10

120

60

50

14

240

90

80

16

280

101

80

20

Current Value

Total

Gender

29

Nutrition

CSA


Indicator 11

(RF)

NUMBER OF DEMAND-DRIVEN IMPROVED AGRICULTURAL

TECHNOLOGIES UNDER RESEARCH (total and disaggregated by

gender sensitive, nutrition and Climate Smart Agriculture technologies)

Definition The terms technology includes a change in practices compared to currently

used practices or technologies.

The terms demand-driven and improved refers to the quality of the processes

to have the technology under research: (i) the identification of technologies

under research is demand-driven: based on farmers, extension services and

other actors demand to address specific issues; (ii) the technologies under

research contributes to productivity and commercialization; (iii) the choice of

technologies under research take into account mainstreaming of gender,

nutrition, and climate smart; and (iv) the choice of technologies under

research is in line with the VC commodities of the project.

The Value Chain commodities of the project are the following:

1. Cereals: Teff, Wheat, Maize, Barley and Sorghum.

2. Pulses: Chickpea and Faba Bean.

3. Oil crops: Sesame.

4. Stimulants: Coffee.

5. Vegetables: Tomato, Potato and Onion.

6. Fruits: Banana and Mango.

7. Dairy products: Milk.

8. Meat/live animals: Poultry, Cattle and Shoats,

9. Other products: Hide and Skin, and Honey

Break-down by technology type is as below:

Total technologies includes: (i) multi-purpose technologies (that cannot easily

be categorized as gender, nutrition or Climate Smart Agriculture but contribute

overall to the project objective.); (ii) gender sensitive technologies; (iii)

nutrition technologies; and (iv) Climate Smart Agriculture technologies.

Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs

and interest of female farmers; (ii) technologies that reduce time and labor for

women farmers; and (iii) technologies that are accessible and affordable by

women farmers.

Technologies for nutrition: refer to technologies (i) increasing production and

consumption for a range of diverse nutrient dense food; and (ii) improving

30

post- harvest handling, preservation and processing to improve availability of

good nutritional quality and safe food.

CSA technologies under the project refer: to technologies that increase

productivity and resilience (adaptation).

Not all technologies are gender sensitive or contributing to improved nutrition

or climate smart, but it is still critical to know for the project how many are

being promoted to public extension services.

Technologies will be disaggregated by major type: (i) gender sensitive

technologies; (ii) technologies for nutrition; and (iii) climate smart

agriculture technologies.

Justification

It is an indicator to assess the quality of the processes that led to the selection

of technologies under research.

Unit Number

Frequency

Annually



Regional Agriculture Research Institutes will report on July 5th of each year to

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (5 days after end of quarter).


RMoA) July 25th each year to Federal Coordination Unit (25 days after end of

quarter).


World Bank and MoA (60 days after end of quarter).

Data Source

The indicator will be tracked through a Qualitative study/Desk review. It will

assess process and potential impact. It will be conducted under the leadership

of EIAR AGP2 implementing staff, RARIs AGP2 implementing staff, AGP2

M&E Officers, with the technical support and in collaboration with AGP2

Technical Committee.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

The list and number of improved agricultural technologies under research

(total and disaggregated by gender sensitive, nutrition and Climate Smart

Agriculture technologies) will be compiled by RARIs(research component

implementers/Crop, Livestock/Forage, Soil and Water and Agriculture

Implements Research Directorates) and EIAR (research component

implementers/ Crop, Livestock/Forage, Soil and Water and Agriculture

Implements Research Directorate).Then, a qualitative study/desk review of the

list will focus on the process of identification of agriculture technologies, their

potential impact (including in terms of gender, nutrition and CSA).This review

will be conducted by: (i) EIAR research component implementers; (ii) RARIs

research component implementers; (iii) support from PCU M&E Officers and

AGP2 Gender working group; and (iii) with Technical Support from AGP2

Technical Committee. Detailed terms of reference will be developed to

conduct this assessment including the methodology of the review. It will also

be approached as overall learning exercise among partners.

The targets are cumulative targets. For the disaggregation in terms of gender,

nutrition and CSA, it is possible to have double counting of some technologies

as some technologies might contribute to both gender and nutrition or gender

and CSA. Some technologies won’t fit in any of the disaggregation.


31

Baseline

Total

Gender

Nutrition

CSA

0

0

0

0

Target Value

Total

Gender

Nutrition

CSA

20

3

3

3

60

10

10

10

110

30

30

30

140

40

40

40

Current Value

Total

Gender

Nutrition

CSA


Indicator 12

(RF)

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUB-PROJECTS UNDER

IMPLEMENTATION/COMPLETED (Disaggregated by total FREGs and

women FREGs)

- COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUB-PROJECTS - UNDER

IMPLEMENTATION (Disaggregated by total FREGs and women FREGs)

- COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH SUB-PROJECTS - COMPLETED

(Disaggregated by total FREGs and women FREGs)

Definition Collaborative research sub-projects refers to the Farmer Research Extension

Groups (FREGs)

Under implementation is defined as a FREG supported by AGP2 for which a

contractual arrangement has been established between research, the farmer

groups and extension services.

Completed is defined as a FREG that has achieved its intended benefit/objective

and does not require further support from the project.

Total FREG includes:(i) FREGs with only male farmers; (ii) mixed FREGs with

women and male farmers; and (iii) women FREGs.

Women FREGs: is defined as FREGs only composed of women farmers

(women farmers refers to Female Headed Household and married females).

40% of the FREGs should be women FREGS

Justification

This indicator shows the growth in formal collaboration among the public

research, extension services and farmers.

It is a World Bank core sector indicator.

Unit Number

Frequency

Bi-annually This indicator will be reported on twice a year (2nd quarter and 4th quarter)


Regional Agriculture Research Institutes will report on January 5th and July 5th

32

of each year to Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (5 days after end of

quarter).


RMoA) January 25th and July 25th each year to Federal Coordination Unit (25

days after end of quarter).


year and submit to World Bank and MoA (60 days after end of quarter).

Data Source

Data will be collected by the Regional Research Centers project research

component staff and National Research Institute project research component

staff. Data will be collected based on the list of technologies validated provided

by the centers and using the reporting formats developed by the project.

At MTR and end evaluation the tracking of the indicator will be complemented

by qualitative studies undertaken by a consulting firm/university under

responsibility and supervision of PCU M&E Officer and Technical Committee.

The consulting firm/university will be contracted by the PCU.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology





The expert of the coordination unit at the National Research Institute in charge

of the research component of the project will be responsible for cross-checking

the quality of data coming from the Regional Research Centers, collecting data

from the National Research Institute, aggregating (National and Regional data)

and calculating the indicator. The targets for FREGs completed are cumulative.

The targets for FREGs under implementation are not cumulative targets. Being

under implementation is not a static stage, therefore FREGs move out of this

status. A FREG can only be in one category either implemented or either

completed to avoid double counting.

Year

Baseline

FREGs under

implementation/

completed

Total FREGs:

Total Women:

FREGs under

implementation

Total FREGs:

Total Women:

FREGs

completed

Total FREGs:

Total Women:


0

0

0

0

0

0

33

Target Value

FREGs under

implementation/

completed

Total FREGs:

Total Women FREGs:

FREGs under

implementation

Total FREGs:

Total Women FREGs:

FREGs completed

Total FREGs:

Total Women FREGs:

200

100

450

200

600

240

700

280

700

280

150

75

250

100

150

40

100

40

0

0

50

25

200

100

450

200

600

240

700

280

Current Value

FREGs under

implementation/

completed

Total FREGs:

Total Women:

FREGs under

implementation

Total FREGs:

Total Women:

FREGs completed

Total FREGs:

Total Women:


Indicator 13

(RF)

VOLUME OF BREEDER SEEDS AND PRE-BASIC SEEDS PRODUCED

FOR CROPS BY RESEARCH CENTERS

Definition Breeder seeds and pre-basic seeds production by research centers refers to

production financed by the project

The breeder seeds and pre-basic seeds produced are in the value chain

commodities selected for the AGP2: Teff, Wheat, Maize, Barley, Sorghum,

Chickpea, Faba Bean, Sesame, Tomato, Potato and Onion. It also includes

fodder.

Justification This indicator assesses the capacity of research centers to provide breeder seeds

34

and pre-basic seeds.

Unit Quintals

Frequency

Annually This indicator will be reported on once a year (4th quarter) starting FY17 of the


Regional Agriculture Research Institutes will report on July 5th of each year to

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute (5 days after end of quarter).


RMoA) July 25th each year to Federal Coordination Unit (25 days after end of

quarter).


World Bank and MoA (60 days after end of quarter).

Data Source

Data will be collected the Regional Research Centers project research

component staff and National Research Institute project research component

staff. Data will be collected based on the list of technologies validated provided

by the centers and using the reporting formats developed by the project.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology





The expert of the coordination unit at the National Research Institute in charge

of the research component of the project will be responsible for cross-checking

the quality of data coming from the Regional Research Centers, collecting data

from the National Research Institute, aggregating (National and Regional data)

and calculating the indicator. The targets are cumulative targets.

Year

Baseline

Total


0

Target Value

Total:

1,258

2,516

3,774

5,032

6,290

Current Value

Total

Total:


COMPONENT 3: SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION INDICATORS

Component Objective: To increase the access to and efficient utilization of irrigation water

by smallholder farmers.

Indicator 14

(RF)

NUMBER OF WATER USERS PROVIDED WITH NEW/IMPROVED

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SERVICES

NUMBER OF FEMALE WATER USERS PROVIDED WITH IRRIGATION

AND DRAINAGE SERVICES

Definition Water users: refer to male and female farmers who are recipient of irrigation

35

and drainage services from the project. Female refers to Female Headed

Household and married females.

New irrigation and drainage services: refers to the provision of irrigation and

drainage services in an area that has not had these services before.

Improved irrigation and drainage services: refers to the upgrading,

rehabilitation, and/or modernization of irrigation and drainage services in an

area with existing irrigation and drainage services.

Irrigation and drainage services: includes small-scale irrigation and household

irrigation.

Water users are only accounted for when the new/improved irrigation and

drainage services is functional.

Functional irrigation schemes: are defined as schemes, which are finalized,

have a functional water user associations (see definition in water user

association) and the scheme is delivering the intended benefits to the

beneficiaries.

Functional IWUAs refer to an association with: (i) registered with supervising

body (to be designated by each national regional states); (ii) trained

members(water management, dispute resolution, irrigation farming methods,

new irrigation technologies, maintenance of infrastructure, book keeping,

financial management, leadership assertiveness, negotiation specifically

targeted at female members etc.); (iii) has bylaws (rules for consumption of

irrigation water and collect fees); (iv) collect fees; and (v) 30 percent women

members (if sufficient women have land use right in the specific irrigation

scheme). If they are women 50% of women should be in the IWUAs

management committee.

Justification

This indicator assesses the expansion in access to irrigation and drainage of

male and female farmers.

Unit Number

Frequency




starting year 2 of the project.

Woreda will report on January 5th and July 5th of each year to Region


Region will report (submit to FCU and RMoA) January 25th and July 25th each




Data Source

1) For HHI:

In Oromia:Data will be collected by NRM DAs at the kebele level. DAs will

transmit data to the Irrigation Office at Woreda level, which will check the data

for quality and transmit the data to the Woreda Coordinator and WoA. The

Woreda Coordinator will aggregate the data of various kebele and transmit to

the Regional Coordination Unit. The RCU will review the data, aggregate

woreda data and provide comments on progress and transmit data to FCU. The

FCU will check the data for quality and aggregate Region data.

In Amhara and SNNPR: Data will be collected by NRM DAs at the kebele

level. DAs will transmit data directly to Woreda Coordinator and WoA. The

Woreda Coordinator will check the data for quality aggregate the data of

36

various kebele and transmit to the Regional Coordination Unit. The RCU will

review the data, aggregate woreda data and provide comments on progress and

transmit data to FCU. The FCU will check the data for quality and aggregate

Region data.

In Tigray: Data will be collected by irrigation DAs at the kebele level. DAs will

transmit data to the Water Office at Woreda level, which will check the data for

quality and transmit the data to the Woreda Coordinator and WoA. The Woreda

Coordinator will aggregate the data of various kebele and transmit to the

Regional Coordination Unit. The RCU will review the data, aggregate woreda

data and provide comments on progress and transmit data to FCU. The FCU

will check the data for quality and aggregate Region data.

2) For Rehabilitated SSI and Micro-irrigation: In Oromia: The irrigation officer of the Irrigation Development Authority at

Woreda level is responsible for data collection at the kebele level. The irrigation

officer will transmit the data to the Woreda Coordinator, who will aggregate the

data of various kebele and transmit to the Regional Irrigation Development

Authority. The RIDA will check data quality and transmit to the Regional

Coordination Unit. The RCU will review the data, aggregate woreda data and

provide comments on progress and transmit data to FCU. The FCU will check

the data for quality and aggregate Region data.

In Amhara and SNNPR: The SMS of the Woreda Agriculture Office is

responsible for data collection at the kebele level. The SMS will transmit the

data to the Woreda Coordinator, who will aggregate the data of various kebele

and transmit to the Regional Coordination Unit. The RCU will review the data

and provide comments on progress and transmit data to FCU. The FCU will

check the data for quality and aggregate Region data.

In Tigray: The Water Specialist of the Bureau of Water at Woreda level is

responsible for data collection at the kebele level. The Water Specialist will

transmit the data to the Woreda Coordinator, who will aggregate the data of

various kebele and transmit to the Regional Bureau of Water. The RBW will

check data quality and transmit to the Regional Coordination Unit. The RCU

will review the data, aggregate woreda data and provide comments on progress

and transmit data to FCU. The FCU will check the data for quality and

aggregate Region data.

3) For New Small Scale Irrigation:

In Oromia: The irrigation officer of the Regional Irrigation Development

Authority is responsible for data collection at the kebele level. The irrigation

officer will check data and transmit the data to the RCU. The RCU will

aggregate the data of various kebele and woreda, provide comments and

transmit to the FCU. The FCU will check the data for quality and aggregate

Region data.

In Amhara and SNNPR: The irrigation officer of the Regional Bureau of

Agriculture is responsible for data collection at the kebele level. The irrigation




Region data.

In Tigray: The irrigation officer of the Regional Irrigation Development




37


Region data.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology


coordination unit with quarterly reports. The irrigation specialists and M&E

specialists at the RPCU and FCU will be responsible for cross-checking the

quality of data, aggregating data and calculating the indicator. The targets are

cumulative targets.

Year

Baseline

Total


0

Target Value

Total:

Female:

20,000

8,000

86,000

36,400

172,000

80,553

190,000

71,000

190,000

78,000

Current Value

Total

Total:

Female:


Indicator 15

(RF)

PERCENTAGE OF FUNCTIONAL IRRIGATION WATER USER

ASSOCIATIONS (IWUAS) MANAGING EFFECTIVELY IRRIGATION

AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURES

Definition Functional IWUAs refer to an association with: (i) registered with supervising

body (to be designated by each national regional states); (ii) trained

members(water management, dispute resolution, irrigation farming methods,

new irrigation technologies, maintenance of infrastructure, book keeping,

financial management, leadership assertiveness, negotiation specifically

targeted at female members etc.); (iii) has bylaws (rules for consumption of

irrigation water and collect fees); (iv) collect fees; and (v) 30 percent women

members (if sufficient women have land use right in the specific irrigation

scheme). If they are women 50% of women should be in the IWUAs

management committee.

Managing effectively refers: to (i) effective maintenance and operation of the

irrigation and drainage system; (ii) development of specific scheduling of water

delivery; (iii) delivery of water to farmers plots in the right quantity and at an

appropriate time; and (iv) the anticipated additional use of the water (drinking,

washing, cattle trough).

Justification

This indicator assesses the functionality IWUAs and their effective management

of irrigation and drainage infrastructures of the project—as a proxy for

measuring their efficient use of irrigation water

Unit Percentage

Frequency






38




Data Source

1) For HHI:














Region data.

































39




Region data.






Region data.






Region data.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology




quality of data, aggregating data and calculating the indicator.

Year

Baseline

Total


NA

Target Value

Total:

--

40%

50%

60%

70%

Current Value

Total

Total:


Indicator 16

(RF)

AREA PROVIDED WITH IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SERVICES

(HA)

(Disaggregated by small-scale irrigation, micro-irrigation, and household

irrigation)

- AREA PROVIDED WITH IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SERVICES

(HA) NEW

(Disaggregated by small-scale irrigation, micro-irrigation, and household

irrigation)

- AREA PROVIDED WITH IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE SERVICES -

IMPROVED (HA)

(only small-scale irrigation is improved)

Definition This indicator measures the total area of land provided with irrigation and

drainage services under the project. It includes the area provided with new

irrigation and drainage services, and (ii) the area provided with improved

irrigation and drainage services.

40

Area: refers to area provided with new and improved irrigation and drainage

services. It includes small-scale irrigation, micro-irrigation and household

irrigation.

Irrigation and drainage services: refers to the better delivery of water to, and

drainage of water from, arable land, including better timing, quantity, quality,

and cost-effectiveness for the water users. Irrigation and drainage services

include small-scale irrigation, household irrigation, and micro-irrigation

system).

Small-scale irrigation: refers to an area greater than or equal to 20 hectares

owned and managed by smallholder farmers.

Household Irrigation Systems: refers to an area of less than 5 hectares and a plot

with less than ten households.

Micro-Irrigation Systems: refers to an area of less than 20 ha and a plot with

more or equal to ten households.

New:refers to the provision of irrigation and drainage services in an area that

has not had these services before. The area is not necessarily newly cropped or

newly productive land, but is newly provided with irrigation and drainage

services, and may have been rainfed land before.

Improved: refers to the upgrading, rehabilitation, and/or modernization of

irrigation and drainage services in an area with existing irrigation and

drainageservices.

Justification

Data are disaggregated by small-scale irrigation, micro-irrigation, and

household irrigation; HHI is particularly important as women farmers are

usually the main beneficiaries of HHI.

Unit Hectares

Frequency









Data Source

1) For HHI:














Region data.


41



































Region data.






Region data.






Region data.

Calculation

and

Collect




42

Methodology

quality of data, aggregating data and calculating the indicator. The targets are

cumulative targets.

Year

Baseline

- Total

- Small-Scale

Irrigation

(rehab/new)

- Micro irrigation

and Household

Irrigation (new)

Total New:

Total

Rehabilitated:

Baseline FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Target Value

- Total

- Small-Scale Irrigation

(rehab/new)

- Micro irrigation and

Household Irrigation

(new)

Total New:

Total Rehabilitated:

--

--

--

--

14,000

9,000

5,000

10,000

4,000

33,000

18,000

15,000

25,000

8,000

50,000

25,000

25,000

40,000

10,000

55,000

30,000

25,000

45,000

10,000

Current Value

- Total

- Small-Scale Irrigation

(rehab/new)

- Micro irrigation and

Household Irrigation

(new)

Total New:

Total Rehabilitated:

--

--

--


COMPONENT 4: AGRICULTURE MARKETING AND VALUE CHAINS INDICATORS

Component Objective: To commercialize smallholder farmers through increased access to

input and output markets.

Indicator 17 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN VOLUME OF SEEDS SUPPLIED

THROUGH DIVERSIFIED CHANNELS (disaggregated per supplier)

Definition This indicator measures the percentage increase in volume of seeds supplied per

value chains per type of channels.

The channels are defined as: private agents, farmers groups and cooperatives.

43

The value chains: are grain crops specifically ???

The seeds can be supplied to farmers, cooperatives, etc???

To be further defined with USAID.

Justification

It assesses the increase in volume of seeds supplied per VCs and the level of

diversification of channels to commercialize seeds to farmers.

Unit Percentage

Frequency

Annually



Data Source

This indicator will be collected by the USAID implementers of component 4

and transmitted to theFCU M&E Officer.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology



USAID implementers will report (submit to FCU and RMoA) July 25th each




Year

Baseline

- Total

- Private agents

- Farmers Groups

- Cooperatives


Target Value

- Total

- Private agents

- Farmers Groups

- Cooperatives

Current Value

- Total

- Private agents

- Farmers Groups

- Cooperatives

Comments:

Indicator 23 NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS OR MARKET

CONTRACTS SIGNED BETWEEN PRODUCER GROUPS OR

COOPERATIVES (supported by the project) AND

DOMESTIC/INTERNATIONAL AGRIBUSINESS ACTORS (processors,

wholesalers, retailers, exporters, etc.) FOR SELECTED VALUE CHAINS

Definition This indicator assesses the effectiveness of component 4 at improving market

access and establishing commercial linkages between farmer groups or

cooperatives and domestic, regional and international agribusiness actors such

as processors, wholesalers, retailers, exporters, etc.

Producer groups: are defined as CIGs.

Justification

This indicator assesses the effectiveness of component 4 at improving market

access and establishing commercial linkages between farmer groups or

cooperatives and domestic, regional and international agribusiness actors such

44

as processors, wholesalers, retailers, exporters, etc.

Unit Percentage

Frequency

At MTR (FY19) and End of project (FY21)

Data Source

USAID and CU M&E Officer

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Year

Baseline

- Total


0

Target Value

- Total

-- -- 23 -- 45

Current Value

- Total

-- -- --


Indicator 24 PERCENTAGE OF CIGS UNDERTAKING A VIABLE BUSINESS

ACTIVITY

Definition This indicator assesses the sustainability of the business for the Common

Interest Groups supported by AGP2.

The sustainability of the business is defined as: (i) the members make profit

with the activity they undertake as an individual in the CIG; (ii) the CIG itself

makes profit; and (iii) the reserves of the group are increased until they are

sufficient to cover the costs of a full business cycle.

The results are disaggregated by youth CIGs and female CIGs.

Female refers to Female Headed Household and married females.

Justification

It assesses the sustainability of business activities undertaken by CIGs.

Unit Percentage

Frequency

Annually

Data Source

USAID and CU M&E Officer

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology


45

Baseline

Female CIGs

Youth CIGs

NA

NA

Target Value

Female CIGs

Youth CIGs

--

--

50%

35%

60%

40%

65%

50%

Current Value

Female CIGs

Youth CIGs

--

--


COMPONENT 5: PROJECT MANAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION INDICATORS

Component Objective: To ensure project implementation, effective monitoring and

evaluation (M&E) of results and a consistent and effective approach to capacity

development.

Indicator 25 PERCENTAGE OF TRAININGS DELIVERED USING AGP2 AGREED

CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT APPROACH

Definition This indicator measures the quality of the capacity building under the project.

The definition of capacity development approach will be defined once AGP2

has developed a detailed capacity development approach for the overall project.

Justification

Tremendous level of capacity building is required under AGP2 and the quality

of capacity building is critical for the project to reach its objective.

Unit Percentage

Frequency

Annually

Data Source

DFATD, AGP2 Federal and Region capacity building officers

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Sample of trainings will be reviewed/assessed by DFATD capacity development

facility in collaboration with AGP2 Federal and Regional capacity building

officers. Methodology to be developed.

Year

Baseline

- Total


NA

Target Value

- Total

70% 80% 85% 90%

Current Value

- Total


Indicator 26 ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORTS MEETS WORLD BANK QUALITY AND

TIMELY DELIVERY REQUIREMENTS

46

Definition This indicator measures whether or not the M&E system is achieving its basic

function of providing quality and timely data.

Quality requirements refer to the agreed format for reporting (data, analysis,

recommendations, etc.), the required data (such as results framework and other

critical indicators/data agreed upon in the M&E manual) and the timely

availability of data for decision-making, identification of issues, etc.

Justification

This indicator measures whether or not the M&E system is achieving its basic

function of providing quality and timely data.

Unit Yes/No

Frequency

Annually

Data Source

Federal M&E Officers will send annual reports to the World Bank team for

review.

Calculation

and

Collect

Methodology

Review of annual report by the World Bank Team in collaboration with PCU

M&E Officers. Based on agreed quality requirements of AGP2 quarterly and

annual reports, the reports will be reviewed to assess if they meet the project

requirements.

Year

Baseline


NA

Target Value

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Current Value


MONITORING OF INPUTS, OUTPUTS, SELECTED OUTCOMES AND PROCESSES

Monitoring can be defined as a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on

specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing

development intervention with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives

and progress in the use of allocated funds.

The project will still focus on keeping the monitoring system simple and interactive allowing

regular reporting and learning by stakeholders at all levels. All implementing agencies (through

their focal persons) will report on performance. Nevertheless, the Federal and Regional PCUs as

well as woreda focal persons will be responsible for the overall monitoring of the project.

MONITORING ANNUAL AND QUARTERLY WORK PLANSAND BUDGET PROGRESS

Regular monitoring of inputs, activities and some outputs in annual plans will be conducted by

implementers at all levels (kebele, woreda, region and Federal). Monitoring of inputs, activities

and some outputs will focus on the analysis of implementation progress against stated annual

work plans and budgets.

47

TRACKING FEASIBILITY STUDIES/NEEDS ASSESSMENTS PROGRESS

Why tracking feasibility studies/needs assessments progress?

AGP2 is a framework project with a large number of activities/sub-components requiring a

feasibility study or a need assessment to decide if the activity should be financed and/or how

it should be financed.

Therefore, it is critical for the project coordinator and component leaders to closely track

the status of each feasibility study/need assessment on a quarterly basis. It supports the CU

to track progress and plan ahead for activities that will need financing/procuring based on

the feasibility study/need assessment results. The Feasibility Studies and Needs Assessments

Progress Matrix below will be updated quarterly to track progress. The matrix with the

identified feasibility studies and needs assessments is in Annex 1.

Feasibility Studies and Needs Assessments Progress Matrix: FEASIBILITY

STUDIES/NEEDS

ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN

TO POTENTIALLY FINANCE

WHAT?

RESPONSABILITY TIMEFRAME STAGE

COMPONENT 1: AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SUPPORT SERVICES

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

Definition of feasibility studies/needs assessment different stages: ☐TOR : Terms of reference are finalized.

☐Bidding: The bidding process is on-going (if there is a need for a bid)

☐On-going: The need assessment/feasibility study is on-going.

☐Draft: A draft need assessment/feasibility study findings has been submitted to PCU and World Bank.

☐Finalized: The need assessment/feasibility study is finalized.

☐Under implementation: The results of need assessment/feasibility study are being used and the activity

is implemented based on these results and recommendations.

The complete Feasibility Studies and Needs Assessments Progress Matrix(Annex x) will be

updated every quarter and included in every quarterly and annual reports of the CU at Federal

level and Region level based on on-going feasibility studies/needs assessments.

MONITORING AND REPORTING OF SELECTED INDICATORS TO TRACK PROGRESS

Indicators:

Indicators should be needed and useful.

Indicators should have a technical merit

Indicators should be fully defined.

48

Indicators should be feasible to measure.

Why track additional indicators outside ofthe results framework and the annual plans

(input, activities and some outputs)?

The annual plan and the Results Framework are insufficient to create a real results chain to

track progress, identify issues and assess performance of components/sub-components.The

result chains helps to create clear causal linkages (between inputs, activities, outputs and

outcomes) to track project progress towards results.

Some additional indicators are needed to track the quality of some of AGP2 implementation

processes.

Some additional indicators are needed to ensure gender, nutrition and CSA are addressed

along the results chain.

Some additional indicators are needed to track the other AGP2 outcome that the Results

Framework does not include.

CAUTION: Due to implementers’ capacity constraints, the results chain cannot be too

complex. The number of selected indicators needs to be limited not to overwhelm

implementers. Too many indicators might lower the quality and timeliness of data collected. In

addition, the indicators should be simple and not too complex to measure.

The list of indicators below per component is under the responsibility of implementers (none of

the indicators require an evaluation or a household survey). They will be integrated within the

MIS system and in the indicator handbook (where it will be clearly defined in terms of definition,

justification, etc.).The complete Selected Indicators Matrix (Annex 5) with all indicators below

agreed upon (see following section and section: Setting, Assessing and Using Indicators

Performance Targets) will be updated every quarter and included in every quarterly and annual

reports of the CU at Federal level and Region level based on on-going feasibility studies/needs

assessments. This Matrix won’t be mixed with the annual plan, which was a big issue under

AGP1 and deterred the whole purpose of the tool; under AGP2 it will be an independent tool

separate from the annual plan.

COMPONENT 1: AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SUPPORT SERVICES

SUB-COMPONENT 1.1 INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING AND DEVELOPMENT

Establishing and strengthening ARDPLACs

Number of ARDPLACs meeting held at woreda level (the woreda coordinator has to collect it

from the extension) Number of ARDPLACs meeting held at zonal level

Number of ARDPLACs meeting held at regional level (the regional coordinator has to collect

it from the zonal extension process owner )

Number of ARDPLACs meeting held at federal level

Additional qualitative data will be collected to assess the quality and effectiveness of ARDPLACs

meetings (see reporting formats).

49

Agriculture Extension Services

Clients who have adopted an improved agricultural technology promoted by the project(Results

Framework indicator) ( All DA’s collect and the SMS take it to Woreda coordinator Clients who adopted an improved agricultural technology promoted by project – female(Results

Framework indicator) Number of FTCs supported by AGP2 (cumulative)

Number of FTCs functional at basic level (level refers to government requirements (defined in the

PIM))

Number of FTCs functional at intermediate level (level refers to government requirements

(defined in the PIM))

Number of FTCs functional at advanced level (level refers to government requirements (defined

in the PIM))

Number of FTCs with cooking facilities and providing cooking classes to women farmers.

Number of farmers trained at FTCs on improved technologies (disaggregated by type of training

crop, livestock and NRM)

Number of female farmers trained at FTCs on improved technologies (disaggregated by type of

training crop, livestock and NRM)

Number of farmers trained on farmers plot by DAs or model farmers on improved technologies

(disaggregated by type of training crop, livestock and NRM)

Number of female farmers trained on farmers plot by DAs or model farmers on improved

technologies (disaggregated by type of training crop, livestock and NRM)

Number female farmers trained on gender sensitive improved technologies

Number farmers trained on CSA improved technologies (disaggregated by gender)

Number farmers trained on nutrition improved technologies (disaggregated by gender)

Number of improved technologies demonstrated (disaggregated by type of training crop,

livestock and NRM)

Number of gender sensitive technologies demonstrated (Results Framework indicator)

Number of CSA technologies demonstrated

Number of nutrition sensitive technologies demonstrated

Support Animal Production Services

Number of farmers trained in modern queen rearing (disaggregated by gender)

Number of modern queen rearing trainings conducted at training centers

Volume of fingerlings harvested and distributed for pond fish farmers

Volume of fingerlings harvested

Fish hatchery center fully functional

Number of dairy farms with a functional dairy herd performance recording.

Number of functional electronic data management system at semen production centers.

Number of animal health laboratories fully functional (checklist, equipped, staff trained, O&M

for maintenance of equipment, etc.)

Number of vaccination (disaggregated per type of disease and animals)

50

Number of disease outbreak (disaggregated per type of disease and animals)

Number of animal death (disaggregated per type of disease and animals)

Number of farmers’ visits at the animal health clinics/posts

Number of women farmers’ visits at the animal health clinics/posts

Number of animal treated at animal health clinic (disaggregated per type of visit and animals)

Number of animal health clinics/posts fully functional (checklist staff trained, equipped, drugs,

etc)

Video taking into account gender into animal health extension services finalized and

disseminated.

Manual taking into account gender into animal health extension services finalized and

disseminated.

Number of samples tested and diagnostic carried out by NAHDIC in collaboration with NAIC

Molecular biology laboratory functional (what does that mean functional in that case, need more

discussion and details)

Poultry health strategy developed

Standard poultry diagnostic manual to carry out full fledge operation developed and implemented

Crop Production and Health Services

Number of good agronomic practices identified, compiled and disseminated to regional bureaus

Number of gender sensitive good agronomic practices identified, compiled and disseminated to

regional bureaus

Number of CSA good agronomic practices identified, compiled and disseminated to regional

bureaus

Number of nutrition good agronomic practices identified, compiled and disseminated to regional

bureaus

Number of seedling planted

Number of vegetables seedlings produced

Number of vegetables nurseries producing vegetables seedlings

Number of farmers producing vegetables seedlings

Number of women farmers producing vegetables seedlings

Number of tree seedlings produced

Number of tree nurseries producing tree seedlings

Number of farmers producing tree seedlings

Number of women farmers producing tree seedlings

Data-base on pre and post harvest losses developed and in use

International standard pesticide laboratory functional (what do they do?)

Number of community land use plans developed

Number of soil sample tested.

Soil mapping completed and used.

51

SUB-COMPONENT 1.2: SCALING UP OF BEST PRACTICES

Total number male farmers adopting best practices (contribute to calculating results framework

indicator)

Total number male farmers adopting best practices (contribute to calculating results framework

indicator)

Number of best practices identified and validated by CASCAPE

Number of male farmers adopting nutrition best practices

Number of female farmers adopting nutrition best practices

Number of male farmers adopting CSA best practices

Number of female farmers adopting CSA best practices

Number of female farmers adopting irrigation best practices (linked to irrigation component)

Total number of best practices adopted

Number of nutrition best practices adopted

Number of CSA best practices adopted

Number of gender sensitive best practices

COMPONENT 2: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

SUB-COMPONENT 2.1: TECHNOLOGY ADAPTATION/GENERATION

Number of technologies promoted to public extension services (total and disaggregated by

gender sensitive, nutrition and Climate Smart Agriculture) (Results Framework indicator)

Number of demand-driven improved agricultural technologies under research (total and

disaggregated by gender sensitive, nutrition and Climate Smart Agriculture technologies)

(Results Framework indicator)

Accelerated Release of Agricultural Technologies from End Stage Verification Trials

Total number of candidate technologies in the list of potential end/verification stage crop,

livestock, soil and water management and farm implement activities

Number of gender sensitive candidate technologies in the list of potential end/verification

stage crop, livestock, soil and water management and farm implement activities.

Number of nutrition candidate technologies in the list of potential end/verification stage

crop, livestock, soil and water management and farm implement activities.

Number of CSA candidate technologies in the list of potential end/verification stage crop,

livestock, soil and water management and farm implement activities.

Total number of candidate technologies under evaluation in AGP2 woredas.

Number of gender sensitive candidate technologies under evaluation in AGP2 woredas.

Number of nutrition candidate technologies under evaluation in AGP2 woredas.

Number of CSA candidate technologies under evaluation in AGP2 woredas.

Number of technologies pre-demonstrated on FTCs and farmers’ plots in collaboration with other

implementers.

52

Number of gender sensitive technologies pre-demonstrated on FTCs and farmers’ plots in

collaboration with other implementers.

Number of nutrition technologies pre-demonstrated on FTCs and farmers’ plots in


Number of CSA technologies pre-demonstrated on FTCs and farmers’ plots in


Adaptation/Generation of Demand Driven Agricultural Technologies

Total number of demand driven research themes to alleviate the agricultural problems identified.

Number of gender specific research themes to alleviate the agricultural problems

identified.

Number of nutrition research themes to alleviate the agricultural problems identified.

Number of CSA research themes to alleviate the agricultural problems identified.

SUB-COMPONENT 2.2: PRE-EXTENSION DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF FREGs

Total number of farmers identified and trained for pre-extension demonstrations (including in

FREGs and regular pre-extension demonstrations).

Number of female farmers identified and trained for pre-extension demonstrations (including in


Total number of technology packages prepared and demonstrated (including in FREGs and

regular pre-extension demonstrations).

Number of gender sensitive technology packages prepared and demonstrated (including

in FREGs and regular pre-extension demonstrations).

Number of nutrition technology packages prepared and demonstrated (including in


Number of CSA technology packages prepared and demonstrated (including in FREGs

and regular pre-extension demonstrations).

Collaborative research sub-projects under implementation/completed (Disaggregated by total

FREGs and women FREGs) (Results Framework indicator)

Collaborative research sub-projects - under implementation (Disaggregated by total FREGs and

women FREGs) (Results Framework indicator)

Collaborative research sub-projects - completed (number) (Disaggregated by total FREGs and

women FREGs) (Results Framework indicator)

SUB-COMPONENT 2.3: SUPPORT TO SOURCE TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTION FOR CROP, LIVESTOCK/FORAGE, SOIL AND WATER AND FARM IMPLEMENTS

Volume of breeder seeds and pre-basic seeds produced for crops by research centers (Results

Framework indicator)

53

Total number of farmers supplied with breeder and pre-basic seed to multiply

Number of women farmers supplied with breeder and pre-basic seed to multiply

Volume of tissue cultural materials produced

Total number of farmers supplied with cultural materials to multiply

Number of women farmers supplied with cultural materials to multiply

SUB-COMPONENT 2.4: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT (PHYSICAL AND HUMAN)

Number of laboratories/research centers need assessment completed and validated

(physical/human).

Number of laboratories/research capacity development plans (physical/human) completed

validated.

COMPONENT 3: SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION

SUB-COMPONENT 3.1: SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT

Area provided with irrigation and drainage services (ha) (Disaggregated by small-scale irrigation,

micro-irrigation, and household irrigation) (Results Framework indicator)

Area provided with irrigation and drainage services (ha) New (Disaggregated by small-scale

irrigation, micro-irrigation, and household irrigation) (Results Framework indicator)

Area provided with irrigation and drainage services - Improved (ha) (only small-scale irrigation is

improved) (Results Framework indicator)

Number of irrigation infrastructures feasibility studies on-going (disaggregated by SSI, MI, HHI).

Number of irrigation infrastructures feasibility studies finalized (disaggregated by SSI, MI, HHI).

Number of irrigation infrastructures construction on-going (disaggregated by SSI, MI, HHI).

Number of irrigation infrastructures finalized and functional (disaggregated by SSI, MI, HHI).

Number of irrigation infrastructures functional with drinking water. (to be collected by woreda

coordinator with support of women’s affairs)

Number of irrigation infrastructures functional with livestock drinking water. (to be collected by

woreda coordinator)

Number of irrigation infrastructures functional with a washing basin. (to be collected by woreda

coordinator with support of women’s affairs)

Number of irrigation infrastructures feasibility studies finalized with drinking water. (to be

collected by woreda coordinator with support of women’s affairs)

Number of irrigation infrastructures feasibility studies finalized with livestock drinking water. (to

be collected by woreda coordinator)

Number of irrigation infrastructures feasibility studies finalized with a washing basin. (to be

collected by woreda coordinator with support of women’s affairs)

Km of roads built.

Number of direct beneficiaries of irrigation infrastructures.

Number of women direct beneficiaries of irrigation infrastructures.

Number of beneficiaries having access to drinking water through irrigation infrastructures. . (to be

collected by woreda coordinator with support of women’s affairs).

54

SUB-COMPONENT 3.2: INTEGRATED CROP AND WATER MANAGEMENT (ICWM) FOR IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE

Number of Irrigation Water User Associations established.

Number of members in Irrigation Water User Associations established.

Number of women members in Irrigation Water User Associations established.

Percentage of functional Irrigation Water User Associations (IWUAs) managing effectively

irrigation and drainage infrastructures.(Results Framework indicator)

Number of farmers trained on water lifting technologies, low cost drilling technologies and water

saving technologies.

Number of women farmers trained on water lifting technologies, low cost drilling technologies

and water saving technologies.

COMPONENT 4: AGRICULTURAL MARKETING AND VALUE CHAINS

Percentage of CIGs undertaking a viable business activity (disaggregated youth CIGs and female

CIGs)(Results Framework indicator)

SUB-COMPONENT 4.1: SUPPORTING AGRICULTURAL INPUT SUPPLY SYSTEM

Support to promotion and distribution of improved agricultural inputs

Volume of seeds produced by CBSPs certified

Volume of seeds produced by CBSPs (disaggregated by crop and fodder)

Number of CBSPs in a partnership/contract with private sector, public seed enterprise and/or

cooperatives

Total number of farmers in CBSPs (CBSPs is referring to CBSPs that are functional defined as

currently producing seeds)

Total female farmers in in CBSPs (CBSPs is referring to CBSPs that are functional defined as

currently producing seeds)

Number of total farmers trained in seed production techniques and distribution

Number of female farmers trained in seed production techniques and distribution

Number of total farmers benefiting from new parent stock chick

Number of female farmers benefiting from new parent stock chick

Number of new parent stock chick distributed to farmers

Number of new parent stock chick produced

Number of liquid nitrogen production plants functional (to be defined: fully equipped, staff

trained, distribution is taking place, etc)

Number of woredas with IT based input tracking system functional (Annex definition/checklist:

information are reaching the directorate in a timely basis, etc…)

Volume of seed marketed through direct seed marketing

Volume of fertilizer marketed through direct marketing (will only start 3rd year)

Volume of crop protection chemicals marketed through direct marketing (will only start 3rd year)

Volume of farm implements marketed through direct marketing (will only start 3rd year)

Number of contracts signed for direct marketing (disaggregated per type: seeds, fertilizers, etc.)

55

Number of updated input/output regulations and certification systems approved and enforced by

government/concerned institutions (disaggregated per type).

Regulatory guidelines for agricultural mechanization technology imports, manufacturing and

distribution approved and enforced by government

Honey residue monitoring plan finalized

SUB-COMPONENT 4.2: SUPPORT TO FARMERS’ ORGANIZATIONS

Establishing and strengthening of common interest group (CIGs)

Number of women CIGs established

Number of youth CIG established

Definition of established: all the following actions have taken place: CIGs are formed and

organized, business area has been identified and feasibility study has been conducted, all the

necessary trainings have been conducted and a code of conduct and by laws for grouo members

have been established. Only when all these actions have taken place the CIG can be accounted for

as established. (make checklist in Annex for DAs so it is easier)

Total number of CIGs established and strengthened (based on PIM steps/criteria define training,

updated business plan, etc)(needed to calculate results framework indicator)

Total number of CIGs undertaking a viable business activity(needed to calculate results

framework indicator)

Number of women CIGs established and strengthened (based on PIM steps/criteria define

training, updated business plan, etc)

Number of women CIGs undertaking a viable business activity (needed to calculate results

framework indicator) Number of youth CIGs established and strengthened (based on PIM steps/criteria define training,

updated business plan, etc)

Number of youth CIGs undertaking a viable business activity(needed to calculate results

framework indicator) Total youth beneficiaries in CIGs with a viable business activity.

Total women beneficiaries in CIGs with a viable business activity.

Establishing and strengthening of primary cooperative and cooperative federation

Number of newly primary cooperatives established

Number of total farmers in newly primary cooperatives established

Number of women farmers in newly primary cooperatives established

Number of women CIGs transformed in primary cooperative

Number of youth CIGs transformed in primary cooperative

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation established

(by laws and business plans prepare, etc, went through all the steps described in the PIM)

Number of MoU signed between cooperatives, RUSACCOs and MFIs

Number of board of directors, union managers and employees trained at Federal level

(disaggregated by gender)

56

Number of board of directors, union managers and employees trained at Zonal level


Number of board of directors, union managers and employees trained at woreda level


Number of local experience sharing visits conducted

Number of cooperative members participating in local experience sharing visits

Number of women cooperative members participating in local experience sharing visits

Number of agricultural cooperative staff trained at Federal level (disaggregated by gender)

Number of agricultural cooperative staff trained at Zonal level (disaggregated by gender)

Number of agricultural cooperative staff trained at woreda level (disaggregated by gender)

Number of local experience sharing visits conducted

Number of agricultural cooperative staff participating in local experience sharing visits

Number of women agricultural cooperative staff participating in local experience sharing visits

Number of platforms and forums organized to oversee cooperative activities for AGP

Number of monitoring and evaluation review meeting conducted by FCA to review AGP

activities conducted for cooperatives

Number of participants and type of participants to M&E review meetings (attendance sheet)

SUB-COMPONENT 4.3: SUPPORT AGRIBUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

Number of commercial partnerships or market contracts signed between producer groups or

cooperatives (supported by the project) and domestic/international agribusiness actors

(processors, wholesalers, retailers, exporters, etc.) for selected VCs (Results Framework

indicator collected by USAID contractor)

SUB-COMPONENT 4.4: SUPPORT MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

Construction and Modernizing Management of Market Centers

Number of market centers fully functional (Annex checklist+definition)

Management committee functional, market includes latrine, cf government standards, etc.

Number of market centers committee fully functional (check list) (established with a composition

of 30% women, trained, meet regularly, conduct maintenance as need arise, )

Number of market shed fully functional (Annex checklist+ definition) (committee fully

functional, construction finalized, include latrines/water, activity is taking place products are

being sold, etc.)

Volume of vegetables and fruits sold

Number of market shed users (source of info list of beneficiaries reviewed by MC to avoid double

counting)

Number of market shed women users

Volume of milk sold at milk collection centers

Volume of milk processed product sold (yoghurt, butter, etc.)

Volume of honey sold

Volume of processed honey sold

57

Number of market shed users (source of info list of beneficiaries reviewed by MC to avoid double

counting)

Number of market shed women users

Support to construction of warehouse infrastructure

Volume of commodities stored and sold in AGP2 supported warehouse infrastructures.

Volume of inputs stored and distributed to the farmers from AGP2 supported warehouse

infrastructures.

Number of warehouses fully functional (checklist annex, coop trained, O&M, etc.)

COMPONENT 5: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, CAPACITY BUILDING AND MONITORING AND EVALUATION

SUB-COMPONENT 5.1: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

Number of Federal SC meeting conducted

Number of Regional SC meeting conducted

Number of Woreda SC meeting conducted

Number of Federal TC meeting conducted

Number of Regional TC meeting conducted

Number of Zonal TC meeting conducted

Number of Woreda TC meeting conducted

Number of environmental Management Plan’s and final subprojects designs cleared by Bureau of

Environmental Protection and Land Use Administration

Number of resettlement Action Plans that have been fully executed before physical displacement

of people

Number of gender taskforce meetings conducted

AGP Staff/ Focal Person in place at Zonal.

AGP Staff/ Focal Person in place at Woreda.

SUB-COMPONENT 5.2: MONITORING AND EVALUATION

MIS system fully functional at Federal level and in all regions.

SUB-COMPONENT 5.3: CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT FACILITY

Reporting on Trainings (to be defined with capacity building facility)

Capacity Development support facility in place and functional in all regions.

58

SETTING, ASSESSINGAND USING INDICATORS PERFORMANCE TARGETS

Setting Targets for Indicators

Targets are set for all indicators along the results chain. They are particularly difficult to set at the

outcome level compared to the output level. One of the main difficulties is to balance between

reality and the ambition of the project team and government. Several methods can be used to set

targets at the outcome level, below are some of the main methods examples1:

• Past performance analysis and/or historical trend analysis can be used if the project is a

second phase or if similar project/component interventions have been undertaken in the past. It

can help forecast future targets based on previous experiences.

• Strategy analysis and analysis of implementation planning is a review of the theory of

change and it takes into account the level of budget allocation, the implementation plan of the

project, the level, allocation and sequencing of activities of the project and the implementation

capacity of the project staff and IAs to set targets.

• Analysis of applied research & evaluation findings is about using latest research

informing setting targets.

• Expert opinions from IAs or the sector on specific indicators can inform setting targets.

Most of these methods have some overlap and can also be used in a complementary manner. It is

also particularly important to conduct a contextual analysis, which will identify factors affecting

the progression towards targets such as specific policies, current government sector strategies and

reforms, potential synergies with other government and/or donor projects, etc.

Assessing Indicators Performance Targets

Typically, each indicator is assigned a performance target, which are useful to highlight issues or

successes in the project that need to be further analyzed to understand results. However, targets

do not provide information on why a project fails or succeeds and they do not give a complete

picture of progress and achievements2. They can trigger the following questions:

• Why were some targets not met and how can the program address these issues?;

• Are the results chain/theory of change, planning and sequencing of activities and outputs

adequate to reach the current targets?;

• Why some targets were missed or overpassed and is it affecting other parts of the project

and is it related to the quality of planning of the project? ;

• Do targets need to be adjusted?; and

• What are the lessons learned and recommendations to achieve the project goals?

• Should a specific evaluation or study be conducted to investigate the issues identified?

Matrix to Report on Selected Indicators Progress*

Indicators Unit Annual Target

This Quarter Achieved until this Quarter

(%) of Annual Target

End of Project Target

Achieved until this Quarter (%) of End of Project Target

Planned Achieved Performance(%)

Component 1 Agricultural Production and Commercialization

1M&E Insights: Setting Targets ,USAID

2M&E Insights: Setting Targets ,USAID

59

*The matrix will be followed by comments (when needed) explaining why were some targets

not met and how can the program address these issues.

To enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring process, AGP-2 will hold bi-annual assessments

of data quality (within reports of a sample of DAs, woreda focal persons and RPCUs) combined

with mentoring and re-training as necessary to help address issues related to data quality as

identified by the assessments.3

SAFEGUARDS MONITORING

Throughout implementation, AGP2 is required to carry out safeguard monitoring to ensure that

the program brings intended benefits, while ensuring that potential adverse environmental and

social impacts are avoided or minimized. Safeguard monitoring will include environmental and

social performance reviews by a local consultant contracted to visit a sample of AGP-2 woredas

each year to assess compliance with safeguard instruments, determine lessons learnt and provide

guidance for improving future performance.

PROJECT EVALUATION

EVALUATION OF OUTCOME AND IMPACT

Achievement and progress towards AGP2 results will be measured by indicators of the Results

Framework, additional outcome indicators (list above section)and various studies/evaluation. To

capture outcomes and impact a comprehensive baseline household surveyis planned for the first

year of AGP-2 and will be followed by a midterm evaluation in early FY19 and a final survey and

evaluation in FY21. This household survey will also be an opportunity to assess the impact of the

project beyond productivity and commercialization such as household nutrition (diet diversity of

women and children), women overall livelihood, etc.

The evaluations of AGP2 will also include: (i) household surveys of direct beneficiaries; (ii)

qualitative studies of extension services and adoption of technologies (impact, including

crosscutting issues: gender, nutrition and climate smart, etc.); (iii) qualitative studies of research

processes (including process, product and potential impact); (iv) qualitative studies of the FREGs;

(v) qualitative evaluation of efficiency use of water combined with technical audit and cost

benefit analysis of infrastructures; and (vi) qualitative evaluation of a sample of trainings. In

addition, CASCAPE will be conducting learning case studies. Additional evaluations will be

undertaken through USAID parallel funding (TBD). In addition, evaluations will be

complemented by yearly thematic assessments (taking into account cross-sectoral issues: gender,

nutrition and climate smart) as need arise and taking into account the need to be informed. The

assessments will be agreed at the Federal SC at the outset of each fiscal year.AGP-2 will also

oversee gender evaluations to study the effectiveness of the program’s gender mainstreaming.

In addition, further qualitative surveys will be conducted as required, for example this could

include studies on the adoption and impact of agricultural technologies promoted by the program,

nutritional impacts in terms of household dietary consumption, profitability and rates of return on

3Together with regional M&E officers, tool to evaluate the quality of reports has already been developed under AGP-1

and being used Oromiya and SNNPR. The results are used to give feedback to woreda administrators on the strength of

reports.

60

investments by CIGs, and qualitative studies on changes in service delivery (extension, animal

health, plant health, soil health).

Other Examples of evaluation

The qualitative assessment of farmers’ satisfaction (male and female) with extension services

(trainings/demonstration/other DA support (TBD in the detailed methodology such as access to

inputs, credit, etc.). The consultants will conduct focus groups (male and female) and interview of

farmers to assess the access, reliability and quality of extension services they have received by: (i)

DAs at FTCs; (ii) DAs on farmers demonstration plot; and (iii) by model farmers on farmers plot;

(iv) during farmers field days. It can also encompass the content of trainings/demonstrations,

appropriateness of technologies introduced, effectiveness of the DA, etc. The results will be

disaggregated by type of category of trainings/demonstration (crop, livestock, NRM) and male

farmers and women farmers.

The qualitative assessment of the functioning of FTCs and quality of FTCs activities supported by

AGP will be evaluated. The functioning of FTCs will look at the level of equipment and how

operational are FTCs (see Annex 1) and sustainability of AGP support/interventions. The review

of the quality of FTCs activities will include: type of demonstration/training provided to farmers

for the past 2 years, type of practices disseminated, innovations introduced, gender sensitive

technologies, FTC management committees, etc. It is expected that a larger sample of FTCs

would be visited by the consultant team just to assess its functioning that for the qualitative

assessment of farmers’ satisfaction with extension services.

The evaluation of extension services impact on farmers (male and female). It includes assessing

the following possible impacts/changes in: (i) knowledge, attitudes, skills; sustainable agricultural

practices; (ii) aspiration, self-image, perspectives; (iii) farming practices; (iv) cropping intensity,

cropping pattern, crop diversification, yield; (v) the revenue, the income, nutrition, household

welfare, etc. It will also be important to assess the sustainability of the benefits/impact identified.

Evaluation of impact of irrigation infrastructures looking at the development of irrigated area, the

number of beneficiaries (disaggregated by gender), the quality of water user associations, the

linkages with extension services and input markets to allow higher value crops to be grown, the

change in farming practices, the cropping intensity, cropping pattern, the yield, the revenue, the

income, the crop diversification, nutrition, livelihood, the sustainability of the benefits/impact on

yield/farming practices/diversification, beneficiaries ownership of the infrastructure, etc.

The technical audit of infrastructures will assess the quality of infrastructures construction by: (i)

assessing the quality of works in the field (using detailed inspection checklist), comparing the

quality of infrastructures built to actual technical design documents, technical drawings, planned

budget and to government sector set standards; (ii) identifying change from original drawings or

budget, looking at unit cost data, etc.

The assessment of the quality of construction/rehabilitation processes implemented will evaluate

the quality of processes from identification to hand over of the infrastructures to

kebele/infrastructures management committee/water user association. It includes evaluating:

identification of infrastructures, standard technical management procedures, technical documents

availability, construction time period, beneficiaries opportunities for employment, inspection of

design, environmental impact, acquisition of land and other assets(land required for

infrastructure: no land required/donated in accordance with procedure/donated not in accordance

with procedures/experienced serious compensation conflicts), hand over of works, etc.

61

The evaluation of infrastructures functioning and benefits to beneficiarieswill assess with gender

lenses: (i) the level of functioning of infrastructures (assess whether infrastructures functions

completely, does not function in parts, had functioned, but now damage and never functioned)

functioning water user associations/infrastructures committee management maintenance of

infrastructures (including if they are formed and active, formed but less active and never formed);

(ii) maintenance of infrastructures (maintenance activities, maintenance plans, maintenance

meetings (meeting held, attendance, etc)); (iii) determination of maintenance needs; (iv)

monitoring of maintenance; (v) responsibility for maintenance; (vi) sustainability of the

infrastructures; (vii) benefits from infrastructures to direct beneficiaries (nutrition, livelihood,

etc.); (viii)sustainability of the benefits to direct beneficiaries; (ix)usage of infrastructures; (x)

cost-benefit analysis, etc.

Evaluation of the quality of planning of woreda plans (as such community investments sub-

projects and farmers common interest groups sub-projects). Reviewing the quality of planning

implies evaluating if it is demand-driven, participatory, transparent, market driven and if there is

ownership and sustainability. The scope of the assignment will also include taking into account

the level of collaboration with Implementing Agencies and partner projects such as AGP-AMD

and CASCAP for planning and implementing work plans at the local level. The report will also

provide lessons learned and recommendations to enhance the CLPP manual if required. The

evaluation will pay particular attention to women involvement in the planning process.It will also

assess if planning occurs as described in the CLPP manual.

EVALUATION OF CAPACITY BUILDING ACTIVITIES AND IMPACT

To be updated with the Capacity Building Facility.

GENDER IMPACT EVALUATION

Waiting for Niklas Impact Evaluation note

LEARNING WORKSHOPS AND FORA

Workshop will be organized on bi-annual basis at federal level and regional level to share lesson

(obtained on reporting, field supervision, and studies) and give direction to improve performance.

These workshops will include PCUs and all relevant implementers. Mobilization of issues for the

workshop will be generated focusing on program implementation progress. Facilitation is the

responsibility of program coordination units.

AGP2 will promote internal learning by organizing learning forum in combination with kebele

meetings, during which farmers will discuss results achieved with AGP2 activities, progress on

intended objectives and implementation problems and/or best practices following simple visual

formats. The kebele chairperson will be chairing the meetings and other KDC members will

facilitate discussion. The learning forum will be attended by as many kebele community members

as possible. Those issues requiring help from woreda will be raised to the woreda coordinator.

Success stories, innovations and lessons identified will be shared within the community and with

the woreda coordinator and implementing agencies. Local learning activities will also include

62

cross-farmer monitoring (farmers monitor other farmers’ activities/sub-projects) so as to take

advantage of the opportunities that this provides for learning from each other.

IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION REPORT

For project closure, an independent consultant will be contracted to prepare the project final

evaluation of the program. The consultant will conduct this overall evaluation of the program

evaluation based on project reports, evaluations, case studies, staff interviews, etc.

MAINSTREAMING GENDER, NUTRITION AND CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE IN PLANNING AND M&E

Ensure that the project staffing and project capacity development plan reflects M&E, gender,

nutrition and CSA needs. An effective M&E for gender, nutrition and CSA relies on a strong

collaboration between project gender experts, M&E officers, nutrition experts, CSA experts and

other project staff and implementing agencies (IAs). Terms of Reference for the project staff and

project capacity development plan should include M&E, gender, nutrition and CSA.

Link the routine monitoring systems of gender, nutrition and CSA to the planning processes

(work plan and budget). As such, gender, nutrition and CSA activities will be identified in the

project annual/quarterly plans, as if it is not in the plan little progress will materialize in terms of

gender, nutrition, CSA outputs and outcome of the project. In addition, when planning ensure that

the target for the number of beneficiaries of a specific activity is disaggregated by gender.

Monitor progress of gender in CSA through annual plan progress and quarterly/annual

reports. Quarterly/annual reports will also include outputs and outcome results based on an

agreed format, which is gender, nutrition and CSA informed.

Ensure commitment from various Implementing Agencies to report on gender, nutrition and

CSA by supporting continuous sensitizing, trainings and refresher trainings on gender,

nutrition and CSA.

Integrate gender, nutrition, CSA in supervision of activities to review the M&E system. It

should be included in the review of progress, issues and recommendations. Supervision check list

per component could be developed. Based on supervision, provide gender, nutrition, CSA and/or

M&E technical assistance based on issues identified.

Assess if the priorities identified by men and women in the planning phase have been met.

Ensure there is an opportunity for all groups to voice their views.

Conduct qualitative and quantitative evaluations to assess progress and results. Identify

bottlenecks and draw lessons learned for gender, nutrition and CSA. Focus on who has benefited

from the project, quality of women benefits from CSA and nutrition, which barriers may have

arisen to the uptake of CSA or nutrition practices and how men’ and women’s time-use has

changed, etc. Ensure that final evaluation reports’ highlight the findings of the various gender

evaluations, the sex-disaggregated and gender-sensitive indicators, nutrition and CSA evaluations

conducted under the project. Important areas to highlight may include the gender-based division

63

of labour, changes in capacity of men and women as a result of the project, and equitable

distribution of benefits.

Disseminate lessons learned, material and results on gender, nutrition, CSA within the project

and outside stakeholders. The dissemination of lessons learned can be under various formats for

example: women farmers’ nutrition storytelling, case studies on women farmers and CSA

livestock technologies, best practice on CSA extension services innovation impact on men and

women farmers, fliers on nutrition lessons learned, etc.

Important Definitions

Women farmers:it refersto Female Head of Household and married women in Male Headed

Household.

Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs and interest of

female farmers; (ii) technologies that reduce time and labor for women farmers; and (iii)

technologies that are accessible and affordable by women farmers.

Technologies for nutrition: refer to technologies (i) increasing production and consumption for a

range of diverse nutrient dense food; and (ii) improving post- harvest handling, preservation and

processing to improve availability of good nutritional quality and safe food.

CSA technologiesunder the project refer: to technologies that increase productivity and resilience

(adaptation).

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR M&E

The capacity Development Support Facility (CDSF) financed by DFATD will provide significant

technical support for M&E at all levels and throughout the project in order to (i) improve the

quality of M&E capacity development interventions; and (ii) strengthen the M&E institutional

capacity of Implementation Agencies (IAs). The Development Support Facility will also track its

own set of indicators, which will be included in the M&E manual and be reported on once it is

developed.

64

ANNEX 1: FEASIBILITY STUDIES/NEEDS ASSESSMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION PLANFOR FINANCING SPECIFIC INVESTMENTS

A significant number of AGP2 activities requires a feasibility study or need assessment to decide if the activity should be financed and/or

how it should be financed. Therefore, it is critical to closely track the status of each feasibility study or need assessment on a quarterly basis.

The matrix below will be updated quarterly to track progress.

Definition of feasibility studies/needs assessment different stages: ☐TOR : Terms of reference are finalized.

☐Bidding: The bidding process is on-going (if there is a need for a bid)

☐On-going: The need assessment/feasibility study is on-going.

☐Draft: A draft need assessment/feasibility study has been submitted to PCU and World Bank.

☐Finalized: The need assessment/feasibility study is finalized.

☐Under implementation: The results of need assessment/feasibility study are being used and the activity is implemented based on these results.

Matrix to be updated based on Ibrahim Assessment

FEASIBILITY STUDIES/NEEDS

ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


COMPONENT 1: AGRICULTURAL PUBLIC SUPPORT SERVICES 1. Needs assessment (physical and human)

and detailed implementation plan for

capacity development of extension

services.

Capacity development of extension services

(physical and human).

Consultants/PCU/MoA Needs assessment

and implementation

plan finalized by

January, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

2. Feasibility and management plan

prerequisitefor establishment of small-

scale modern bee queen rearing

Establishment of small-scale modern bee

queen rearing demonstration and training

centers.

Consultants/PCU/MoA Feasibility and

management plan

finalized by March,

2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

65


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


demonstration and training centers ☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation


prerequisite to assist the National

Artificial Insemination Center (NAIC) to

develop a milk performance recording

system in order to allow the identification

of superior dairy sires to be selected for

semen collection and breed improvement

Assist National Artificial Insemination

Center (NAIC) to develop a milk

performance recording system.


management plan

finalized by March,

2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation


prerequisite for the establishment of a fish

hatchery center in the Amhara region.

Establishment of a fish hatchery center in

the Amhara region.


management plan

finalized by March,

2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

5. Needs assessmentof Animal Health

Services (physical and human (capacity

building and staffing)) and detailed

implementation plan to provide detailed

plans for how facilities and equipment

would be operated, managed and

maintained and, in relation to this, clear

staffing plans, including a commitment of

the public “owner” to provide resources for

staffing, and if necessary a plan for human

capacity development.

1. National & regional laboratories for:

(i) improving poultry disease diagnostic

capacities;

(ii) strengthening the Central Veterinary

Drug and Feed Quality Control Laboratory;

(iii) strengthening the diagnostic and analysis

capacities of the National Tsetse and

Trypanosomiasis Control Institute; and

(iv) strengtheningdiagnostic capacities of the

NAIC to ensure appropriate testing of the

quality of semen according to the

recommendations of the World Organization

of Animal Health.

2. Regional animal health laboratories,


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

66


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


clinics and health posts forthe provision

of essential equipment.

3. Disease surveillance for supporting costs

associated with the disease information

system for major transboundary, zoonotic

diseases would be covered.

4. Human resources and physical capacity

development for:

(i) training of trainers on animal production

and product processing, animal disease

surveillance and health management, animal

health climate adaptation and mitigation

practices, good manufacturing and control

practices of veterinary drugs and animal feed,

machines and equipment maintenance (e.g.,

maintenance of semen and liquid nitrogen

equipment);

(ii) short term trainings, experience sharing

and study tours (abroad), and workshops on

adapting production’s quality to market

requirements;

(iii) production of training manuals and the

production of video film for extension

services.

6. Needs assessmentof Plant Health

Services (physical and human (capacity

building and staffing)) and detailed

implementation plan for how facilities

and equipment would be operated,

managed and maintained and, in relation to

1. Establishment of plant quarantine

stations, plant health clinics and the

supply of critical equipment;

2. Support to the establishment of crop

loss data-base through the provision of

consultancy services for the establishment


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

67


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


this, clear staffing plans, including a

commitment of the public “owner” to

provide resources for staffing, and if

necessary a plan for human capacity

development.

of the data base in the Plant Health

Regulatory Directorate;

3. Purchase of critical laboratory

equipment and supplies for the

establishment of an International

Standard Pesticide Laboratory;

4. Strengthen the Federal Plant Protection

Laboratory and regional plant health

clinics through the provision of the critical

equipment and supplies;

5. Support to the national seeds quality

analysis laboratory through the provision

of the critical equipment and supplies.

7. Needs/Gap assessmentof Soil Fertility

Management (physical and human) and

detailed implementation plan for how

facilities and equipment would be

operated, managed and maintained and, in

relation to this, clear staffing plans,

including a commitment of the public

“owner” to provide resources for staffing,

and if necessary a plan for human capacity

development.

The need assessment might consider:

(i) strengthening Soil Testing Laboratories

(critical equipment and supplies, technical

support, and skill development);

(ii) strengthening soil mapping capacities;

(TA, critical equipment, IT and software,

network); (iii) promoting acid soil

Activities financed based on need assessment

type:

(i) strengthening Soil Testing Laboratories

(critical equipment and supplies, technical

support, and skill development);

(ii) strengthening soil mapping capacities;

(TA, critical equipment, IT and software,

network);

(iii) promoting acid soil management

(promotion of lime production); and

(iv) promotion of bio-fertilizer production

(promotion of rhizobia inoculates).


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

68


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


management (promotion of lime

production); and (iv) promotion of bio-

fertilizer production (promotion of rhizobia

inoculates).

8. Needs assessmentof natural resources

management and soil fertility

management at the community level

(physical and human) and detailed

recommendations for local communities

On the basis of the recommendation of a

needs’ assessment, the project will support

capacity building interventions to local

communities in natural resources management

through different combinations of the

following activities: (a) awareness creation

and training;

(b) provision of field and office equipment

and critical supplies; and

(c) provision of extension services such as

demonstrations, field days, ‘hands-on’

exercises, exposure visits and study tours.


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

COMPONENT 2: AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH 9. Needs assessmentof research institutions

(physical and human (capacity building and

staffing)) and detailed implementation

plan for how facilities and equipment

would be operated, managed and

maintained and, in relation to this, clear

staffing plans, including a commitment of

the public “owner” to provide resources for

staffing, and if necessary a plan for human

capacity development.

It would take into account other initiatives

On the basis of the recommendation of a

needs’ assessment, the project could finance:

Physical capacity including, mobility and

machineries such as farm machineries (tillage,

planting,

harvesting),development/rehabilitation of

irrigation facilities (pivot, drip, pump

borehole), and establishing/strengthening of

cold stores.

Critical equipment and facilities for thecrop

protection and quarantine laboratories, the soil


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

69


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


supporting similar activities to avoid overlap.

Possible investment that could be considered

within the needs’ assessment could include for

example:

a) Physical capacity

b) Critical equipment and facilities

c) Human capacity development

analysis laboratory, the agronomy-

physiology/seed laboratory, the post-harvest

and quality laboratories, the animal health and

nutrition laboratory, the biotechnology/tissue

culture laboratory, the Geographic Information

System and remote sensing laboratory, the

establishment of automatic agro-

meteorological stations, and cold stores, green,

net and lath houses.

Human capacity development including

short term trainings for researchers and

technical assistants, workshops and knowledge

sharing activities, trainings of trainers to

strengthen links between research and

extension.

COMPONENT 3: SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION 10. Needs assessment of BoW/Irrigation

Development Authority at regional, zonal

and woreda offices (physical and human)

and detailed implementation plan

On the basis of the needs’ assessment, the

project could finance:

(i) critical equipment such as office

equipment and facilities, field equipment,

vehicles, technical books, etc.;

(ii) preparation, multiplication and

diffusion of technical training materials on

irrigation design and management;

(iii) training, knowledge and skill

development at all levels including

technicians and smallholder farmers;

(iv) experience sharing tours; and

(v) short-term overseas study tours.


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

11. Needs assessment (human Capacity building activities that could be Consultants/PCU/MoA Needs assessment ☐ TOR

70


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


resources/skills gap) in water

management and agronomic practices of

farmers, DAs and SMSs at woreda,

zonal, regional, and federal levels.

considered to be financed under the project

could include:

(i) training of farmers, DAs, and SMSs at

the woreda, zonal, regional, and federal

levels in improved irrigation water

management and agronomic practices;

(ii) training of IWUA committees on

improved methods of managing available

water resources, settle disputes over water,

and keep proper records; and

(iii) practical training and experience

sharing tours to experts and farmers.

and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

COMPONENT 4: AGRICULTURE MARKETING AND VALUE CHAINS 12. Detailed study to assess current capacity

of liquid nitrogen production in the

country, needs of liquid nitrogen for

artificial insemination and distribution

capacity.

Rehabilitating of existing liquid nitrogen

machines and/or purchase of new ones for

the semen collection centers located in the

project’s woredas.


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

13. Feasibility/needs assessment of input and

output regulation and certification.

On the basis of the feasibility/need assessment:

(i) development of regulatory guidelines for

agricultural mechanization technology

imports, manufacturing and distribution;

and

(ii) preparation of residue monitoring plan

for honey.


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

14. Needs assessment (human resources) for

input supply to inform the capacity

development activities to be undertaken.

(i) training of regional SMS on improved

crop and forage seed production technology,

and planting material multiplication;


and implementation

plan finalized by

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

71


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


(ii) TA, advisory services and experience

sharing visits for formal farmer’s

organization, involved in seed production and

distribution; and

(iii) training and regional/zonal workshops

on inputs tracking.

March, 2016 ☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

15. Needs assessment for federal, regional,

zonal, and district cooperative promotion

agencies to increase their capacity.

Trainings Consultants/PCU/MoA Needs assessment

and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

16. Feasibility study of the establishment of

National Cooperative Federation.

Establishment of NCF, preparation of

bylaws and a business plan for the NCF.


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

17. Needs assessment (physical and human)

of cooperative unions and agricultural

cooperatives support services.

Regular technical and managerial trainings

and experience sharing of board of

directors, union managers, and cooperatives

members.

Preparation of training modules and

materials, workshops and consultative

forum, exchange visits, awareness and

trainings on nutrition and CSA, and regular

trainings on agriculture gender

mainstreaming and leadership to support

inclusion of women in the leadership


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

72


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


position of farmers’ organizations.

18. Feasibility studies and business plans for

regulated primary markets. Design and construction of the selected

markets, preparation of guidelines on the

utilization and management of the market

centers and provision of technical support

such as advisory services and short term

trainings to promote effective use and

management of market centers.


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

19. Detailed analytical work in order to

assess the feasibility of warehouses,

storage and grading facilities as a public

intervention and evaluation of the pilot

to draw lessons learned. This work would

include an evidence-based justification for

public investment (e.g., market failure),

define clear modalities for support under

the project which would not crowd out

private investment; and describe a clearly

stated exit strategy. It would evaluate the

pilot supported under AGP1 to draw

lessons. In addition, proposals would

include a detailed plan for how facilities

and equipment would be operated, managed

and maintained; and in relation to this, a

clear staffing plan needs to be prepared,

including commitment of the public

“owner” to provide resources for staffing,

and if necessary a plan for human capacity

development

Construction and management of

warehouses, storage and grading facilities


and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ TOR

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

20. Diagnostic study of existing market Providing technical support to design, test Consultants/PCU/MoA Needs assessment ☐ TOR

73


ASSESMENT AND

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN


WHAT?


information status, ownership, efficiency

and gaps.

21. Review of capacities and gaps of

institutions that are engaged in collection

and dissemination of market

information.

and implementation of market information

system.

and implementation

plan finalized by

March, 2016

☐ Bidding

☐ On-going

☐ Draft

☐ Finalized

☐ Under

implementation

74

ANNEX 2: REPORTING FORMATS

REPORTING ON ARDPLACs

(To be submitted each quarter to staff responsible for Agriculture Public Services component of

AGP2 and M&E for AGP2 at the Region level and AGP2 Woreda Coordinator)

BASIC INFORMATION

Reporting period: ………………………

Region:……………. Zone:…………… Woreda:………………

Status of ARDPLACs: Formed: ☐ Strengthened: ☐

Number of ARDPLACs meetings:……………..

ARDPLACs institutions composition:………………….

ARDPLACs MEETINGS

Topics/Issues, Achievements/Success and Gender/Nutrition/CSA (to be reported yearly)

1. Most frequent

topics/issues for discussion

during ARDPLACs

meeting in the past year?

(Review agenda for

discussion, 5 most

recurrent topics)

2. State 5 major

achievements / success

(results) of ARDPLACs

contribution (solutions

provided based on

topics/issues discussed)

3. State specific

gender/nutrition/CSA

topics/ discussed during

ARDPLACs meetings in

the past year? If any.

4. State specific gender and

youth achievements

/success (results) of

ARDPLACs contribution

(solutions provided based

on topics/issues discussed)

If any.

5. State 3 major

implementation problems

that affects the proper

functioning of ARDPLAC

(from high to low priority

order)

75

REPORTING FORMAT FOR DEVELOPMENT AGENTS ON FARMING TRAINING CENTER STATUS AND FARMING TRAINING CENTER ACTIVITIES

(To be submitted each quarter to staff responsible for Agriculture Public Services component of

AGP2 and M&E for AGP2 at the Region level and AGP2 Woreda Coordinator)

Do not forget to disaggregate by gender (female refers to Female Head of Household and

married female)

BASIC INFORMATION


FTC Name:…..……………………………..

Region:……………. Woreda:……………… Kebele:………………

Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………

Female DA: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Name of SMS supporting DAs:…………………………………………………………………….

FARMER TRAINING CENTERS

FTC need assessment conducted: ☐ Yes ☐ No

FTC level objective: ☐ Basic ☐ Intermediate ☐ Advanced

FTC level achieved so far: ☐ Basic ☐ Intermediate ☐ Advanced

Status of FTC to reach level (tick boxes accordingly):

Basic Intermediate Advanced

☐ At least 3 DAs

☐ Moderately furnished FTC

building

• ☐ Demonstration area of less

than 2.5 ha

• ☐ FTC management

committee

• ☐ Active community

management structure

• ☐ Adequate level of

facilities/equipment in place for

FTC training and demonstrations

• ☐ At least 3 FTC trainings and

demonstrations conducted

• ☐ FTC trainings sufficiently

linked to demonstrations of 2.5 ha

• ☐ FTC training materials,

manuals and guidelines

• ☐ Provide competence based

training

• ☐ Revenue generation from

multiple crop and livestock

enterprises for self-sufficiency

• ☐ Active linkage with

cooperatives, MFIs, research

centers and ATVETs

• ☐ Handle training of level 1,

2 and 3

• ☐ Operational resource

centers (connectivity,

information)

FTC with cooking facility and providing cooking classes: ☐ Yes ☐ No

DEMONSTRATION

76

Improved Technologies at FTC

Total number of improved technology demonstration conducted at FTC: ……..

- Number for crop:…… - Number for livestock:…… - Number for NRM:……

Number of gender sensitive improved technology demonstration conducted at FTC: …….

Number of nutrition improved technology demonstration conducted at FTC: …….

Number of CSA improved technology demonstration conducted at FTC: …….

Number of cooking classes conducted:………

Farmers’ trained on Improved Technologies at FTC

Number of farmers trained at FTCs on improved technologies:……….


Number of female farmers trained at FTCs on improved technologies


Farmers’trained on plot

Number of farmers trained on farmers plot by DAs or model farmers on improved technologies -

Number for crop:…… - Number for livestock:…… - Number for NRM:……

Number of female farmers trained on farmers plot by DAs or model farmers on improved

technologies - Number for crop:…… - Number for livestock:…… - Number for

NRM:……

Number female farmers trained on gender sensitive improved technologies:……….

Total number farmers trained on CSA improved technologies: …….. Female: ……

Number farmers trained on nutrition improved technologies: …….. Female: ……

Overall (At FTC and on Plot)

Number of improved technologies demonstrated Number for crop:…… - Number for

livestock:…… - Number for NRM:……

Number of gender sensitive technologies demonstrated:……….

Number of CSA technologies demonstrated:……………

Number of nutrition sensitive technologies demonstrated:…………..

Definition: Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs and interest of female

farmers; (ii) technologies that reduce time and labor for women farmers; and (iii) technologies that are

accessible and affordable by women farmers.

Technologies for nutrition: refer to technologies (i) increasing production and consumption for a range of

diverse nutrient dense food; and (ii) improving post- harvest handling, preservation and processing to

improve availability of good nutritional quality and safe food.

CSA technologies under the project refer: to technologies that increase productivity and resilience

(adaptation).

Not all technologies are gender sensitive or contributing to improved nutrition or climate smart, but it is

still critical to know for the project how many are being promoted through FTCs/DAs and AGP2 . Some

technologies can contribute to both gender and nutrition For the disaggregation in terms of gender,

nutrition and CSA, it is possible to have double counting of some technologies as some technologies might

contribute to both gender and nutrition or gender and CSA. Some technologies won’t fit in any of the

disaggregation.

ADOPTION

Total farmers who have adopted an improved agricultural technology promoted by the

project:……. Female: ……….

77

Total women farmers who have adopted an improved gender sensitive technology promoted by

the project:…….

Total farmers who have adopted an improved technology for nutrition promoted by the

project:……. Female: ……….

Total farmers who have adopted an improved CSA technology promoted by the project:…….

Female: ……….

The term technology includes a change in practices compared to currently used practices or

technologies (seed preparation, planting time, feeding schedule, feeding ingredients, post-harvest,

storage, processing, etc). If one specific technology is demonstrated in more than one location in

the project area, it will count as one technology. If the project introduced or promotes a

technology package in which the benefit depends on the application of the entire package (e.g., a

combination of inputs such as a new variety and advice on agronomic practices such as soil

preparation, changes in seeding time, fertilizer schedule, plant protection, etc) – this will count as

one technology.

This indicator assesses the number of gender sensitive technologies demonstrated by the project.

Demonstrated: Includes advice given or demonstrated by producer organizations, cooperatives,

extension service, etc. Technologies can be demonstrated during field days, at FTCs training, on

farmers’ plot, etc.

Adoption refers to a change of practice or change in use of a technology that was

introduced/promoted by the project

78

REPORTING ON DEMONSTRATIONS OF IMPROVED TECHNOLOGIES AT FARMER TRAINING CENTER OR FARMERS PLOT OR FARMER FIELD DAYS BY

DEVELOPMENT AGENT


married female)

BASIC INFORMATION


FTC Name:…..……………………………..


Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………



Purpose of Demonstration: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………… (Example of purpose: increase productivity of teff with improved raw planter, introduction of a new crop,

introduction of labor saving technology for women, etc.)

DISSEMINATION TYPE

☐ FTC demonstration ☐ On farmers plot demonstration ☐ Farmer field days

TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY PROMOTED

Type of technology demonstrated (describe):

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Is this a technology gender sensitive? Yes ☐ No ☐

Is this a technology for nutrition? Yes ☐ No ☐

Is this technology climate smart? Yes ☐ No ☐ Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs and interest of female







(adaptation).

79


still critical to know for the project how many are being promoted through FREGs and AGP2 . Some




disaggregation.

Total number of farmers who have been trained/participated in the improved agricultural

technology demonstration: ………….. Number of female farmers: …………

Total number of farmers who have adopted the improved agricultural technology demonstrated:

………….. Number of female farmers: …………

80

REPORTING FORMAT FOR QUEEN REARING CENTERS

ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND FEED RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE


married female)

BASIC INFORMATION

Reporting period:……………….

Queen Rearing Center Name:…..……………………………..

Region:…………….

Name of Officer:……………………

Female: ☐ Yes ☐ No

TRAINING CENTER

Status: ☐ Constructed ☐ Equipped ☐ Functional

Comments:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

TRAININGS

Number of farmers trained in modern queen rearing:…….. Female: …….

Number of modern queen rearing trainings conducted at training centers:……….

Type of trainings conducted:

- …………………………..

- …………………………..

- …………………………..

- …………………………..

- …………………………..

- …………………………..

81

REPORTING FORMAT FOR FISH HATCHERY CENTER AMHARA REGION

ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND FEED RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORATE

BASIC INFORMATION




FISH HATCHERY CENTER

Status: ☐ Constructed ☐ Equipped and Stocked ☐ Fully Functional

Comments:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Volume of fingerlings harvested: …………………

Volume of fingerlings harvested and distributed for pond fish farmers: …………………

82

REPORTING FORMAT FOR HERD PERFORMANCE RECORDING AND ELECTRONIC DATA MANAGEMENT AT SEMEN PRODUCTION CENTER

NATIONAL ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION CENTER

BASIC INFORMATION




Number of staff trained on dairy herd performance recording: …………. Female: ………..

Number of dairy farms with a functional dairy herd performance recording: ……

☐ Oromiya ☐ Tigray ☐ Amhara ☐ SNNP

Number of functional electronic data management system at semen production centers: ……

☐ Kaliti ☐ Nekemte ☐ Bahirdar ☐ Mekele ☐ Hawassa

83

REPORTING FORMAT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH CLINICS

ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER


married female)

BASIC INFORMATION


Animal Health Clinic Name:…..……………………………..

Region:……………. Woreda:………………

Name of animal health workers:…………………………………………………………………


ANIMAL HEALTH CENTER

Animal health clinic need assessment conducted: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Animal health clinic fully functional: ☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Staff trained ☐ Equipment ☐ Drugs availability

☐ Vaccine availability with cold storage

ANIMAL HEALTH CENTER

Number of animal death for cow/bull:………

Number of animal death for sheep:………

Number of animal death for goat:………

Number of animal death for chicken:………

Number of disease outbreak:………….

Type of disease outbreak:………….

Number of farmers’ visits at the animal health clinic:………

Number of women farmers’ visits at the animal health clinics: …….

Number of animal treated at animal health clinics (other than vaccination): ………

Number of cow/bull:………..Number of sheep:……….. Number of goat: …………….. Number

of chicken: ………..

Purpose of visit: ……….

VACCINATION

1) Type of vaccination: ………….

84

Number of animal vaccinated:

Number of cow/bull:……….. Number of sheep:……….. Number of goat: ……………..










DISEASE OUTBREAK

1) Type of disease outbreak: ………….

Number of outbreak


Number of outbreak


Number of outbreak


Number of outbreak

TRAININGS

1) Type of training: ………….

Number of female farmers trained:

Number of male farmers trained:







85

REPORTING FORMAT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH POSTS

ANIMAL HEALTH WORKER


married female)

BASIC INFORMATION


Animal Health Clinic Name:…..……………………………..

Region:……………. Woreda:……………… Kebele: ………………

Name of animal health workers:…………………………………………………………………


ANIMAL HEALTH POST

Animal health post need assessment conducted: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Animal health post fully functional: ☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Staff trained ☐ Equipment ☐ Drugs availability

☐ Vaccine availability with cold storage

ANIMAL HEALTH POST VISITS AND TREATMENT

Number of farmers’ visits at the animal health clinic:………

Number of women farmers’ visits at the animal health clinics: …….

Number of animal treated at animal health clinics (other than vaccination): ………

Number of cow/bull:………..Number of sheep:……….. Number of goat: …………….. Number

of chicken: ………..

Type of treatments: ……………..

VACCINATION








86






DISEASE OUTBREAK


Number of outbreak


Number of outbreak


Number of outbreak:


Number of outbreak:

TRAININGS





Number of female farmers trained:…..





87

REPORTING FORMAT FOR ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORIES

BASIC INFORMATION


Animal Health Laboratories Name:…..……………………………..

Region:……………. Woreda:……………… Kebele: ………………

Name of laboratory worker:…………………………………………………………………

ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORIES

Animal health post need assessment conducted: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Animal health post fully functional (conducting diagnostic, quality control, etc.): ☐ Yes ☐ No

☐ Staff trained ☐ Equipment required available ☐ O&M for maintenance and

equipment allocated

88

REPORTING FORMAT FOR VEGETABLES AND TREE NURSERIES

DEVELOPMENT AGENTS/FARMERS


married female)

BASIC INFORMATION


FTC Name:…..……………………………..


Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………



NURSERY MEMBERS

(will be updated regularly to take into account drop out or new members joining the group)

Number members:…….. Female:………….

Number members trained:…….. Female:………….

SEEDLINGS

Number of seedling planted:…..

Number of vegetables seedlings produced :…..

Number of tree seedlings produced:……

Number of vegetables seedlings produced :…..

Number of tree seedlings produced:……

Number of vegetables seedlings sold :…..

Number of tree seedlings sold:……

Total revenue from the overall sale:……

89

REPORTING ON BEST PRACTICES

MOA TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT


married female)



Name :………………………………………………………………………………………


MoA Department in Charge:…………………………………………………………………….

Purpose of best practice: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………… (Example of purpose: increase productivity of a specific crop, improve post-harvest losses, introduction of

labor saving technology for women, etc.)

TYPE OF BEST PRACTICE PROMOTED

Type of best practice implemented (describe):

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………



Is this technology climate smart? Yes ☐ No ☐ Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs and interest of female







(adaptation).






disaggregation.

ADOPTION OF BEST PRACTICE

Number of farmers adopting this best practice:………….. Female:……….

90

REPORTING ON SMALL-SCALE IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Do not forget to disaggregate by gender (female refers to Female Head of Household and married female)

BASIC INFORMATION



Site Name: ................................... Scheme number: ……..

GPS for head work Easting (UMT): …………………… Northing (UMT):…………

Name of irrigation specialist:………………………………………………………………………

Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………


Type of water source: …………………

Water abstraction means/method: …………………….

Type of irrigation: ☐ small-scale irrigation ☐ micro-irrigation ☐ household irrigation

☐ rehabilitation /improved ☐ new scheme

Irrigation work including: ☐ drinking water ☐ livestock drinking water ☐ washing basin

CA (ha):…………….. GCA (ha):………………. NCA (ha):………………

Date the construction started:……………. Date construction ended:………………….

Engineering estimate (million Birr):……… Contract amount (million Birr):…….. Final project construction cost (million Birr):………

91

Irrigation infrastructure status: ☐ feasibility studies on-going ☐ feasibility studies finalized ☐ construction on-going

☐ construction finalized ☐ infrastructure operational (including drinking water when applicable)

Total number of direct beneficiaries from irrigation infrastructure: ……….. Female:……….

(be careful not household but beneficiaries)

Total number of direct beneficiaries from drinking water infrastructure through irrigation infrastructure (if applicable): ………. Female:……….


SSI IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (Site preparation and construction)

(Ticking the box identify the activity/process as being fully completed)

S. No Description of activities Status Dates when applicable/Remark/Comments

Planning and Project Preparation Phase

1 Conception stage completed ☐

Promotional Conference conducted ☐

IWUC Established and trained ☐

MOU signed among stakeholders ☐

Modality selected (FA or outsource) ☐

2 Identification completed ☐

3 Study and design started ☐

3.1 Study and design started FA ☐

3.2 Study and design started – consultant ☐

Bid document prepared ☐

Bid advertised ☐

Consultant selected and contract awarded ☐

Modality of supervision selected ☐

Supervisor assigned ☐

Contract signed ☐

Study and design started ☐

92

4 Study and design completed ☐

FA ☐

consultant ☐

Implementation Phase ☐

5 Construction work ☐

5.1 Tender document prepared ☐

5.2 Bid advertized ☐

5.3 Bid evaluation completed ☐

5.4 Contract Agreement signed ☐

5.5 Site Reconnaissance surveys made by Supervising

Consultant/Engineer ☐

5.5 Site handing-over/certificate of site possession completed ☐

5.6 Camping and mobilization completed ☐

5.7 Construction status

<25% ☐

26-50% ☐

51-75% ☐

76-99% ☐

Construction completed ☐

Completion Phase ☐

6 Commissioning and Handing-over ☐

6.1 As-built O&M Manual prepared ☐

6.2 As-built drawing prepared ☐

6.3 Commissioning completed ☐

6.4 Handing over completed ☐

6.5 O&M started ☐

Operation and Maintenance Phase ☐

7 Sustainability follow up ☐

O&M Plan prepared ☐

Inspection conducted ☐

93

O&M fund collected ☐

Performance assessment conducted ☐

8 IWUA ☐

8.1 IWUA established ☐

8.2 IWUA Formed/Legally registered ☐

8.3 Training and experience sharing to IWUA ☐

WATER HARVESTING AND MICRO-IRRIGATION IMPLEMENTATION STATUS


S. No Type of schemes on-going Status Dates when applicable/Remark/Comments

Community ponds (CP) ☐

Community Shallow Hand Dug Wells (CSHDW) ☐

Community Shallow Tube Wells (CSTW) ☐

Check Dams (CD) ☐

Mobile Pump Irrigation Projects (MPIPs) ☐

Type of schemes finalized




Check Dams (CD) ☐


Type of schemes functional




Check Dams (CD) ☐


94

REPORTING ON WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Do not forget to disaggregate by gender (female refers to Female Head of Household and married female)

BASIC INFORMATION






Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………


Type of irrigation: ☐ small-scale irrigation ☐ micro-irrigation ☐ household irrigation

☐ rehabilitation /improved ☐ new scheme

Irrigation work including: ☐ drinking water ☐ livestock drinking water ☐ washing basin

CA (ha):…………….. GCA (ha):………………. NCA (ha):………………


New Irrigation Water Users Association: ☐ Yes ☐ No

Total IWUA members:……… Female:………


95

Total IWUA management committee members: …….. Female (50% of women if there are women beneficiaries of the scheme):……..


No Description Status Dates when Applicable/Remark/Comments

1 Formation of Irrigation Water Users

Association (IWUA)

1.1 Establishment of New IWUA

Registered with supervising body (to be designated by each national regional states)

☐

By laws developed (rules for consumption of irrigation water and collect fees)

☐

2 Training of Irrigation Water Users

Association (IWUA)

☐

2.1 Training of IWUA Committee members on (dispute resolution, maintenance of infrastructure, book keeping, financial management, leadership assertiveness, negotiation specifically targeted at female members etc.)

☐ Total number of participants:………. Female:……..

2.2 Training on irrigation water management,

new irrigation technologies, and irrigation

farming methods to IWUA committee

members

☐

Total number of participants:………. Female:……..

2.3 Exposure visit to IWUAs ☐


2.4 Training on irrigated agriculture to

beneficiaries

☐


2.5 Orientation forum to Community and its

representatives

☐


3 Community Contribution mobilized ☐

3.1 In kind (local material) ☐ Million Birr:

96

3.2 In labor ☐ Million Birr:

3.3 In cash ☐ Million Birr:

3.3.

1

Open IWUA Bank Account for contribution

(separate from IWUA main account)

☐

4. Functioning of Schemes ☐ User Fees collected ☐ Effective maintenance and operation of the

irrigation and drainage system conducted ☐

Specific scheduling of water delivery developed

☐

Water to farmers plots delivered in the right quantity and at an appropriate time

☐

Additional use of the water (drinking, washing, cattle trough) anticipated

☐

97

REPORTING ON COMMUNITY WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT

BASIC INFORMATION






Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………


98

No Description Unit Size On-

going

Dates when

Applicable/Remark/Comments

Finalized Dates when

Applicable/Remark/Comments

1 Community watersheds supported ☐ ☐

1.1 # of AGP supported watersheds # ☐ ☐

1.2 Area of watersheds Ha ☐ ☐

2 Implementation of Community

Watershed Development

☐ ☐

2.1 Farm Land Development within

the micro-watersheds

Ha ☐ ☐

Stone bund construction Ha ☐ ☐

Soil bund construction Ha ☐ ☐

Fanyajuu bund construction Ha ☐ ☐

Stone faced soil bund construction Ha ☐ ☐

Bund stabilization with vegetation KM ☐ ☐

Homestead plantation Million ☐ ☐

2.2 Communal land development

within the watershed

Ha ☐ ☐

2.2.1 Terracing and Drainage ☐ ☐

Hillside terracing Ha/KM ☐ ☐

Hillside terrace with trench Ha/KM ☐ ☐

Bench terrace Ha/KM ☐ ☐

Cut-off drains construction KM/M3 ☐ ☐

Artificial Water ways construction KM/M3 ☐ ☐

2.2.2 Gully Treatment ☐ ☐

Stone Check dam construction M3 ☐ ☐

Gabion check dam M3 ☐ ☐

Gully Reshaping and filling M3 ☐ ☐

Gully Re-vegetation Ha ☐ ☐

2.2.3 Moisture Harvesting ☐ ☐

Trenches # ☐ ☐

Percolation pond # ☐ ☐

Percolation pits, Half moon, Herring

bone and eye brow basin

# ☐ ☐

2.2.4 Participatory Forest Management

and Plantation of Multipurpose

Trees

☐

99

Area closure Ha ☐ ☐

Collection and Supply of

multipurpose seed(tree, forage, grass)

for nursery

Quintal ☐ ☐

Community nursery establishment # ☐ ☐

Multipurpose trees Seedlings

production Million ☐ ☐

Plantation pit/site preparation Million/

Ha

☐ ☐

Plantation of multipurpose trees Million/

Ha

☐ ☐

Participatory forest management Ha ☐ ☐

100

REPORTING ON ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE

BASIC INFORMATION



Site Name: ................................... Length of the road Km:…….. Linking to:………….


Name of infrastructure specialist:………………………………………………………………………

Name of DAs:………………………………………………………………………………………



Engineering estimate (million Birr):……… Final project construction cost (million Birr):………

Infrastructure status: ☐ feasibility studies on-going ☐ feasibility studies finalized ☐ construction on-going

☐ construction finalized ☐ infrastructure operational

Total number of HH beneficiaries from road infrastructure: ……….. Female Head of Household:……….

FEEDER ROAD IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (Site preparation and construction)


S. No Description of activities Status Dates when Applicable/Remark/Comments

Planning and Project Preparation Phase

1 Conception stage completed ☐

101

Consultation with communities conducted ☐

RRMC Established and trained ☐

Modality selected (FA or outsource) ☐


3 Study and design started ☐

3.1 Study and design started FA ☐

3.2 Study and design started – consultant ☐

Bid document prepared ☐

Bid advertised ☐

Consultant selected and contract awarded ☐

Modality of supervision selected ☐

Supervisor assigned ☐

Contract signed ☐

Study and design started ☐

4 Study and design completed ☐

FA ☐

consultant ☐






5.4 Contract Agreement signed ☐



5.5 Site handing-over/certificate of site possession completed ☐


5.7 Construction status

<25% ☐

26-50% ☐

51-75% ☐

102

76-99% ☐








6.5 O&M started ☐







8 RRMC ☐

8.1 RRMC established ☐

8.2 RRMC Formed/Legally registered ☐

8.3 Training and experience sharing to RRMC ☐

103

REPORTING ON MARKET INFRASTRUCTURE

BASIC INFORMATION


Region:……………. Woreda:………………

Site Name: ................................... Market Center Size:…….. Size of Warehouse (m2, Qt):………….


Infrastructure will include: ☐ Latrine/Water ☐ Storage for women

Name of infrastructure specialist:………………………………………………………………………


Engineering estimate (million Birr):……… Contract amount (million Birr):…….. Final project construction cost (million

Birr):………

Infrastructure status: ☐ feasibility studies on-going ☐ feasibility studies finalized ☐ construction on-going

☐ construction finalized ☐ infrastructure operational

Total number of beneficiaries from market infrastructure: ……….. Female:……….


104

MARKET IMPLEMENTATION STATUS (Site preparation and construction)



Planning and Project Preparation Phase ☐

1 Conception stage ☐

Community consultation conducted ☐

MC established and trained ☐


3 Site/land use plan and design started ☐

3.1 Site/land use plan prepared ☐

3.2 Structural design started ☐

3.3 Structural design completed ☐






5.4 Contractor selected and contract awarded ☐



5.5 Site handing-over/certificate of site possession

completed ☐


5.7 Construction status ☐

<25% ☐

26-50% ☐

51-75% ☐

105


76-100% ☐








6.5 O&M started ☐







8 MCMC ☐

8.1 MCMC Formed/Established ☐

8.2 Training and experience sharing to MCMC ☐

106

ANNEX 3: QUARTERLY/ANNUAL REPORTS FORMAT

Woreda Report (To be developed by PCU)

Region and Federal Report (To be developed by PCU)

107

ANNEX 4: FEDERAL AND REGIONAL M&E OFFICER TERMS OF REFERENCE

FEDERAL M&E OFFICER

The M&E Officers would be responsible for coordinating all Monitoring, Evaluation and

Learning activities conducted as part of the Agricultural Growth Project 2. This includes

overseeing data collection, analysis, and reporting on the implementation and progress of AGP.

He/she would provide feedback and advice to the Project Coordinator/Component

Leaders/Implementers on the effectiveness of project implementation and steps needed to achieve

anticipated project outputs and outcomes. He/she would provide technical backstopping to project

staff within the PCU and the regions on ME&L requirements, including capacity development

and knowledge dissemination and learning at various levels.

Specific Terms of Reference

Coordinate the creation and review of M&E system documentation.

Draft TOR for evaluations and studies (need based and in collaboration with component

leaders and other partners (World Bank and CIDA).

Manage and supervise the ME&L staff.

Manage the M&E system (i.e., provide technical oversight).

Coordinate M&E plan costing and annual review.

Play a key role in coordinating the planning, implementation and dissemination of

findings of M&E system.

Develop and oversee M&E capacity building plan, accompanying activities, and play a

key role in mobilizing resources and coordinating with the Capacity Building Facility

M&E Officer and other partners.

Coordinate and act on supervision and data auditing report results.

Prepare quarterly and annual Progress reports in collaboration with component leaders

and share to the relevant stakeholders

Oversee all data dissemination and feedback processes to all levels (EIAR, IAs, Woreda

Coordinator, Region AGP2 CU, etc.).

Monitor the status and progress of project implementation based on the different

reporting formats, various reports, relevant Results Framework indicator, results chain

and evaluations.

Assess the adequacy of the proposed project inputs, activities, and outputs in delivering

desired project objectives/outcomes.

Liaise with and agree with stakeholders in each sub-component, within each region the

respective reporting, monitoring and data collection needs and obligations.

Update as required data collection and reporting formats in collaboration with project

counterparts at the different levels, and provide training to required staff on their use.

Analyze data, information and reports from different levels and assess the status of

selected indicators and provide feedback to project management and project counterparts

at the different levels on the progress of implementation and of any need to modify

schedules, strategies and objectives.

Take responsibility for other M&E related tasks assigned by the Project Coordinator.

108

Ensure the collaboration and support to M&E activities from all members of project

coordination unit members.

Capacity development of staff on M&E (not limited to M&E Officers)

Organize and facilitate supervision missions

Qualifications

The M&E Specialist will have an academic background in agronomy, agricultural research,

agricultural economics, project management or closely related fields, with specialized training in

monitoring and evaluation. Minimum requirements would be an MSc with 8 years experience, or

a B.Sc. with 12 years experience, of which at least 5 years should be spent on monitoring and

evaluation of projects/ programs. Familiarity with results-based Monitoring Evaluation and

Learning and advanced ICT knowledge are essential.

Reporting The M&E Officer will report to the AGP Coordinator.

109

REGIONAL M&E OFFICER

The M&E Officers would be responsible for coordinating all Monitoring, Evaluation and

Learning activities conducted as part of the Agricultural Growth Project 2. This includes

overseeing data collection, analysis, and reporting on the implementation and progress of AGP.

He/she would provide feedback and advice to the Project Coordinator/Component

Leaders/Implementers on the effectiveness of project implementation and steps needed to achieve

anticipated project outputs and outcomes. He/she would provide technical backstopping to project

staff within the PCU and the woreda on ME&L requirements, including capacity development

and knowledge dissemination and learning at various levels.

Specific Terms of Reference

Contribute to the review of M&E system documentation.

Manage the M&E system (i.e., provide technical oversight).

Coordinate M&E plan costing and annual review.

Play a key role in coordinating the planning, implementation and dissemination of

findings of M&E system.

Develop and oversee M&E capacity building plan, accompanying activities, and play a

key role in mobilizing resources and coordinating with the Capacity Building Facility

M&E Officer and other partners.

Coordinate and act on supervision and data auditing report results.

Prepare quarterly and annual Progress reports in collaboration with component leaders

and share to the relevant stakeholders

Oversee all data dissemination and feedback processes to all levels (IAs, Woreda

Coordinator, Region AGP2 CU, etc.).

Monitor the status and progress of project implementation based on the different

reporting formats, various reports, relevant Results Framework indicator, results chain

and evaluations.

Assess the adequacy of the proposed project inputs, activities, and outputs in delivering

desired project objectives/outcomes.

Liaise with and agree with stakeholders in each sub-component, within each region the

respective reporting, monitoring and data collection needs and obligations.

Update as required data collection and reporting formats in collaboration with project

counterparts at the different levels, and provide training to required staff on their use.

Analyze data, information and reports from different levels and assess the status of

selected indicators and provide feedback to project management and project counterparts

at the different levels on the progress of implementation and of any need to modify

schedules, strategies and objectives.

Take responsibility for other M&E related tasks assigned by the Project Coordinator.

Ensure the collaboration and support to M&E activities from all members of project

coordination unit members.

Capacity development of staff on M&E (IAs, woreda coordinators, component leaders,

etc.)

Organize and facilitate supervision missions

110

Qualifications

The M&E Specialist will have an academic background in agronomy, agricultural research,

agricultural economics, project management or closely related fields, with specialized training in

monitoring and evaluation. Minimum requirements would be an MSc with 8 years experience, or

a B.Sc. with 12 years experience, of which at least 5 years should be spent on monitoring and

evaluation of projects/ programs. Familiarity with results-based Monitoring Evaluation and

Learning and advanced ICT knowledge are essential.

Reporting The M&E Officer will report to the AGP Coordinator.

111

ANNEX 5: SELECTED INDICATORS TO TRACK PROGRESS MATRIX

THIS MATRIX WILL APPEAR IN ALL REPORTS (QUARTERLY AND ANNUAL) Federal and Region.

This matrix will be developed by PCU once all indicators have been reviewed and agreed upon.

112

ANNEX 6: RESULTS FRAMEWORK

The results framework and its targets will be updated once the full fledge baseline has been collected.

113

Annex 7: FREGs PARTICIPATORY M&E AND LEARNING

Farmers Research Extension Groups (FREGs) are designed to make agricultural research and

extension client-oriented. It thereby develops informal, collaborative relationships and

partnership, which will enhance the impact of research and extension activities. FREGs activities

include: (i) undertaking situation analysis and identification of needs; (ii) selection of FREG

member farmers; (iii) selection of FREG leader/management committee members; (iv) activity

planning; (v) implementation of planned activities; (vi) capacity building; (vii) participatory

monitoring & evaluation; and (viii) sharing experiences with other FREGs and farmers.

It is critical to strengthen learning within FREGs but also learning linkages between FREGs

members (male and female) and none-FREGs members (male and female) within the kebele and

woreda. FREGs self-monitoring and evaluation, learning and information dissemination provides

opportunities for internal learning at FREGs and learning within Kebele and Woreda. FREGs’

participatory M&E strengthens members understanding of their own progress and increases their

empowerment. Learning is also about developing awareness and interest from none-FREGs

members for FREGs. Community learning fora will contribute to disseminate FREGs knowledge

to community members. FREGs will be a learning site, where community members can observe

and ask questions to FREGs members. Strong facilitation will be critical for higher probability of

FREGs’ innovations to be adopted by none-FREGs members.

FREGs Participatory M&E and Learning Activities and Responsibilities

EIAR Staff Responsibilities Conduct training of DAs and RRCUs staff on participatory M&E, use of reporting formats and facilitation skills for learning activities. Review FREGs progress quarterly and provide support if needed to RRCUs staff and DAs Conduct field supervision of FREGs progress and conduct data auditing Identify with RRCUs staff FREGs considered as best practices Document and disseminate FREGs best practices

RRCUs’ Staff Supporting FREGs Steps in FREGs Cycle Responsibilities

FREGs formation and identification of FREGs members

Support with DAs, the establishment of M&E Committee for each established FREG (3 FREG members among which at least one is a woman) responsible for regular reporting on FREG progress/issues/impact

Training of FREGs members

Conduct with DAs, training of FREGs M&E Committee members on reporting formats for participatory M&E and learning

During Implementation of FREGs

Conduct with DAs supportive supervision of FREGs regarding participatory M&E (assess participatory M&E, retrain if needed (learning by doing), etc.) Report quarterly with DAs on FREGs indicators/progress/activities/issues to woreda coordinator and RRCCU. Organize with DAs, FREGs field visits for none FREGs members and facilitate discussions/learning at FREGs site between FREGs members and FREGs none members. Paying particular attention to women

114

participating, making sure they benefit equally from these activities. FREGs become learning sites, where community members can observe and ask questions to FREGs members. Ensure that FREGs progress/issues/impact/lessons learned are displayed at FTCs level on a display board for FREGs members and none FREGs members to see and learn from. Organize with DAs FREGs knowledge exchange across woreda (if relevant). FREGs can visit other FREGs (field visit) with similar activities and can also conduct an evaluation of other FREGs.

During Kebele Learning Fora (usually organized yearly for overall AGP2 activities)

Develop awareness and interest with DAs by organizing discussion between none-FREG members and FREG members/DAs/Research Support DAs to plan and agree on time of FREGs site visit by none FREGs members Share FREGs progress/issues/impact/lessons learned

At FREGs completion Support DAs to identify lessons learned and display lessons learned at FTCs and share lessons during kebele learning for a. Lessons learned can be about the technology introduced, how issues were solved, how FREGs were tailored to women needs and capacity to implement activities, etc. Collect lessons learned with DAs and share with woreda coordinator, WoA, other RRCCUs and EIAR

DAs’ Supporting FREGs Steps in FREGs Cycle Responsibilities

FREGs formation and identification of FREGs members

Support with RRCU’s staff, the establishment of M&E Committee for each established FREG (3 FREG members among which at least one is a woman) responsible for regular reporting on FREG progress/issues/impact

Training of FREGs members

Conduct with RRCU’s staff, training of FREGs M&E Committee members on reporting formats for participatory M&E and learning

During Implementation of FREGs

Conduct with RRCU’s staff supportive supervision of FREGs regarding participatory M&E (assess participatory M&E, retrain if needed (learning by doing), etc.) Report with RRCU’s staff on FREGs indicators/progress/activities/issues to woreda coordinator and RRCCU. Organize with RRCU’s staff , FREGs field visits for none FREGs members and facilitate discussions/learning at FREGs site between FREGs members and FREGs none members. Paying particular attention to women participating, making sure they benefit equally from these activities. FREGs become learning sites, where community members can observe and ask questions to FREGs members. Display FREGs progress/issues/impact/lessons learned at FTCs level on a display board for FREGs members and none FREGs members to see and learn from Organize with RRCU’s staff FREGs field visits for none FREGs members and facilitate discussions/learning at FREGs site between FREGs members and FREGs none members. Paying particular attention to women participating, making sure they benefit equally from these activities. FREGs become learning sites, where community members can observe and ask questions to FREGs members. Organize with RRCU’s staff FREGs knowledge exchange across woreda (if relevant). FREGs can visit other FREGs (field visit) with similar

115

REPORTING FOR FREGs RESPONSIBILITY OF DA and RESEARCH STAFF SUPPORTING FREG

(To be submitted each quarter to staff responsible for M&E for the Regional Research Center

concerned and AGP2 Woreda Coordinator)

BASIC INFORMATION

FREG Name:…..……………………………..


Purpose of FREG: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

……………………………………………………………………………………………………… (Example of purpose: increase productivity of a specific crop, introduction of a new crop, etc.)

Name of FREG Supervisor from Research:…………………………………………………………

Research Center:…………………………………………………………………………………….

Name of FREG Supervisor DA:…………………………………………………………………….

Total FREG members: Total men: Total women: Women farmers/FREG members refer to Female Head of Household and married women in Male Headed

Household.

Is it a women only FREG? Yes ☐ No ☐

Is it a mixed FREG? Yes ☐ No ☐

Is it a male FREG? Yes ☐ No ☐

TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY PROMOTED

Type of technology demonstrated (describe):

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………



Is this technology climate smart? Yes ☐ No ☐

activities and can also conduct an evaluation of other FREGs. During Kebele Learning Fora (usually organized yearly for overall AGP2 activities)

Develop awareness and interest with RRCU’s staff by organizing discussion between none-FREG members and FREG members/DAs/Research Plan and agree on time of FREGs site visit by none FREGs members Share FREGs progress/issues/impact/lessons learned

At FREGs completion Identify lessons learned and display lessons learned at FTCs and share lessons during kebele learning for a. Lessons learned can be about the technology introduced, how issues were solved, how FREGs were tailored to women needs and capacity to implement activities, etc. Collect lessons learned and share with woreda coordinator and WoA.

116

Gender sensitive technologies: are defined as (i) technologies based on needs and interest of female







(adaptation).






disaggregation.

FREG STATUS

FREG under implementation ☐ FREG completed ☐ Under implementation is defined as a FREG supported by AGP2 for which a contractual arrangement has

been established between research, the farmer groups and extension services.

Completed is defined as a FREG that has achieved its intended benefit/objective and does not require

further support from the project.

FREG STAGES

FREG group members identified and sensitized ☐

FREG group formed, has by laws and M&E Committee is established ☐

FREG group trained on the prepared technology package ☐ Total members trained: Men: Women:

FREG group implementing introduced new technology ☐

Total members: Men: Women:

FREG completed: ☐

Total members: Men: Women:

OUTCOME/IMPACT

Total FREG members who have adopted the introduced technology on their field:

Men: Women:

Impact/Change in Productivity:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………........................

Impact/Change on Gender:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………........................

Impact/Change on Nutrition:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………........................

Impact/Change on Climate Smart Agriculture:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………........................

117

Impact/Change on revenue:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………........................

FREG MEMBERS

Did any FREG members dropped out of the FREG during implementation?

Men: Women:

Did any FREG members joined during FREG implementation?

Men: Women:

Name of FREG members At group formation stage

Men Women

118

ANNEX 8: CROSS FARMER GROUP MONITORING

Name of Farmer Group Visited:

Region:

Woreda:

Kebele:

Name of Farmer Group Members Visiting

Name Sex Farmer Groups Name

Kebele/Woreda Signature

DAs Facilitators

Name Title Signature

SMSs Facilitators

Name Title Signature

Description of the farmer groups visited and its field:

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………

119

Difficulties encountered while working in a group to adopt new technology:

What were the main difficulties encountered while implementing the new technologies? What

were the solutions found to the issues encountered?

What are the recommendations/lessons learned?

What are the main recommendations you can provide? What are the lessons learned (good and

bad practices).

Other Comments Remarks

Farmer Group Visiting (Head) Farmer Group Visited (Head)

Name: Name:

Signature: Signature:

Date: Date:

Technical Staff DA/SMS Kebele Head:

Name: Name:

Signature: Signature:

Date: Date:

120

ANNEX 9 ASSESSING QUALITY AND TIMELINESS OF WOREDA REPORTS

The quality of Woreda reports represents 60% of the total performance (60 points) and the timeliness of reporting represents 40% of the total

performance (40 points). Quality is defined in Table 3. Each RPCU has developed a rating that is tailor made to their needs, but the concept are

quite similar.

Table 1: Overall Rating of Woreda Reports’ Quality and Timeliness

N.o Number of Points TOTAL PERFOMANCE RATING

1 85 - 100 Excellent

2 70 - 84 Very Good

3 55 - 69 Good

4 45 - 54 Satisfactory

5 < 44 Unsatisfactory

Table 2: Rating of Timeliness of Reports S. No Name of Implementing

Partner/Woreda Submission Date

REPORT SUBMITTED

Exactly on/before the agreed date (40 points)

1-2 days after the agreed date (32 points)



More than 7 days after the agreed date (8 points)

1

2

3

4

5

121

6

7

8

9

Table 3: Rating of Quality of Reports S.N REPORT QUALITY AS PER THE FOLLOWING POINTS Points Name

of woreda

Name of

woreda

Name of

woreda

Name of

woreda

Name of

woreda

Name of

woreda

Name of

woreda

Name of

woreda

1 Agreed reporting formats are used ( 16 point) 16

The narrative part of the report is structured based on reporting guideline

Narrative of all activities/project performance is described component by component (8 point)

Narrative of most activities/project performance is described component by component 6 point)

Activities/project performance in the report are not described component by component (4 point)

Project activities/project performance narrative are very limited and are not described component by components ( 2 point)

No narrative part (0 point)

Attachment part (Excel sheet)

Agreed format is used and the data are filled with no error (8 point)

Agreed format is used and the data are filled with Limited errors (6 point)

Other format is used and the data are filled with Limited error (4 point)

Other format used and the data are filled with a lot of errors (2 point)

No attachment used (0 point)

2 Physical and financial targets and corresponding achievements are reported on ( 8 point)

8

122

All physical and financial targets & achievements are included (filled) component by component (8 points)

Most of physical and financial targets & achievements are included (filled) component by component (6 points)

Only physical targets & achievements are included (filled) component by component (4 points)

Limited data are included (filled) component by component (2 points)

No data are included (0 point)

3 Data disaggregation ( 8 point) 8

All data are disaggregated by gender and youth. (8 points)

Most of the data are disaggregated by gender and youth. (6 points)

Most of the data are disaggregated only by gender. (4 points)

Limited data are disaggregated by gender and youth. (2 points)

No data are disaggregated (0 point)

4 Quantitative data are adequate/ Supported and Validate with quantitative data (based on field observations and implementers opinions/perception) . (8 points)

8

All Quantitative data are adequately supported /validated with qualitative information (8 points)

Most of Quantitative data are adequately supported /validated with qualitative information (6 points)

Some Quantitative data are adequately supported /validated with qualitative information (4 points)

Limited Quantitative data are supported /validated with qualitative information (2 points)

No Quantitative data are adequately supported /validated with qualitative information (0 point)

5 Reasons for better or low performance (compared to annual plan activities/project output/outcome) are stated and analyzed. It includes identifying the implication for achieving components outcome/output and project outcome (6 points)

6

Clearly stated and analyzed (6 points)

Clearly stated but not analyzed (4 points)

123

Partially stated and analyzed (2 points)

Partially stated and not analyzed (1 point)

Not stated (0 point)

6 Report Narration are elaborated, with pictures, case studies, lesson learned, best practices ; (8 points)

8

Well elaborated, with pictures, case studies, lesson learned, best practice (8 points)

Elaborated, with pictures, lesson learned, best practice (6 points)

Elaborated, with pictures, lesson learned, (4 points)

Elaborated with pictures (3 points)

Not elaborated (0 point)

7 Key Implementation challenges and strengths are identified with proposed actions /measures to address challenges (including the responsible body at all levels). (6 points)

6

Challenges and strengths are clearly identified with proposed actions/measures (6 points)

Challenges and strengths are adequately identified with proposed actions/measures (4 points)

Challenges and strengths identified are limited with proposed actions/measures (3 points)

Only Challenges and opportunities are identified (2 points)

Not identification (0 point)

124

Table 4: Reporting Format Name of Ministry

Name of Project

Report submission Evaluation / Rating/ Quality Follow up Matrix (4th Quarter)

Quarter 4 report evaluation results Previous Quarter 3 Results Progress

From

Total

Rating

S.

N

o

Name of

Implementing

Partner/Woreda

Report

Timeline

Report

quality

Total

rating

TOTAL PERFOMANCE RATING Report

Timelines

Report

Quality

Total

Rating

Excellent Very

Good

Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA...2 Table of Contents ACRONYMS 4 OVERVIEW OF AGP2 M&E SYSTEM...

Documents

Transcript of FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA...2 Table of Contents ACRONYMS 4 OVERVIEW OF AGP2 M&E SYSTEM...