Mekdella Orphan project 1

“We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give” W. Churchill
United Hands for New Orphans Lives Adoption
PreparedBy:
Mr. Gashaw Abebe (BA in Economics)-PSNP-PWs Planning, M&E Specialist
Mr. Seid Mohammed (BSc in Natural Resource Management) PSNP-PWs Natural Resource Specialist
Mr. Endale Chane (BSc in Animal Health) Livestock Development and Veterinary Service Main Process unit coordinator
Contact Address, 251910119384-251334500236/41/
Mekdella-Masha, Ethiopia
September 2014

Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge Mekdella Woreda Women,
Children and Youth Affair Office, HIV/AIDS Prevention, Control
and Coordination Office and Masha Town Administration Office
that provided us the necessary data (beneficiary targeting) in
building the project contents.
It is also our gratitude to Mekdella Woreda Agriculture
Development Office for its ongoing logistical support to
effectively compile the project document.
Finally, special thanks to Management Committees of Mekdella
Woreda Agriculture Development Office and all its staffs who
invented the project concept.

Acronyms and Abbreviation
AIDS- Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
ANT-Antenatal Treatment
ARV-Anti Retroviral
ART- Anti Retroviral Therapy
CBR- Costbenefit Ratio
ETB- Ethiopian Birr
HAART- Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy
HAPCO- HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office
HIV- Human Immunodeficiency Virus
HH- Household
IRR- Internal Rate of Return
MPC- Marginal Propensity to Consume
NGO- None Governmental Organization
NPV- Net Present Value
OLS- Ordinary Least Square
ROI- Return on Investment
UNICEF- United Nation Children's Fund
Note
Woreda – means district
Kebele –means the smallest government administrative unit under wored/district/.

Executive Summary
Fund Raising Projectto generate Livelihoods through Egg Production to Assist
Orphans in Mekdella Woreda is the title of the project.
The project is located at a distance of 152 km in the West direction of Dessie, the capital town of South
Wollo Zone.
The primary aim in which this project has been launched is to create income source for more than 14
orphans in a sustainable way since 2015. Major activities under this project are construction of egg
production centre, purchase of furniture for the centre, purchase of chicken and chicken feeds.
To undertake this project, significantly 250,700 of Ethiopian Birr (ETB) equivalent to US$ 12,725.9 is needed.
Variable input costs needed to run the project throughout its life will be covered by return of the investment (profit).
To check feasibility of the project, different financial evaluation methods of discount and none discount rate values
of investment decision parameters like Net present value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), Return on
Investment (ROI), Cost Benefit Ratio (CBR) and payback period are employed accordingly, that show feasibility
of the project to embark it, accurately and it avoids the profound traditional notions of ‘business as usual’. On the
other hand, steering committees composed of beneficiary representatives and concerned stakeholders have
been formed. These committees will control the overall project activities in which that the coordination
and closer collaboration of the steering committees is the basis for the sustainability of project activities.
If necessary, one of the project team members looks forward to presenting the paper to you up on your
request.

Project Profile
Project Identification
Project Title: Fund Raising Projectto generate Livelihoods through Egg
Production to Assist Orphans in Mekdella Woreda
Project Location:
Country: Ethiopia
Region: Amhara National Regional State
Zone: South Wollo
Woreda/Town: Masha (01 kebele) -Mekdella
ProjectCost: 250,700 ETB equivalents to US$ 12,725.9
ProjectDuration: On warding January 2015
Funding Agency: ……………………………
Executing Agencies:
 Mekdela Woreda Agriculture Development Office
 Mekdela Woreda Women Children and youth Affair Office
 Mekdela Woreda HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office
Implementers: Aged Orphans (above 14 years) in collaboration with the steering committees
ContactPersons:
 Gashaw Abebe – 251910119384
 Seid Mohammed -251912689258
 Endale Chane -251914613168
Tele: - 251-334500236/0241
Project Beneficiaries: Direct beneficiaries -more than 14 orphans

1. Introduction
1.1. BackgroundInformation
Establishing its capital town Masha, located at a distance of 152km in the West of Dessie (capital of
South Wollo Zone) is Mekdella Woreda. It is newly independent province alienated from the former Tenta
Awuraja in 1991for administrative purpose. It is bordered by woredas of Dawunt & Delanta to the North,
Saint to the South, Tenta to the East and Gaint to the West.
Almost all residences of the woreda get their livelihoods from agriculture though food security has become
challenging in mekdella due to interacts of slow and fast onset disasters. These development hindrance factors
resulted in chronic food insecurity, malnutrition, poor food diversity and absence of meal frequency which especially
hasten the epidemic of HIV/AIDS in mekdella.
It is over 15 years since the onset of AIDS epidemic has occurred in Mekdella which has been jeopardizing the
livelihood capital of the community. The pain and adverse effect of HIV/AIDS on orphans has bitter upset in
Mekdella where the involvement of social development partners, NGOs, and other charitable organizations are
barely abundant.
Though, the effort of the government to overcome the above problems could be taken as a significant endeavors, it
alone barely enough to eliminate drought, malnourishment and morbidity. It should be backed up by the effort of
other development partners such as individuals, private institutions, NGOs and others.
Currently, it self Mekdella Woreda in collaboration with HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office has
been carrying out certain activities such as:
 It is providing care and support for orphans found in harsh situation
 It prepares a fund raising projects to assist orphans
 It works in collaboration with NGOs, National and international Dep’t programs/projects/ that have
a tendency to give their hands for the crosscutting issues notice on children .It also welcomes new
emerging NGOs, government institutions, private organizations, individuals and other development
partners.
For instance, in 2011/12 Mekdella Woreda HAPCO had been enabled 40 orphans to get clothing
and stationeries twice a year donated from Path finder. It had also benefited 5 orphans by affording
2000 ETB funded from UNICEF in 2012/13.
On the other hand, each sector of the woreda staffs has been contributing from 5 up to 15 birr each
month permanently to assist and fulfill basic needs of orphans who are living only in Masha Town,
one among the 28 kebeles of the woreda. Based on this assistance, beyond filling the food gap

months of chronic and transitory food insecure orphans, some of them have been joined universities
while most of the others can be able to learn their primary, junior and high school education.
However,the woreda has carried out the above-mentioned responsibilities; it could no longer be able to widely
addressing all the problems encountered on orphans caused by financial constraint further than cash transfer
nature of the assistant.
Therefore, this project intends to establish sustainable income generating livelihood venture on egg
production at Masha town for 5 male 9 female orphans up on which the project can go beyond mere cash
transfer on warding January 2015.
2. Problem Justification/ProjectRationale
Our country Ethiopia leads Africa first in quantities of livestock and it ranks tenth in the world unlike its
contribution to the economy is not remarkable as compared to other countries. Shrinkage of land holding
size is among the constraining factors of livestock productivity which leads to shortage of grazing land
that further exacerbate overgrazing and environmental degradation. The occurrences of recurrent droughts
and cattle diseases that are common in the area have also made livestock rearing difficult.
Because of these reasons poultry production can be recommended as an alternative source of income for
farmers since it doesn't need much land and is easier to manage.
Poultry development plays a crucial role in increasing egg and chicken meat production in Mekdela. The
village poultry plays a major role towards the overall production of egg and chicken where the most
needed chicken and egg come from this sector, which are sold at a best market price. This sector is playing
an important role in socioeconomic progress of the rural communities back up by provision of agriculture
extension service & improved breeds to increase overall egg and chicken production.
On the other hand, development of poultry can reduce the high infant and mother mortality rate through
restoration of nutritional status of the rural population besides its role of becoming the primary and
subsidiary need of cattle, sheep and goat meats which can be bought at minimum price in relative to other
types of foods/meat.
Though, Poultry is one of the livestock that is bred in Mekdella Woreda, the type of poultry bred in this
area is not improved and insignificant yield is obtained from it. Though, the current situation in the
country is positive for effective implementation of selected income generation activities, as far as and

prior to the prospect of this project, there is no any organised egg producer in Mekdella and the market
only gets feed from the supplies of farmers.
The project had conducted market pre-feasible study and it has ensured that there is a stiff computation
between local consumers and egg dealers. There is also the scarcity of egg supply in some circumstance
particularly when the Christian fasting comes to end.
The growing and expansion of cafés and restaurants is the other demand pool factor that inspires the scope
and opportunity of the project. In regardless of market situation the project is providential to supply its
product at premium price since it is demand driven business venture.
The establishment of the project at the capital town of Mekdela, other than full infrastructural accessibility
is the other conductive market environment that can enable it to supply its product nearly and easily.
Though, it is secrete, the project intends to use market penetration so as to attract significant number of
customers if there is perfect computation among suppliers. Therefore, the introduction of improved egg
laying hens contributes to food security of the area is significant besides, raising income of orphans.
2.1. TargetGroup Analysis
Nothing is exciting more than helping the impoverish part of the societies, especially orphans who do not
know the way to manage their levies.
The northern part of the country where Mekdella Woreda is found is known for years as persistent food
insecure. Among the 64 chronically food insecure woredas listed by the regional government for close
follow-up & assistant the one is Mekdella.
Even though, inadequacies of organized data, in Mekdella Woreda, more than 583 individuals are
currently living with the virus. Though, it has been declined and improved overtime, on average more than
50 individuals develop new infection each year since 2002E.C. The epidemic has resulted in 14 orphans
and more than 117 babies to lose one of their parents only in one kebele, Masha town.
Orphans, who lost their parents in case of HIV/AIDS, are the very upsets confronting part of the societies
in our woreda. Among 14 orphans, nine of them are females off home seven females are older than 15
years who are vulnerable to sexual abuse due to economic dependent on others. Likewise, it is the fear of
the project that females aged over 15 years will prefer prostitution as coping mechanism of survival.
Furthermore, two of the fourteen are disables in addition to HIV victims of the other two orphans. Most of
the orphans get their livelihood in exchange of their daily labor since the contribution of government staffs
could not fully cover their living costs.
Misuse of medical drugs (ARV, ART & HAART) for HIV victim orphans coupled with nutritional
deficiency is the other annoyance factor for the woreda.

Generally, expansion of HIV/AIDS coupled with drought, poverty and malnutrition has seriously been
aggravating the vulnerability rate of HIV-orphans to school dropout, migration/street children/ and
prostitution.
The significant socio economic negative impact of HIV/AIDS/ in our woreda can be felt on two broad
categories; at household and community level:
 Illness and/or death of experienced HH member
 Reduction of quality & quantity of work force
 Withdrawal of children from school to work on or off farm wages
 Sale of assets for medical treatment/depletion of HH assets
 Decline in on farm conservation/irrigation practices/
 Renting or leasing out portion of the HH land holding
 Community willingness to foster HIV-orphans
 Increasing the number of elderly and child headed HHs
The project intends to assist more than 14 needy and vulnerable portion of the community, HIV-orphans
who are the most offended part of the community owing to various reasons:
 Physical status –less powerful, less strong, les resistant
to ill treatment and abuse
 societal status – unable to provide for most basic human
rights/needs e.g, shelter, food, warmth, education, medication
 Developmental status – less understanding generally,
undeveloped conscience, undeveloped issues
Therefore, to halt the hard pressured on the lives of HIV-Orphans, the project seeks all ours unreserved
and committed dimensional support to establish sustainable income generating venture.
Econometric approach to Analysis Income and Consumption Expenditure for Orphans
Econometrics may be defined as economic measurement in which the tools of economic theory,
mathematics, and statistical inference are applied to the analysis of economic phenomenon.
Based on this principle, an economic model that deals on the interplay of income and consumption
expenditure is postulated bellow to analysis annual consumption expenditure of orphans given their annual
income contributed from the woreda government staffs. There are more than five orphan groups assisted
by each sectors of the woreda for whom their annual income ranges from 2350 -3208ETB (Micro panel
Data).
The study had taken three sample surveys (Sample Regression Function) from the five orphan groups
(Population Regression Function) and it has postulated the following linear consumption expenditure
regression model.

Y =β1 + β2X +u Population RegressionFunction (PRF) represent the five orphan groups
The variable appearing on the left side of the equality sign is called the dependent (endogenous) variable
and the variable(s) on the right side are called the independent (exogenous), or explanatory, variable(s).
Where, Y = consumption expenditure and X = income
β1=Intercept of the model
β2 =slope coefficient of the model i.e., 0 < β2 < 1
β1 and β2 are also known as parameters of the model
u = disturbance, or error term (stochastic variable)
Specification of the model is that there is an exact or deterministic relationship between consumption and
income upon which when income increases; consumption expenditure will also increase by a certain
percentage. This percentage increase is connoted by β2. Based on Keynes postulation, marginal propensity
to consume (MPC = β2), the rate of change of consumption for a unit (say, a birr) change in income, is
greater than zero but less than 1.
The disturbance term u may represent all those factors that affect consumption (such as dissaving,
borrowing, remittance etc.) but are not taken into account explicitly.
Β1 represents intercept term as the mean or average effect on Y of all the variables omitted from the
regression model. Since PRF is not directly observable we estimate the value of Betas from SRF through
method of Ordinary least Square (OLS).
Ŷ = βˆ1 + βˆ2Xi +uˆI Sample RegressionFunction (SRF) represents sample of three orphan groups
surveyed among the fives
Where Yˆ is read as “Y-hat’’ or “Y-cap’’
Ŷi = estimator of E(Y | Xi)
βˆ1 = estimator of β1
βˆ2 = estimator of β2
uˆ = an estimate of ui.
Note that an estimator, also known as a (sample) statistic, is simply a rule or formula or method that tells
how to estimate the population parameter from the information provided by the sample at hand.
Hypothetical data on annual orphans’ consumption expenditure (Y) and annual
orphans’ income (X) Table 1
Yi (annual consumption expenditure) Xi (Annual income)
2495 2561
2750 2840
3063 3208

1. Point Estimation
The combined results of differential calculus, some statistical properties and thus using made on OLS
Posit that:
βˆ2 =
βˆ2 = 0.8765
Variance of (βˆ2) =
Var(βˆ2) = 0.0003
Standard error of (βˆ2) =
Se(βˆ2) = 0.0179
βˆ1 = Ȳ- βˆ2Ẋ =2769.33-0.8765(2869.67)
βˆ1= 254.13
Covariance of (βˆ1, βˆ2) = - Ẋ(
𝛿2
.
Ʃ𝑥𝑖2
)
= -0.0984
δ
2
=
= 67.1323
δ =
= 8.2
Degree of freedom- df=1(n-2)
r2 = 0.768(1.266) = 0.973
r = 0.9864
r2 = Coefficient of determination (goodness of fit)- 0 < r2 < 1

r = Coefficient of correlation- measures the degree of association b/n two variables −1 ≤ r ≤ 1
Based on the above inferences the mean value of Y corresponding to the chosen X value; that is, Ŷi is an
estimate of E(Y | Xi). The value of βˆ2 = 0.8765, which measures the rate of change of consumption for a
unit (slope of the line) shows that within the sample range of X between 2561 and 3208ETB per a year, as
X increases, say by a unit (1000 birr) birr, the estimated increase in the mean or average annual
consumption expenditure amounts to about 0.88 cents. To make it more economically interpretable, if the
per capita income of an orphan goes up by a unit (1000birr), on average, annual consumption expenditure
will be improved by 88%. This implicitly predicts that there is a high food gap in autonomous
consumption because a little is retained for Precaution if annual income increases by a unit. Further this
means that orphans average livelihood will increase by 88% if annual income increase by a unit and/or
orphans average vulnerability for hunger will be improved by 88% if annual income increases by a unit.
. The value of βˆ1 = 254.13, which is the intercept of the term as the mean or average effect on
consumption expenditure (Y) of all the variables omitted from the regression model. This means that
when annual income (contribution) is zero, annual average consumption expenditure will be 254.13.
Further, it means, without any income an orphan might maintain some minimum level of consumption
expenditure either by begging or in exchange for daily laborer.
The value of r 2 = 0.973 means that, about 97 percent of the variation in the annual consumption
expenditure is explained by income. Since r 2 is almost all approaching to 1, the observed r 2 suggests that
the sample regression line fits the data very well. r = 0.9964 shows that 99 percent of the two variables,
consumption expenditure and income, are highly positively correlated.
Since least-square estimates are a function of sample data, these data are likely to change from sample to
sample upon which the estimates will also change. Therefore, this measure of reliability (precision) is
measured by standard error (Se). Similarly, variance measures variation around the regression line which
is the same across the X values; it neither increases or decreases as X varies..
Therefore, the estimated regression line is Yˆi = 254.13+ 0.8765Xi can be figured out as follows.

Yˆi = 254.13+ 0.8765Xi
2869.67(Ẋ) X (Annual Income)
0
Figure1. Sample regression line based on the data of Table 1.
2. Hypothesis Testing
In regression analysis our objective is not only to estimate the sample regression function (SRF), but also
to use it to draw inferences about the population regression function (PRF). That means, we would like to
know how the estimated β2 (βˆ2) represents the true β2 or how close ˆσ2 is to the true σ2 or else, does βˆ2 in
the estimated sample data well represents the true β2 in the whole data?
The theory of hypothesis testing is concerned with developing rules or procedures for deciding whether to
reject or not reject the stated hypothesis. In the language of statistics, the stated hypothesis is known as the
null hypothesis and is denoted by the symbol H0.
The null hypothesis is usually tested against an alternative hypothesis (also known as maintained
hypothesis) denoted by H1, which may state, for example, that true β2 is different from unity.
Annual
consumption
Expenditure(Y)
2769.33
(Ȳ)
254.13
βˆ2 =0.8765

There are two mutually complementary approaches for devising such rules, namely, confidence interval
and test of significance. Both these approaches predicate that the variable (statistic or estimator) under
consideration has some probability distribution and that hypothesis testing involves making statements or
assertions about the values of the parameters of such distribution.
2.1.THE TEST-OF-SIGNIFICANCE APPROACH: The t Test
As we know, the estimated marginal propensity to consume (MPC), βˆ2, is 0.8765. Suppose we postulate
that:
H0: β2 = 0.6
H1: β2 ≠ 0.6
That is, the true β2 is 0.6 under the null hypothesis but it is less than or greater than 0.6 under the
alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis is a simple hypothesis, whereas the alternative hypothesis is
composite; actually it is what is known as a two-sided hypothesis. Very often such a two-sided alternative
hypothesis reflects the fact that we do not have a strong a priori or theoretical expectation about the
direction in which the alternative hypothesis should move from the null hypothesis.
Is the estimated βˆ2 compatible with H0? How reliable is this estimate? Because of sampling fluctuations, a
single estimate is likely to differ from the true value, although in repeated sampling its mean value is
expected to be equal to the true value. [Note: E (βˆ2) = β2.]. Now in statistics the reliability of a point
estimator is measured by its standard error. Therefore, instead of relying on the point estimate alone, we
may trust on hypothesis testing using t-approach.
The decision to accept or reject H0 is made on the basis of the value of the test statistic obtained from the
data at hand.
Keeping in mind the knowledge of Normality Assumption and Confidence Interval, the variable follows
the t distribution with n − 2 df.
t=
𝛽ˆ2− 𝛽2 .
se(βˆ2)
= t=
(𝛽ˆ2− 𝛽2 )√Ʃ𝑥𝑖2
.
𝜎ˆ
Notice that if the estimated β2 (= βˆ2) is equal to the hypothesized β2, the
t value will be zero.
However, the t value is not zero since,
t=
𝛽ˆ2− 𝛽 .
se(βˆ2)
= =
0.8765− 0.6 .
0.0179
= 15.45
This shows that our t test is statistically significant and the null hypothesis is rejected since it says the
true β = 0.6.
Therefore, based on this heuristic analysis, these orphan groups are indeed vulnerable to hunger
and need substantial financial support from any openhanded individuals or organizations
For further understanding, the following chart displays you the precise and short summery of cause and
effect relationship of the problem. “A picture is worth a thousand words”

Problem Tree (Cause and Effect relationship)
Factors that increase Orphanism
During
Pregnancy
Poverty
Students
Multi sexual
Relationship
Merchants
Reduction of
working hours
Community willingness
to foster orphans
HIV victim orphans
Mass poverty & death
Child heading
Families
Effec
ts
Cause
s
Dependency & inequitable income distribution
Less income
distribution among HH members
Illiteracy &
unemployment
Diversion of the national
wealth for ill treatment
Withdrawal of
orphans from school
Street
children
Low awareness about the
transmission of HIV/AIDS
Unprotect
ed sex
ProstitutionImproper
use of
condom
Communal
use of
sharp
materials
Rural to urban
migration Civil
servants
Low
productivity

3. project objectives/Goal/
The specific objectives of this project are:
 To establish permanent income generating business for 14 HIV/AIDS orphans
 To reduce school dropout rate of orphans, migration/street children/ and prostitution of
orphans
 To safe guard, provide care and support for HIV/AIDS-orphans
 TO replicate, demonstrate and expand this system in 28 kebeles of the woreda and other
areas of the country
The project has the long term objectives/goals/ of nutritional security for more than fourteen
HIV/AIDS orphans through establishing permanent income generating intervention and
controlling further vulnerability of orphans in Mekdella Woreda since 2015.
Objective and goal of the project is well precisely and shortly portrayed bellow using objective
three analyses.

Objective Analysis (Objective Tree)
Preventing Orphanism
Prenatal,
Natal and postnatal
treatment
Alleviating Poverty
Absenteeism
Minimizing Multi sexual
Relationship through
Use of
condom
Increasing
Working hours
Mitigating Communities’
willingness to foster orphans
Strengthening Ante natal
treatment (ANT)
to avoid HIV victim
orphans
Social welfaire and Self-food reliance for orphans
End
Mean
s
Sustainable income source for orphans
Equitable income
distribution among HH members
Avoiding Illiteracy and
unemployment
Minimizing diversion of the
national wealth for ill treatment
Avoiding orphan
school dropout rate
Minimizing no of Street children
through establishing sustainable income
sources at their origin
Generating awareness about the
transmission of HIV/AIDS
Protected
Sex
Providing
alternative
income source
for women
engaged on
prostitution
Proper
use of
condo
m
Individual
use of
sharp
materials
Reducing
Rural to
urban
migration
One to one
correspondence

3.1. ProjectInputs
Since, the project seeks to provide a long term response it needs a significant material and financial inputs
which will cost 250,700ETB.Essentialdetail inputs to materialize the project are out lined on table 2.
3.2. ProjectOut Puts
Some of the visible outputs of the project, which can be taken as indicators of the activities attainment are
the construction of poultry production centre and training conducted for aged orphans.
3.3. Methodologies/Activities
To achieve the intended objectives & long term goal of the project the available facts and other necessary
figures are gathered, analyzed, and interpreted using qualitative and quantitative data (econometric approach) in
sum up with frequently used investment decision parameters with some tabulation techniques.
For the liable & realistic nature of the project, a steering committee will be composed from concerned
stakeholders i.e. from Mekdela Woreda Agriculture Development Office, Women Children and Youth Affair
Office and HIV/AIDS Prevention & Control Office and other concerned stakeholders.
Those steering committees will successfully follow up physical and financial activities of the project from
planning, implementing to monitoring and evaluation.
To effectively and efficiently achieve the project objectives, it will undertake experience sharing from
other organizations that are engaged on performing similar activities.
The project is also an open-ended to accept rules, regulations and recommendations of the funding organization.

4. Projectsite
The project will be located under the compound of Masha Town. Administrator of the woreda in
collaboration with municipal has promised to give more than 250m2 of land for the construction of
poultry center.
The centre will include rooms for growing chickens, egg laying hens, and office for workers.
5. Action Plan
Here are depicted the activities intended to be implemented and the time needed to carry out the
actions. Table2.
No Activities
Implementation period (Quarterly
Breakdown)
Remark
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
1 Construction of poultry production centre *
2 Purchase of furniture and equipment *
Purchase of chicken and chicken feeds *
3 Conducting trainings and awareness generation to aged
orphans how to keep and feed chickens
*
4 Monitoring & evaluation * *
Note.
 The implementing period will be adjusted based on the disperssement of the fund.
6. Organization and Management/Implementation Strategy
To achieve the intended objectives the project will follow an approach ensuring the full participation of
the steering committees and all concerned stakeholders starting from financial reception to implementation
and evaluation. Moreover, the day-to-day function of the project will be managed by Mekdella Woreda
Agriculture Development Office. Technical training will be conducted for the orphans to up-lift their
potential knowledge how to feed and keep chickens. Furthermore, it is good opportunities to run the
project, that members of steering committees employing in Mekdela Woreda Agriculture Development

Office who studied their BSc Degree in Animal Science and other related fields will closely and
technically support the project. Similarly, there is no a need to employ external labor force, it will be
covered by aged orphans off home 10 orphans aged over 14 years are good enough to supply their labor to
feed chickens in collaboration with the closer follow up of the steering committees.
A call for meeting will be undertaken monthly among the beneficiary representatives, steering committees
and other stakeholders to discuss regarding the effective functioning of the project, anticipated benefits
and to fine-tune the effort if there are operational constraints.
7. Encountering problems/Risk-Assumptions/
It is not as such smooth and easy, to get the goal at the end, there may be some obstacles that may drawback the
venture such as
 Wildcat
 Eagle
 Disease
8. Formulating Solutions
Some of the possible solutions are
In addition to building chicken rooms, fencing the running area of poultry production in wires can
prevent hunting of the hens by wild cats and eagles
Since the production center is situated at Mash Town where the woreda veterinary clinic is located, it
will get urgent and accessible veterinary service/ vaccination if diseases occur.
9. ProjectBenefits
9.1. Economic Benefit
 Establishing sustainable income source for orphans
 Providing food source that will meet nutritional security of orphans

9.2. Social Benefit
 Beyond the establishment of economically independent orphans, the availability and accessibility of
poultry egg and meat production in the town will meet the need of 63,875 both urban dwellers and rural
communities.
 Introducing improved poultry breeds to all communities
 Social welfare
9.3. Environmental Benefit
 The poultry production that will get going in Masha is important since the droplets of the hens increase
the soil fertility.
 Adapting and promoting green environment projects
9.4. Political Benefit
 Since this project is in line with the food security strategy, agriculture development led- industrialization &
sustainable development it fosters agricultural transformation.
 It will be used as a demonstration site for all communities of the woreda
10.Sustainability of the project
Since the project entails participatory nature of planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluation, it
gets a strong backup from different development stakeholders. On the other hand, there is high demand for
the improved poultry, egg and meat in the area that can enable the centre to produce egg broadly and
continuously.
11. Monitoring and Evaluation
Project implementers will undertake monitoring while evaluation is the joint function of implementers, steering
committees and concerned stakeholders. Different monitoring and evaluation tools such as field visit,
beneficiaries interview, meetings and workshops with the beneficiaries and stakeholders will be used to assess
the performance of the intervention. Steering committees will hold a quarterly meeting at the project site and

evaluate the project achievements. This definitely, enables the steering committees to track the ongoing function
and performance of the project and hence to make back on track implementation of the project activates.
Similarly, the project partners’ /donors/ are very welcome to participate in monitoring and evaluation terms.
Achievement/impact/ of the project will be evaluated twice a year.
Progressive monitoring and evaluation reports will be submitted to steering committees, funding organization
and concerned stakeholders based on the term of the system.
12. Cost/Budget Estimate-Breakdown/
Required budgets and other related costs are outlined as follows. Table3.
No Material Description Unit Quantity Unit cost in
ETB
Totalcost in ETB Remark
1 Construction of poultry production centre No
Office for workers ( wood & mud) >> 1 23,000 23,000
Room for Egg laying hens ( wood & mud) >> 1 22,000 22,000
Room for small chicken ( wood & mud) >> 1 21,000 21,000
2 Purchase of furniture and equipment
Office furniture 9 6,000
Other Equipment (clothes) 3,000
3 Purchase of chicken (bovance) No 350 90 31,500
4 Purchase of chicken feed Birr 350 252 88,200 After one year, it is the
only variable cost in
addition to vaccination
expenses which will be
covered by profit of the
project then after.
5 Mish Wire Roll 4 500 2,000
6 Cost of flooring all the rooms in Cement (cost of cement,
sand and stone)
17,000
7 Payment For Contractor 17,000
8 Administration cost (cost of transportingchicken from
kombolcha Poultry Production Center to Masha Town
including poultry vaccination and training expenses)
20,000

Sum Total 250,700 ETB Equivalent to
US$ 12,725.9
FinancialReturn on Investment only for Egg production
The project uses Investment Decision Parameters to analysis its profitability/feasibility.
Purchasing 350 chickens elder than three months from Kombolcha Poultry Production Center is the
primary step of the project. At full capacity level, the proposed chickens will start to lay eggs at the
age of six months. Before we get into analysis, figuring out the age of hen is the best way to
understand if a hen is old and won't lay eggs as productively, or at all. The average life span of a hen is
five years. Their best egg production is during the first two years; after that they lay fewer eggs per
week until they taper off production entirely.
Based on this fact, we have conducted market assessment in Mekdela – at Masha Town where an egg
costs 1.70-2.0 Ethiopian birr. Since the price is spiral/volatile, let the project sells its single egg at the
minimum price of 1.70 birr a day. On the other hand, if all the available chicken feeds and other
crucial inputs are at hand, a hen lays an egg a day and 365 eggs a year. That means 365 days a year X
1hen X 1.70 birr =620.5 birr is an annual investment return from a single hen and therefore, 350 hens
X 620.5 birr =217,175 birr is the total annual investment return of the project from all hens an alone of
egg production.
For more convenience, let’s use selective Investment DecisionParametersto check
feasibility of the project.
1. Payback period
It refers to the length of time needed to cover the project costs.
Payback period =
𝑐𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤
𝑎𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑎𝑠ℎ 𝑖𝑛𝑙𝑜𝑤


250,700
217,175
= 1.2(438 days)
To cover its total cost, the project needs 1.3 years (475days).
2. Return on investment(ROI)

𝑁𝑒𝑡 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑅𝑒𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑛
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
or
ROI =
Annual Cash Inflows - Depreciation
Initial Investment
Where Depreciation =
Cost - Salvage Value
Useful Life
But in this project case, no costof deprecation
 ROI=
447,125−393,000
393,000
=0.14(14%) Since, ROI is greater zero,
the project is acceptable.
The above investment decision parameters are calculated using none discount rate values in order to easily
understand it. Let’s use other comprehensive approaches to analysis feasibility of the project.
3. Net presentvalue (NPV) = PV B – PVC
Where, PVB = present value of benefit
PVC = present value of cost
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 − ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 > 0, acceptthe project

Where, B = Benefits; C = Costs;r = discount rate; t = time period;
n = number of time periods
NPV equals the summation from t = 0 (the initial start-up of the program) to t =n (the final
year of the program) of [(Bt –Ct) / (1 + r) t].
Let’s take the first 2 years to analysis feasibility of the project :
NPV = [(B0 - C0)] + [(B1 – C1) / (1 + r)] + [(B2 – C2) / (1 + r)2
] + [(B3 – C3) / (1 + r)3
]
r = 12.5% is used
It is predicted that the only variable input costs of chicken feeds & vaccination will increase by 10,000
ETB each year while due to volatility of price and based on the existing market trends, the minimum price of
an egg will be raised by 0.1birr in each year. Therefore, NPV is calculated as follows.
Table4.
Initial cost
(ETB)
Year 1 Year 2
Cumulative
total
Total cost(ETB) 250,700 44,100 98,200 393,000
Total benefit(ETB) 0 217,175 229,950 447,125
Net benefit(ETB) -250,700 173,075 131,750 54,125
Net present value(NPV)
Initial Year = -250,700 birr
Year 1 = 153,844birr
Year 2 = 103,740.19 birr
NPV = 5659.19ETB
At the begging of the production year, the project will not incur cost more than 44,100ETB because the
only variable input cost that is chicken feeds and vaccination expense which will be utilized in the first
year is partially added under initial cost. That means, after six months that the hens had started to lay eggs,
44,100ETB as vaccination and variable input cost is added and utilized in the first production year.
Detail Project Feasibility Analysis

𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1 + 𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0
− ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1 + 𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0
Initial Year NPV= ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 − ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0
 ∑
𝐵0
(1+𝑟)
0
𝑖=0 − ∑
250700
(1+𝑟)
0
𝑖=0
 0-250,700= -250,700
First Year NPV= ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
1
𝑖=1 − ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
1
𝑖=1
 ∑
217,175
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 − ∑
44,100
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1
193,044.44birr-39,200 =153,844birr
Second Year NPV = ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)2
2
𝑖=2 − ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)2
2
𝑖=2
Here, variable input cost is expected to increase by 10,000ETB in the second year. Similarly, the price of
an egg will increase by 0.1 birr.
Therefore, benefit at second year= 365 days a year X 350 hens X 1.8birr= 229,950 birr
Variable input cost (chicken feeds and vaccination) = 88,200, +10,000 = 98,200 birr
 ∑
229,950
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2 − ∑
98,200
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2
181,062.99-77,322.8 = 103,740.19 birr
Since, the productive age of a hen is 2 two years, after it the project needs to terminate its phase for the
next additional two years.
Unlike, the first phase of the project, no need of constructing egg production center in the second phase except
purchasing of variable inputs such as chicken feeds,vaccination, clothes and other mini costs. Similarly, it is the
advantage of project that it will not allocate extra budget for purchasing chickens (bovance) since old hens will be
sold in exchange for purchasing new chickens.
Therefore,the project is more profitable in the second phase backup by better managing experience and low cost of
production as compared to its first phase.

Therefore, Total Years NPV= ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 − ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0
NPV = [(B0 - C0)] + [(B1 – C1) / (1 + r)] + [(B2 – C2) / (1 + r)2
]
 [(∑
0
(1+𝑟)
0
𝑖=0 – ∑
251,925
(1+𝑟)
0
𝑖=0 )+(∑
217,175
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 − ∑
44,100
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 )+
(∑
229,950
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2 − ∑
98,200
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2 )]
NPV= 5659.19ETB Equivalent to US$ 287.27
Since NPV >0, this project is acceptable at standard level.
4. Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
The IRR is the break-even discount rate.
This rate means that the present value of the cash inflows for the project would equal the present
value of its outflows.
IRR = ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 − ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 =0 Where r = IRR

304,825
(1+𝐼𝑅𝑅)
= 250,700
304,825= (1+IRR)250,700
IRR=
304,825
250,700
-1
 IRR= 1.22-1= 22%
Since IRR >R i.e. 22% > 12.5%, this project is worthwhile to undertake it.
5. COST BENEFIT RATIO (CBR)
CBR=
∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0
∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0
>1, accept the project.
NPV of benefit = ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 + ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=1 +∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=2
∑
217,175
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 + ∑
229,950
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2 = 374,107.43ETB

NPV of Cost = ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 + ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
1
𝑖=1 + ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)2
2
𝑖=2
∑
251,925
(1+𝑟)
0
𝑖=0 + ∑
44,100
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 +∑
98,200
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2 = 367,222.8ETB
CBR=
∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 + ∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=1 +∑
𝐵𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=2
∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
𝑛
𝑖=0 + ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)
1
𝑖=1 + ∑
𝐶𝑡
(1+𝑟)2
2
𝑖=2

∑
217,175
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 + ∑
229,950
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2
∑
251,925
(1+𝑟)
0
𝑖=0 + ∑
44,712.5
(1+0.125)
1
𝑖=1 +∑
99,425
(1+0.125)2
2
𝑖=2
Therefore, CBR=
374,107.43ETB
367,222.8ETB
= 1.02 >1 i.e.
Based on equivalency of project criterion, this project is broadly acceptable since NPV>0, IRR>R and
CBR>1.
It is clear that charitable organizations are not established for profit making. Here what the project needs to
envisage is that the sustainability & feasibility of such typical orphan livelihood ventures once it is
launched.
Thus, based on the main feasibility analysis of business development projects and accordingly, the
accuracy of all its alternative implications of investment decision parameters to undertake the project are
our solid evidences to accept and embark the project.
However,we are at short supply of 250,700 Ethiopian Birr (ETB) equivalents to US$ 12,725.8 to launch
this project.
Therefore,if you fund this project in its effort sustainably to save the lives of more than 14 orphans, you
will not hesitate either for its profitability or sustainability.
Based on this fact,it is the will of your generosity fully to fund 250,750 ETB or portion of it. The project
believes in “Many hands make light work.”
If necessary,one of the project team members looks forward to presenting the paper to you up on your request.

Mekdella Orphan project 1

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to Mekdella Orphan project 1

Similar to Mekdella Orphan project 1 (20)

Mekdella Orphan project 1