Advertisement
Advertisement

More Related Content

Advertisement

More from ILRI(20)

Recently uploaded(20)

Advertisement

Monitoring, evaluation and learning and summary of baselines for the LIVES projects

  1. Monitoring, evaluation and learning and summary of baselines for the LIVES projects Berhanu Gebremedhin, Dirk Hoekstra and Aklilu Bogale LIVES Commodity Value Chain Development Inception Workshop Addis Ababa, 21–24 January 2013
  2. ME&L in Lives • Project RBM&E and learning system • Learning is facilitated by: – M&E, and – the diagnostic, action and impact research results • Synthesis of results and lessons guides scaling up and out within and outside target zones • Baselines enable evaluation of progress towards project targets
  3. RBM&E in LIVES • Project uses RBM&E • Focus of M&E is on results, not on inputs and activities • Results are structure into: – Outputs – Immediate outcomes – Intermediate outcomes – Ultimate outcomes (impact)
  4. LIVES RBM&E framework • Resources, activities and results are organized in a logic model (LM) • LM is translated into performance framework (PF) and performance measurement framework (PMF). • PMF is a framework of result statements, indicators, Baselines, targets, data sources, data collection methods, frequency of data collection and responsibilities. • PMF is a guide for the RBM&E data collection.
  5. LIVES Baselines • Baseline data collection was conducted in August 2012 • Unit of observation is PA • Focus has been on: – Establishing PA level baselines for the selected commodity value chains – Establishing aggregate baselines by zone and across all the zones
  6. Baseline Sampling • Commodity combinations: 37 • Total number of PAs: 902 • PAs with commodities: 783 • Sample size: 25% of total PAs (= n) • Proportion representing a commodity combination: (frequency of combination)/783 = k • Sample size of the combination = k*n = l
  7. Baseline sampling (2) • Then to distribute l across zones: – (Frequency of the combination in the zone/total frequency of combination) = m – Then sample size of the combination in a zone = m*l • Then randomly sample PAs for the combination in a zone from among the PAs that have the combination • Total number of sampled PAs = 194
  8. Baseline method • Participatory methods used to collect PA level quantitative data – Focus group discussions – Key informant interviews – Records of OoA, PA admin, DAs, others • Careful use of triangulation methods
  9. Dairy Indicators Number of dairy potential PAs 379 Number of households producing milk from local cows Male 146,337 Female 23,965 Number of households producing milk from improved cows Male 14,167 Female 2,587 Proportion of households selling milk (%) Male 9 Female 11 Proportion of households selling butter (%) Male 76 Female 82 Amount of milk produced by (lt./year) Male 109,034,755 Female 18,286,686 Amount of milk produced by milk sellers (lt.) Male 18,539,955 Female 4,228,497 Proportion of milk sold by sellers (%) Male 64 Female 65 Amount of butter produced (kg/year) Male 4,262,409 Female 670,225 Proportion of butter sold by sellers (%) Male 75 Female 79 Revenue of milk sold (Birr) Male 79,212,294 Female 18,628,492 Revenue of butter sold (Birr) Male 345,661,271 Female 58,489,231
  10. Cattle and shoats Indicators Cattle Sheep Goats Number of potential PAs 219 425 425 Number of households who own male animals Male 145,972 175,421 106,312 Female 15,945 32,275 20,796 Number of households involved in improved Male 45,368 51,116 24,162 beef production Female 2,518 7,765 3,658 Proportion of households selling male animals Male 63 97 96 (ready for sale for meat) (%) Female 57 98 98 Proportion of households selling male animals Male 75 99 97 under improved production (%) Female 83 99 94 Proportion of male animals sold by (ready for Male 34 46 40 sale for meat) (%) Female 25 45 40 Proportion of male animals under improved Male 85 84 71 production sold (%) Female 67 73 55 Revenue of male animals sold (Birr) Male 672,207,736 303,685,814 146,338,850 Female 47,767,549 53,115,742 31,297,294 Revenue of male animals under improved Male 523,352,928 99,111,828 55,509,432 production sold (Birr) Female 21,749,612 21,912,148 6,713,346
  11. Poultry Indicators Number of potential PAs 383 Number of households involved in local chicken production Male 256,730 Female 53,730 Number of households involved in improved chicken Male 33,969 production Female 9,044 Proportion of households selling local chicken (%) Male 93 Female 92 Proportion of local chicken sold (%) Male 60 Female 97 Female 8,208 Proportion of households selling improved chicken (%) Male 84 Female 91 Proportion of improved chicken sold (%) Male 47 Female 59 Proportion of eggs sold (%) Male 68 Female 78 Revenue of local chicken sold Male 48,142,883 Female 12,547,716 Revenue of improved chicken sold (Birr) Male 5,630,177 Female 1,915,710 Revenue of eggs sold (Birr) Male 101,861,186 Female 21,803,822
  12. Honey Indicators Number of potential PAs 218 Number of households involved in traditional hive honey Male 34,776 production Female 2,597 Number of households involved in top bar hive honey Male 1209 production Female 17 Number of households involved in frame hive honey Male 12,041 production Female 2,755 Total honey produced from all hive types (kg/year) Male 2,334,352 Female 437,377 Proportion of honey sold (%) Male 81 Female 87 Revenue of crude honey sold (Birr) Male 115,529,440 Female 30,087,039 Revenue of pure honey sold (Birr) Male 135,201,283 Female 43,352,006
  13. Vegetables Onion Tomato Pepper Potato Garlic Indicators Number of total potential 355 458 261 399 385 PAs for irrigated agriculture Number of Male 40,789 38,630 21,687 60,368 21,901 households involved in Female 10,541 7,990 4,818 8,903 3,776 production Male 8,515 8,523 2170 11,555 3,016 Area covered (ha) Female 1,664 1850 397 1551 650.6 Male 1,557,259 2,898,036 328,673 1,976,973 185,506 Volume produced Female 314,892 522,460 48,916 416,082 45,799 (qt) Male 94 96 95 83 83 Proportion sold Female 93 95 92 85 84 (%) Proportion of Male 96 99 73 98 98 households Female 98 98 82 99 98 selling (%) Male 1,064,205,115 1,464,940,755 519,185,560 615,648,666 482,190,990 Revenue (Birr) Female 219,309,586 284,314,469 81,887,450 155,651,580 146,700,710
  14. Vegetables Cabbage/ Green Indicators leafy veg. Carrot pepper Shallot Number of total potential PAs for 390 184 235 162 irrigated agriculture Number of households Male 24,549 7,126 3,624 8,250 involved in production Female 7,393 1310 427 495 Male 3,611 1180 172 371 Area covered (ha) Female 1228 176 14 22.3 Male 925,534 291,326 18,701 33,793 Volume produced (qt) Female 286,017 36,603 2,187 1,728 Male 92 99 97 90 Proportion sold (%) Female 88 98 99 93 Proportion of Male 91 98 95 92 households selling (%) Female 96 97 98 90 Male 308,251,268 74,090,211 7,784,439 22,079,245 Revenue (Birr) Female 99,885,241 10,823,211 930,078 1,191,066
  15. Fruits Apple Banana Orange Mango Indicators Number of total potential PAs for irrigated 205 297 224 312 agriculture Number of households involved in Male 3,827 10,220 7,714 12,130 production Female 977 1,300 2,169 2,740 Male 30,662 5,720,741 74,798 102,152 Number of trees owned Female 6,963 538,721 18,351 17,077 Male 5,909 1,240,022 70,561 67,948 Volume produced (qt) Female 850 131,515 26,108 10,182 Male 87 61 94 85 Proportion sold (%) Female 53 57 86 85 Male 83 99 95 94 Proportion of households selling (%) Female 75 100 94 86 Male 9,233,241 264,567,364 68,208,920 44,445,310 Revenue (Birr) Female 974,569 25,291,917 23,409,275 8,496,003
  16. Fruits Avocado Papaya Guava Indicators Number of total potential PAs for irrigated 202 329 143 agriculture Number of households involved in Male 9,412 8,316 13,297 production Female 1,823 1,573 3,749 Male 50,895 104,593 381,127 Number of trees owned Female 11,789 15,562 98,533 Male 32,034.3 36,324 70,364 Volume produced (qt) Female 3,092 3,685 14,566 Male 95 59 88 Proportion sold (%) Female 93 67 86 Male 70 85 89 Proportion of households selling (%) Female 67 88 86 Male 27,749,828 10,394,208 42,680,218 Revenue (Birr) Female 2,419,077 1,766,246 8,462,807
  17. Pictures & some challenges faced during the baseline survey West Shoa
  18. West Shoa
  19. West Shoa
  20. South Wello
  21. South Wello
  22. Finally survived
  23. Sidama
  24. Sidama
  25. THANK YOU www.lives-ethiopia.org
Advertisement