Meret phasing out implementation guide revised

Guideline to implement MERET project phasing out strategy
World Food Programme Supported MERET Project
December,2013
Addis Ababa

i
TABL E O F CONTE NTS
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................i
List of Abrivations........................................................................................................................................ii
Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................iii
1.Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.Concepts of phasing out............................................................................................................................. 3
2.1Ensuring timely phasing out .................................................................................................................... 1
3. Objectives of the guideline ..................................................................................................................... 2
4. Scope of the guideline ............................................................................................................................ 2
5. Procedures in implementing phasing out strategy ................................................................................... 3
5. Sample size of data collection................................................................................................................ 4
6. Decision making ..................................................................................................................................... 4
7. Indicators for phasing out ...................................................................................................................... 4
7.1 The level of water harvesting and physical soil and water conservation measures............................... 5
7.2 Biological soil and water conservationactivities improved.................................................................... 6
7.3 Adoption and implementationof soil fertility management practices .................................................. 6
7.4 Access to water sources developed....................................................................................................... 6
7.5 The level of community self-help contribution...................................................................................... 7
7.6 Income generating activities in the community watershed................................................................... 7
Table1: Summary of major project outputs and indicators for rating .......................................................... 9
References................................................................................................................................................... 16
Appendix 1: Data collection format (household level)............................................................................... 17
Appendix 2: Data collection format(Woreda and/or DA level).................................................................. 25
Appendix 3: Data Collection Format(CWTand DA).................................................................................. 31

ii
L I S T O F A B R I V A T I O N S
MERET: Managing Environmental Resources to Enable Transitions to more sustainable Livelihoods
CWT: Community Watershed Team
HH: Household
DA: Agricultural Development Agents at kebele level
IGA: Income Generating Activity
NPCO: National Project Coordination Office
RPSU: Regional Project Support Unit

iii
A P P E N D I C E S
Appendix 1: Data collection format (household level)............................................................................... 16
Appendix 2: Data collection format(Woreda and/or DA level).................................................................. 25
Appendix 3: Data Collection Format(CWT and DA)................................................................................. 31

1
1 . I NT RODU C TI ON
Land degradation due to soil erosion has become a very serious problem, especially in the
Ethiopian highlands where most of the economic activities are concentrated. It has reduced land
productivity and created food insecurity among the rural communities who depend on land for
their living. Food production in these areas had reduced to the extent that these communities
needed external food assistance for up to six months in a year. This food assistance became
available through the World Food Program assisted project called Food for Work-ETH2488
project which was started in 1980. For this food support, the communities were required to work
on the soil and water conservation and afforestation activities. With subsequent improvements in
the project activities such as adopting a participatory watershed development approach, including
productivity improvement and income generating activities, this project was renamed as MERET
project. The major objectives of the MERET project have been to rehabilitate the degraded
natural resources and improve land productivity and income to improve livelihoods of the people
and reduce their dependence on the food assistance. The activities of the MERET project are
effective in conservation of natural resource, improved farm productivity and income which
finally reduced food insecurity by half.
As a result of MERET project activities, many sites are restored and livelihoods of the people
have been improved. In spite of these impressive achievements, food assistance continued in
these sites which otherwise would have been more effectively utilized in other areas where
similar problems were still existing. While on one hand new areas are waiting for similar
interventions and on the other hand external assistance is shrinking, it could be wise to decide
that those sites which have been satisfactorily improved, food assistance must be terminated.
Interestingly some sites have been continuously receiving food assistance for over two decades.
In view of the above mentioned phasing out strategy was prepared, reach consensus and
distributed to project regions.
However, there was no clear implementation guideline with the pertinent tools and indicators,
procedures, timetable to complete the process, duties and responsibilities of key stakeholders.
This necessitated the formulation of clear and well established norms for phasing out. Hence, the

2
The guideline provides basic information on phasing out including concepts, procedures, key
indicators and duties and responsibilities of concerned parties and will help in deciding to phase
out from sites with minimum or no support.

3
2 . CON C E P TS O F P HASING O U T
Phasing out strategy is an approach where a site would be evaluated against defined indicators or
parameters that make it eligible for the exit. Phasing out in MERET context is defined as a
termination of the provision of food as an incentive and minimize the frequency of supervision
and technical support for the development interventions as a result of completion of major labour
intensive activities, while the project beneficiaries have acquired relatively adequate knowledge
and skills to continue the activities by linking the remaining tasks to other programs/government
extension. Phasing out strategy will be based on many factors which would be considered during
evaluation of a particular site. However, phasing out from particular watershed does not mean
abandoning all services. There is no doubt these areas may not attain optimal economic
transformation and self-sufficiency. They require more innovative technologies and technical
support to enhance agricultural dynamism and livelihoods advancement. Therefore, it is
important that such requirements are well understood both in terms of diversity of technologies
and supports required. Thus, responsible government bodies should carefully pursue the
fulfilment of such requirements for the communities after phasing out from sites.
It is well known that projects are established for a defined period of time with defined resources.
Likewise, MERET project has definite objectives and should operate in the same site for a
defined time frame. Thus, this guideline introduces some basic procedures to ensure planning
and implement effective phasing out strategy. Many experiences have shown that without
phasing out strategy, it is difficult to reach consensus on when and how to terminate on-going
supports. The difficulty arises from a failure to determine the optimal time indicating that the
pre-defined objective has been met. Furthermore, it is important to plan phasing out strategy
because of the following main reasons:
 The intensive focus of resources on an area for a limited period of time is expected to
catalyse self-sustaining development but development is a continuing process and it

1
is important to maintain continuity with regular extension service after phasing out of the
project.
 When the project comes to an end, there may be tasks left to do as community needs have
not yet met. These tasks need to be continued with the regular extension and support from
other sources.
 Getting into an area is often easier than getting out. Thus, the phasing out strategy keeps
the community alert and aware of the objectives of the project that it will terminate after
achieving its objectives.
 Phasing out strategy should be designed to secure the resources that have been
invested in the area.
 Degraded land rehabilitation requires huge resources that should be used
economically to reach out the rest of degraded areas with similar problems.
The strategy may be viewed simply as the set of information that will be used to demonstrate whether
the desired objective(s) has been achieved or not.
2 . 1 E n s u r i ng t ime l y p h a s in g o u t
Generally, there is no standard pattern in all projects for phasing out. Thus, activities in MERET
project should be reviewed based on the objectives for which they were designed, sustainability of the
assets created, continuity of the technologies and associated technical supports. In general, the main
points underlined in the implementation of phasing out strategy could be viewed under the framework
of the following checklists:
 What are the major assets created that require special maintenance and protection?
 Who will be responsible for handling that activity?
 Is there an organization or agency to which it should be transferred?
 How will the activity be transferred?
 Are there performance specifications to be maintained?
 Who and how will it be monitored?
 What will be the role of the community in managing or monitoring?

2
 How the community role will be supported?
 What is the role of the local authorities?
 What are the major innovative technologies and technical supports needed for the
community and responsible stakeholders?
3. O b j e c tive s of t h e gu id e lin e
The objectives of the guideline are to:
 Create a common understanding among stakeholders on the approach to be followed,
 Clearly define and establish step by step procedures to be followed and
 Define the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders at various levels of working.
4. S c op e of t h e gu id e lin e
The guideline will be implemented by 451 MERET project community watersheds existing in 72
woredas of 5 regions and Dire Dawa administrative council. Except for a few sites, the project has
been implemented for more than 10 years. During the implementation period, the project intervened in
several development areas and as a result many community watersheds have registered
remarkable results in the area of degraded area restoration and livelihood improvement.
However, there are sites which are still implementing below standards of MERET project and didn’t
bring expected outputs comparing to their stay. The indicators described in the present guideline
deemed to be implemented in those watersheds which have shown relatively satisfactory results in the
major project intervention areas/ outputs. Thus, Phasing out from those sites that have been
implemented for several years, and where expected outputs were not recorded cannot be
entertained with this guideline, but should get appropriate phasing out decisions through administrative
bodies at federal, regional and woreda levels.
Finally, as far as MERET project is recognized programmes/projects which are engaged in community
based participatory watershed development; especially Productive Safety Net Programme can use the
guideline regardless of the existing guidelines.

3
5 . P r o c e d ur e s i n im p le men t i n g p h a s in g o u t s t r a t e g y
The phasing out assessment on a particular site will be undertaken based on the indicators provided in
the guideline and this assessment will be carried out by the team formed in the woreda natural
resource conservation, protection and management process. The team members may vary according to
the availability of the staff and the organizational structure of the regions, but it should include Natural
Resources Conservation Development Agent (DA), woreda soil and Water conservation expert,
livestock expert, land administration expert, forestry/Agroforestry expert, horticulture expert, socio
economist and zonal NR/rural development expert. The task force reviews and examines the report
of project focal person and further assess the detail conditions of the proposed watershed(s) based on
the established criteria for phasing out. This team will carry out the assessment following a step by
step approach on each site and final decision will be made whether the site is ready for phasing out or
not.
Steps:
1. The team will scrutinize the inventory on various activities and assess whether the site is really
ready for phasing out.
2. Once agreed to the proposal, orientation and awareness creation among the beneficiaries
should be implemented if the watershed qualifies for phasing out in order to assist the
community grasp the rationale behind the phasing out and their afterwards
responsibilities,
3. After conducting awareness creation among the community, the team will undertake
inventory on the created assets (soil and water conservation technologies, forestry and agro
forestry resources, horticultural and fruit production practices, and other homestead and IGA
activities) and also assess the different socio economic resources prevailed as the result of
project activities,
4. The team presents its findings to the woreda Natural Resources Process owner with
possible recommendations. The process owner with his possible suggestions presents the result
to the office for a final decision,
5. The woreda office of Agriculture when agreed submits to the woreda administrator for
approval. After the approval of the woreda administrator, the woreda office of agriculture

4
submits to the regional MERET project coordinating unit, Bureau of Agriculture.
6. The regional MERET coordinating unit in consultation with the natural process owner
immediately responds to the woreda for approval or disapproval of the site for phasing out,
7. If the proposal is approved by the region then the phasing out ceremony has to be
organized by woreda office of agriculture to officially hand over the site to the
community. On the occasion, the respective officials from bureau of agriculture, national
project coordination office, WFP sub office and woreda administrator and woreda sector
offices can be represented, and
8. Certification of appreciation and Congratulations award can be prepared and given to the
active development practitioners and farmers who have changed their livelihoods through the
different supports from the project during the handing over ceremony.
5 . S amp le s i z e of d at a c o l l e ction
Data can be collected from primary and secondary sources. Secondary data can be from woreda and
DA offices while the primary data could be collected from beneficiary households, community
watershed teams, Development agents and Woreda experts. Household data collection can be
undertaken using random sampling method. The minimum proposed sample size of households in
the watershed is 10%
6 . De c ision makin g
Following the summary of the results under all indicators, the final decision for phasing out from the
site can be undertaken when the total outcome is ≥ 75 %. The minimum result described above
should be supported with the technical observation undertaken by the organized technical team
in the woreda. Regarding the total outcome; although it is utilized for phasing out purpose, it could
serve as a benchmark for monitoring and evaluation of the project’s performance. Thus, all concerned
stakeholders could aware themselves for better result in due time
7 . In d ic ators for p h asin g o ut
It is always important to have clear and unambiguous indicators that will be acceptable and

5
convincing all the responsible bodies (stakeholders) to phase out from a given site at the right time
and stage without causing gaps. The indicators established for phasing out from MERET site
includes ranges and diversity of the right mix of sustainable land management practices applied
throughout a catchment and the level of achievements meeting the objective of the project. This is
determined through a series of evaluation process employed using pre- defined indicators. In the
evaluation process, the achievements would be critically assessed in terms of the relevance of
technological mix, level of achievements, community participation and sense of ownership and
whether the objective of the project is met or not. The proposed indicators for phasing out from
MERET sites could be few in number. However, this can be enriched in the process of exercising the
implementation of phasing out strategy. In general, care should be taken to ensure that additional
indicators are consistent with the purpose and the end results of the project and also do not conflict
with already established ones. The proposed indicators can broadly be categorized into:
physical/environmental and socio economic development works.
7 . 1 T he l evel of w ater ha rvesti ng a n d physi ca l soi l a nd w ater
con s e r v ation m ea sures
The area, which was previously degraded, is expected to have been covered with various.Water
harvesting and soil and water management structures in order arrest the accelerated flood and
effectively control soil erosion. These activities are critically important in the rehabilitation of
degraded lands, restoration of hydrological balance and improvement of productivity in the
watersheds. Land degradation affects the whole agro- ecosystem, including the hydrological
balance and availability of water for the community. Thus, the implementations of physical
measures together with the vegetative measures are expected to have restored the disrupted
hydrological balance and degraded ecosystems. The principal idea is the application of intensive
water harvesting and soil and water conservation technologies to capture the rainwater in the
catchments which eventually creates opportunities for improving ground water sources and
restores agro-ecosystem. The practices which have been carried out include different in-situ
water conservation techniques (eye brow basins, micro basins, herring bone and trenches),
hillside terraces, farm land terraces,Gully rehabilitation measures, waterways and cut off drain.

6
Therefore, the evaluation process critically takes into account all these aspects and makes sure that
all these requirements are met.
7 . 2 B iolog i c al soi l a nd w ater con s e rva t ion a cti v iti e s i mproved
The loss of vegetation cover (trees, shrubs, grasses, etc.) as a result of land degradation is one of the
major concerns threatening the environment and socio-economic conditions of the community in
degraded ecosystems. The rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems, restoration and optimization of
vegetation cover and biomass production is among the indicators for the maturity of the site for
phasing out. The progress made from this perspective should be critically assessed using the
established indicators before phasing out from the site. The fulfilment of these requirements is of
paramount importance for stabilizing the ecosystem, fulfilling households’ demands for timber, fuel
wood, livestock feed, income generation and for improving food security. The practices include
plantations in the hillsides, on individual farms as woodlots, farm boundaries, homesteads as well as
closure management, forestry and agro forestry practices. All these should be taken into account in
the process of evaluating the site for maturity.
7 . 3 Adopti on a nd i mplemen tation of soil f er t il i ty m an a g em ent
p r a cti ces
Soil fertility management practices are among the major components of sustainable land
management practices that improve productivity and contribute to food security. Therefore, the
number of households practicing possible soil fertility management practices could be an
indicator for phasing out from the site. The practices may include compost/farmyard manure
preparation and use, green manuring, improved agronomic practices (crop rotation,
mulching, etc.) and using leguminous plant species in land management practices.
7 . 4 Access to w a ter sour ces d eveloped
Small scale water source development has become an essential activity of the project with
immense potential for intensification of productivity and huge income generation that
enables averting bad image of poverty. It boosts the chances of prosperity among the

7
beneficiaries. Among various water source development technologies small scale water
harvesting, household ponds, community ponds, roof water harvesting, check dam ponds,
Spring development and small scale diversion weirs will be considered. The magnitude and
extent of these activities can also be taken as an indicator for considering the maturity of the site
for phasing out.
7 . 5 T he l evel of comm un i ty sel f-hel p con tr ib ution
The quantity, quality and type of self-help activities carried out by the communities
themselves are among the important indicators for the commitment of the community towards the
rehabilitation and management of their resources. The information collected from the annual reports
show that the total share of communities’ self-help activities is increasing from year to year in
MERET sites. In some regions the total share of self-help activities reaches above 40% of the total
labour invested. This clearly indicates the growing interest of the community to expand their
contribution for land rehabilitation as a result of tangible results and benefits being accrued from
Integrated watershed management interventions.
7 . 6 In c ome gener atin g acti vi ties i n the comm un i ty w ater shed
Income generating activities such as horticultural development, dairy, poultry, apiculture, high
value (cash) crop production, etc. Support the livelihoods of millions of smallholder farmers in
Ethiopia. MERET project focuses on the improvement of livelihoods of the beneficiaries
through the introduction and adaptation of improved technologies identifying from research
institutions and elsewhere. For small farmers with extremely limited land holdings the integration of
income generating activities (IGA) has been very appropriate for improving their livelihoods as most
of the income generation packages require a smaller area of land in contrast to most of the cereal
crops. The selected packages are not only improving the livelihoods of the beneficiaries, but also
contribute to sustainable management and development of natural resources. That is, as they are
providing alternative income sources for the poor, they reduce encroachment on communal hillside
forests. Hence, the existence and expansion of eco-friendly, socially/culturally acceptable and
economically feasible income generating activities are critically important to guarantee sustainability

8
of the natural resources. The other important aspect that should be considered when phasing out
from the site include percentage of user groups organized for asset management and/or income
generation; level of community solidarity and community’s intention to participate in supporting the
poor households, etc.
7.7 Capacity of the community to manage the assets created
The understanding and consciousness level of the community in handling the created and/or existing
assets in the watershed is very important for the continued development of resources in the
watershed. Moreover, the capacity of the community to access the essential outputs by themselves
while assuring sustainable development and management of the assets is also an important aspect
to consider before phasing out from the sites. Leadership quality and accountability of the
community in managing the resources is an important element when phasing out. With the true and
effective participation of the watershed beneficiaries, it is important to introduce and apply
communally agreed bylaws for equitable utilization; development and management of the resources
in the watersheds.
7.8 Food gap and household livelihood
The underlying cause of formulating and implementing watershed based development and food security
projects is the occurrence of chronic food gap in the project areas. Hence, assessing the food self-sufficiency
condition of the project beneficiaries should be taken into consideration while phasing out plan is
implemented. The initial average food shortage in MERET project areas is 6 months. After five years of
rehabilitation and associated works the average food gap in MERET sites normally reduce to 3months
 Ranking and scoring methodology
Ranking and scoring of the decision elements or criteria are made based on linguistic measures
developed by Saaty (1980) on the scale of 1 to 8 semantic differentials scoring to give relative
rating. The outputs/major criteria for decision stipulated in the table below were distributed to
different experts including the regions. Every person compared the outputs pair-wise upon
logical understanding about the importance of the criteria for phasing out. The scale of
differential scoring presumes that the row criterion is of equal or greater importance than the
column criterion. A decision matrix is constructed using Saaty’s scale and factor attributes are
compared pair-wise in terms of importance of each criterion/decision element to that of the next
level. Once the pair-wise matrix is made, Saaty’s method of eigenvectors/relative weights are

9
calculated by equations. Determining the consistency ratio (Cr) involves skill and logic and if the Cr
< 0.10, then the ratio holds consistency otherwise the ratio is inconsistent. The Cr found in the
calculation for our output/criteria using Saaty’s methods is 0.03. Hence, scoring and ranking of the
decision criteria/elements is logical.
T a b l e 1 : Sum ma r y o f ma jo r p r o je c t o u tp u ts a n d i n di c a t o r s fo r
r a ti n g
No Focus areas and achievements Weight Rated score
1
Area of Land covered with Physical
soil and water conservation and /or
moisture harvestingTechnologies
22
1.1
Area treated with moisture harvesting and/or
physical soil and water conservation in the
hillsides/degraded lands (6pts)
6, if ≥ 90%
5, if 85 - 89%
4, if 80 - 84%
3, if 75 - 79%
2, if 70 - 74%
1, if 65 - 69%
1.2
Farm lands treated with physical soil and water
conservation practices (6pts)
6, if ≥90%
5, if 85-90%
4, if 80-84%
3, if 75-79%
2, if 70-74%
1, if 60-69%
1.3
Gullies in the watershed treated with physical
soil and water conservation measures(5pts)
5, if ≥ 85 %
4, if 80-84%
3, if 75-79%
2, if 70-74%
1, if 65-69%
1.4
Grazing lands treated with physical soil and
water conservation practices. (5pts)
5, if ≥85%
4, if 80-84%
3, if 75-79%
2, if 70-74%
1, if 60-69%

10
2
Area covered with Biological soil and
water conservation activities
16
2.1
Area of Degraded land and/or hillside under
closure management (3pts)
3, if > 80% degradedLand or
hillside closed
2, if 75 - 79% degraded land or
hillside closed
1, if 65 - 74% degraded land or
hill side closed
2.2 Area covered with plantation (4pts)
4, if ≥ 90%
3, if 84 - 89%
2, if 80 - 84%
1, if 75 - 79%
2.3
Percentage of farm lands treated with
vegetative measures (E.g. Bund
stabilization) (5pts)
5, if ≥ 50%
4, if 45 - 49%
3, if 40 - 44%
2, if 35 - 39%
1, if 25 - 34%
2.4
Gully area treated with vegetative measures
( covered with vegetation) (4 pts)
4, if >85%
3,if 75-84%
2,if 65-74%
1,if 55-64%
3
Soil fertility managementPractices
adopted
11
3.1
Percentage of the beneficiary households
practicing soil fertility management techniques
(compost, green manuring) (5pts)
5, if ≥ 80%
4, if 70 - 79%
3, if 60 - 69%
2, If 50 - 59%
1, if 40 - 50%
3.2
Percentage of farm land closed from free grazing
(6pts)
6, if ≥ 50%
4, if 44 - 49%
3, if 40 - 44%
2, if 35 - 39%
1, if 25 - 34%
4 Access to water sources developed 10
4.1
Percentage of community members who
adopt water harvesting technologies (2pts)
2, if ≥15%
1, if 5 - 14%
4.2
Percentage of HHs who have access to water
sources.(2pts)
2, if ≥ 15%
1, if 5 - 14%

11
4.3 Percentage of functional water user groups (2pts)
2, if ≥ 25%
1, if 5 - 14%
4.4 Area covered with small irrigation(2pts)
2, if ≥ 5%
1, if 2 - 5%
4.5 Percentage of functional water points(2pts)
2, if >50% of water points
functioning
1, if 30-49% of the user groups
functioning
5
community self-help contribution in
activity implementation increased
11
5.1 Percentage area treated with physical soil
and water conservation measures through self-
help (3pts)
3, if ≥ 50%
2, if 40 - 49%
1, if 25 - 39%
5.2 Percent of area closure managed through
community internal resources( self-help) (2pts)
2, if ≥ 100%
1, if 80 - 99%
5.3 Percentage of water points implemented
through community internal resources (2pts)
2, if ≥ 50%
1, if 30 - 49%
5.4 Percentage of forestation and reforestation
activities implemented through community
internal resources (3pts)
3, if ≥ 50%
2, if 40 - 49%
1, if 30 - 39%
5.5 Percentage of the community assets maintained
by the community (1pt)
1, if ≥ 100%
0,if <100%
6
Income generating activities
diversified and enhanced
10
6.1
Percentage of beneficiary households undertaking
income generatingactivities (3pts)
3, if ≥ 50%
2, if 30 - 49%
1,if 20-29%
6.2
Percentage households who implemented two or
more IGAs(3pts)
3,if ≥50%
2, if ≥ 50%
1,if 30 - 49%
6.3
The percentage households who have access to
revolving fund (2pts)
2, if ≥ 15%
1, if 5 - 14%
6.4
Percentage of households organized in user
groups for income management( 2pts)
2, if ≥ 80%
1, if 65 - 79%
7
The capacity of the community in
project cycle management improved
12
7.1
Frequency of meeting of the community to
revise their watershed plan(3pts)
3, if once per year; done
together with the involvement of the
community
2, if once per year; done only with
CWT and DA

12
1, if one per year, done by DA
7.2
Percent of regular meetings held by the CWT
as per their plan. (3 Pts)
3, at least in a month
2, once per three months
1, once biannually
7.3
Capacity of the CWT in maintaining
records(3pts)
3, if they atleast maintained
watershed plan and minutes
2, if they maintained atleast
watershed plan
0, if they have no records
7.4
Percentage of community members respecting/
implementing community bylaws (3pts)
3, if ≥ 75%
2, if 55 - 74%
1, if 45-54%
8
Increased ability to manage shocks
and meet necessary food needs and
diversify livelihood
8
8.1
Percentage of the households claiming income
increment (4pt)
4, if ≥ 90%
3, if 80-89%
2, if 60-79%
1,if 50-59%
8.2
Percentage of the households claiming reduction
in food deficit at least two months (4)
4, if ≥ 90%
3, if 80-89%
2, if 60-79%
1,if 50-59%
Total 100
9. Duties and responsibilities of stakeholders
9.1 National Project Coordination Office (NPCO)
 Facilitates the preparation of phasing out guideline and get it endorsed by all
stakeholders,
 Creates awareness among the project staff and stakeholders about the phasing out
strategy and its implementation,
 Involves in the selection of at least one model matured site in each region and
supports proper phasing out from the given site. The selection process and
implementation of the phasing out strategy for the 1st
site will be undertaken under
close monitoring and support of NPCO,
 Assists the regions in the preparation of appropriate formats for taking inventory of the

13
assets created in the watersheds,
 Assists the regions in developing viable sample bylaws that further ensure
sustainable management and protection of created assets,
 Monitors and closely follow up the implementation of the phasing out strategy for a
site, reaching maturity as per the procedures in the guideline, and
 Works closely with the regional Agriculture bureaus to ensure that the sites get proper
extension services.
9.2 Regional Bureau of Agriculture and/or RPSU
 Creates awareness among all stakeholders responsible for the implementation of the
phasing out strategy in the region,
 Supports, assists and Provides technical support to the woredas in the process of
selecting matured sites of phasing out
 Examines the phasing out plan proposed by the woredas and immediately responds
to the woredas with necessary amendments to continue with the plan,
 Facilitate resources needed to implement the phasing out strategy,
 Support the woredas in preparing official handing over ceremony and facilitate for the
participation of concerned organizations on the ceremony,
 Prepares and delivers regular reports to the national project coordination office as required
and
 Continues over-seeing the sustainability of the assets created in the sites and makes sure that
the community is getting innovative technologies and technical supports after phasing out of
the project
9.3 Zonal department of Agriculture (if exists)
 Participate in awareness creation process among all stakeholders responsible for the
implementation of the phasing out strategy in the woredas and target communities,
 Support woredas in identifying sites ready to implementing phasing out strategy,
 Provides technical support, closely monitors and follows up the implementation of the
phasing out strategy as per the guideline and makes sure that it is done accordingly,
 Support the woredas in preparing official handing over ceremony and facilitate for the

14
participation of concerned organizations on the ceremony and
 Prepares and delivers regular reports to the regional project coordination office as required.
9.4 Woreda Agriculture Office
 Discusses with the community about the objectives and rationale of MERET
Phasing out strategy,
 Facilitate resources needed for implementation of the phasing out strategy,
 Takes an inventory of the created assets together with the community representatives as per
the format prepared for this purpose,
 Evaluates and grades the level of results as per the pre-defined indicators for the results,
 Officially hands over the sites to the community in an organized ceremony with binding
duties and responsibilities stipulated in the agreement document and signed by the
responsible parties,
 Organizes the community into groups and subgroups for proper protection, management and
utilization of the resources rehabilitated and created assets,
 Facilitates the establishment of bylaws for the community based on the conceptual
framework developed by NPSU/RPSU that guarantees the sustainable protection,
management and further consolidation of the development endeavours in the watersheds,
 Closely supervises and follows up the implementation of the duties and
responsibilities of the community as per the agreed bylaws,
 Provides, if necessary, the hand tools required for the maintenance and sustainable
management of natural resources in the area,
 Monitors the sustainable management of the phased out community watershed and
identifies other supports if needed,
 Provides technical supports and closely monitors the innovative technologies provided by
NPCO/RPSU,
 Makes sure that the community gets innovative technologies and technical supports
from all rendering these services.
9.5 Kebele administration
 On behalf of the community, it takes over the created assets and signs agreement with the

15
Woreda office of Agriculture (WoA),
 Actively participates in the preparation and development of bylaws for the
sustainable management of the created assets ,
 Assumes the responsibility of persuading and coordinating the community members
for the protection and utilization of the created assets as indicated in the bylaws and
 Coordinates the community in undertaking the remaining watershed
development and management activities.
9.6 Community watershed team
 Actively participates in the preparation and development of bylaws for the
sustainable management of the created assets,
 Regularly monitors the sustainability of the community’s as well as households’
assets,
 Coordinates the beneficiary community members for the works as appropriate, and
 Makes sure that appropriate measures are taken against the defaulters

16
R E F E R E N C E S
Agri-service Ethiopia(1999), Phasing out strategy, final draft by Amanuel Assefa, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia
GTZ-SUN oromiya(2010), Assessment of SUN Watersheds: Status and Exit strategies
World Food Programme(2009),MERET project phase out strategy, drafted by Arega Yirga, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Henrique, M.L., Chaves and Suzana Allapaz,2006. An Integrated Indicator Based on Basin Hydrology,
Environment, Life, and Policy: The Watershed Sustainability Index.
MERET project phasing out strategies (2009), Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

17
A p p e n d i x 1 : D a t a c o l l e c t i o n f o r m a t ( h o u s e h o l d l e v e l )
PERFORMANCE ASSESMENT FOR PHASING OUT
HOUSEHOLD LEVEL
SURVEY QUESTIONNERY
I. Household Background
Interviewer’s Name
Date
Region
Zone
Woreda
Kebele
Watershed
Name of the Householder: ______________________Sex:_____
Family Size : _______________________
Total Landholding size ( ha) ; _____________________
Livestock
Type Number
cow
oxen
bull
calves
sheep
goat
horse
muel
donkey
chicken

18
I. Soil fertility enhancement and management practices assessment
2.1 Are you exercising soil fertility management practices in your farmla a) Yes b) No
2.2 Which soil fertility enhancement technologies do you use? a) Inorganic fertilizer b) Organic fertilizer
c) both
2.3 If you use soil fertility management practice, to what extent (fill below)?
Type
Area in
hectare For which crops
%
1. Total Cultivated land
2. The area covered by Chemical
fertilizer
- DAP
- Urea
3. Area covered by Organic fertilizer
- Compost
- Farmyard/animal manure
- Mulching
- Green Manure
4. Cultivated land without Organic
/Inorganic
2.4 Are organic fertilizers lone sufficient for your crop production requirements? a) Yes b)
No
2.5 If not, what is/are the reason/s?
□Lack of biomass □Lack of technical support □labour constraint
□lack of experience □All
□Other specify _____________________________________________
2.6 What are the main benefits resulting from the applied soil fertility techniques?
i. Increased production
ii. Reduced soil erosion
iii. Increased soil moisture

19
iv. Reduced the requirement of chemical fertilizer
v. All the above
vi. Other, specify_____________________
2.7 Extension services/ DAs support in soil fertility management at the homesteads: Rate:  Good
 Medium  Poor
2.8 Challenges and/or limitations experience in the spreading of the technology to all of the community
members; if there are any?
III. Assessment of Income Generating Activities at household level
3.1 Are you practicing Income Generating Activity at household a) Yes b) No
3.2 If NO, Why? Give reason/s (tick)
i. Lack of awareness
ii. Lack of knowledge and skill
iii. Lack of credit
iv. Lack of access to market
v. Lack of inputs
vi. Lack of budget
vii. Lack of water availability
viii. Lack of farmland
ix. Other reason specify__________
3.3 If Yes, in which type and to what extent? And how significantly are you getting income from the
implemented IGAs at HH level? Fill the table below
Type of IGAs
Unit
Amount
How significant have you
obtained additional income?
Good Medium Poor
1. Trees from private woodlot Ha.
2. Fruit production No.
3. Vegetable production Ha.
4. Cash crops Ha.

20
5. Bee keeping No
6. Poultry No.
7. Small scale fattening
7.1 Oxen No
7.2 sheep &/or Goats No
8. Dairy No
9. Other, specify….
10.
3.4 What proportion of the product /yield of the IGAs have you used for Market and/ or for home
consumption in the last year ?
Type of IGAs
Unit
Amount
% of Usage (Estimate )
% for home
consumption
% for Market
1. Trees from private woodlot Ha.
2. Fruit production No.
3. Vegetable production Ha.
4. Cash crops/ yield Ha.
5. Honey Kg
6. Egg No.
7. Chicken (for meat) No
8. Small scale fattening
8.1 Oxen No
8.2 sheep &/or Goats No
9. Dairy No
10. Other, specify….
3.5 Have you trained in the technical management and handling of Income Generating activities? Yes
a) No
3.6 Are you getting extension services/ DAs support in the management and handling of the Income
Generating Activities at the homesteads: Rate:  Good  Medium  Poor
3.7 What challenges and/or limitation are you facing (if) while practicing the IGAs and give your

21
comments and suggestion to improve the situation.
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
4 Assessment of Water facilities at Household level
Question 4 - For analysis
4.1. Do you have water points/ facility at household level? a) Yes b) No
4.1.1 If yes, what type
a) Micro pond
b) Hand dug well
c) Spring
d) Roof water harvesting/reservoir
e) Other type, specify _____
4.1.2 When did you develop?
a) Before the project intervention
b) During the project intervention period?
4.2 What are the benefits from the water facility/points?
a) Water for human consumption, and less distance to travel
b) Water for livestock consumption, and less distance to travel
c) Water for Irrigation
d) Other, specify_________________________________________________
e) A combination of the above, specify _________________________________

21
5 IV . Criteria/ Output (8) Increased ability to manage shocks and meet necessary food needs and
diversify livelihood
Question 5- For Indicator 8.1: Percentage of the households claiming
income increment
Q5.1 According to your opinion, has agricultural production (crop and
animal husbandry) increased as a result of MERET interventions?
 Yes  No
Q5.2 If YES, which MERET interventions were responsible for this, in order of
importance?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Q5..3 According to your perception, how has your income changed since the start of the
project due to MERET interventions?
 Declined  Remained the same  Increased
Q5 .4 If increased, which MERET interventions were responsible for this, in order of
importance?
1.
2.
3.
4.

22
Q5.5 If increased, has your expenditure increased too?  Yes  No
Q5.6 If YES, which major items were included in your expenditure? (Tick all that apply)
 Bought breeding animals  Bought oxen
 Bought horse/mule  Bought Donkey
 Covered education expenses  Covered medical expenses
 Bought radio  Bought agricultural tools
 Constructed new house  Paid Loan
 Social Obligations e,g (EDIR)  Other, specify:
Q5 .7 To what extent has your income increased during as a result of MERET? (Tick one of the
following)
 Substantial increase  Medium increase  Low increase
 No increase
Question 6. - for Indicator ( 8. 2) : Percentage of the households claiming reduction in food deficit
at least two months
Q6.1 How many food deficit months did your household encounter
during the last year?
________________
Q6.29 Was last year a good, normal, or a bad
year?
 Good  Normal  Bad
Q6.3. Before last year, how many months per
year did you experience food shortages?
Goodyear Normal
Year
Bad Year

23
Q6.4 How did you meet your family’s food requirements during food deficit months last
year?
(Tick all that apply)
 Participation in FFW activities  Casual labour
 Borrow of grain from others  Selling of non-productive household assets
 Contract farm land  Selling of forest products
 Remittances  Petty trade
 Other, specify:
Q5.12 Has your ability to cope with shocks, improved since your participation in the
project? (Tick one of the following)
 Significantly improved  Moderately improved
 No change  Worsened
-
6. 7 Household asset
S.no Items
Before project intervention Currently
Amount
Estimated value in
Birr Amount
Amount
Estimated value
in BirrHouse
House other than residence
Livestock in TLU
Forestry/fruit
Eucalyptus
Avocado
Mango
Q6.5 Compared to the last five years, how do you judge your food security situation of
today? (Tick one)
 Improved significantly  No change
 Improved slightly  Worsened
Q 6.6 By how many months has reduced? ______________

24
Orange
Apple
Other Agroforestry
Valuables
Jewellery
Wrist watches
Agricultural equipment
Hoe
Maresha
Sickle
Axe
Others
Non-agricultural
equipmentsCarpenter equipment
Black smith equipment
Weaving equipment
Building equipment
Others
Household goods
Bed
Tables & chairs
Radio/tape recorder
Sanduk, Kumsaten
Other kitchen equipment
Deposit in cash
Cash you lend to other

25
A p p e n d i x 2 : D a t a c o l l e c t i o n f o r m a t ( W o r e d a a n d / o r D A l e v e l )
DATA COLLECTION & ANALYSIS
FORMAT
DATA COLLECTORS
Name Position Signature
I. BACKGROUND OF THE WATERSHED
1.1 Region: _____________________
1.2 Woreda: ____________________
1.3 Kebele: _____________________
1.4 Watershed Site: ____________________
1.5 Location (GPS) N_______ E_______
Altitude__________________meters
1.6 Agro-ecological zone (choose)
a) Dega
b) Weyna dega
c) Kolla
1.7 Number of beneficiaries Households :______________
1.8 Total Population in the Site:________Male_________female_______
1.9 Average family size :__________
1.10 Average total landholding size (ha) per family head ________
WOREDA & SITE (DA)LEVEL

26
1.11 When did MERET project start operating in the watershed/ site? Month:
________ Year: ________(European colander)
1.12 What is the total area of the watershed in hectares? ___________
II. Criteria/Out put 1. Area of Land covered with Physical soil and water conservation and
/or moisture harvesting technologies
Question 1. For indicator1.1
1.1 What area of the hillsides and or/degraded land have been treated with moisture
harvesting and/or physical soil & water conservation? __________(ha.)
1.2 What area of hillside and/or degraded land is still untreated or need to be treated with
moisture harvesting and /or physical soil and water conservation measures? : ___________
(ha.)
1.3 Total area (in hectares): (1.1) + (1.2) =_________ ha.
1.4 Percentage area of the hillsides and/ or degraded land treated with moisture harvesting
and/or physical soil & water conservation measures: ___________%
( % = (1.1)/(1.3) x 100% )
Question 2. For indicator 1.2
Total farmland area in the watershed: ___________ha.
2.1 What area of farm land has been covered or treated with physical soil & water
conservation measures (SWC) until now? ___________ha.
2.2 The percentage of the farm land treated so far with physical SWC measures: ______% (
% = (2.2) /(2.1) x 100%)
2.3 Area of untreated farm land which needs to be treated with physical SWC measures:
______________ha.
QUESTION 3 – for indicator 1.3
3.1 Area (hectare) of Gully rehabilitated/treated by physical soil & water conservation:
:_______________ha.
3.2 Area of gully still untreated/which need to be treated by physical soil & water conservation
measures: _________ha.
3.3 Total area of gully (treated and untreated)/ (3.1+3.2) :_________ha
3.4 Percentage (%) of gully treated by physical soil & water conservation measure: ________%
(= (3.1) / (3.3) * 100%)

27
QUESTION 4 – for indicator 1.4
4.1 Total grazing/grass land area in the watershed (in hectare): ___________ha.
4.2 Area of grazing land covered / treated with physical soil & water conservation measures
(SWC) until now: ___________ha.
4.3 Percentage (%) of the grazing land treated with physical SWC measures so far
__________% { = (4.2) /(4.1) * 100%}
4.4 Area of untreated grazing land which needs to be treated with physical SWC measures:
______________ha.
Recommendations of the woreda task force:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
III. Criteria/Output Area covered with Biological soil and water
conservation activities
QUESTION 5. –For indicator 2.1
Total area land that was / is degraded and/or hillside in the watershed: ___________ha.
5.1 Area of degrade and/or hillside land under closure management: __________ha.
5.2 Percentage (%) of degraded and/or hillside areas under closure management:
_______% {= (5.2) /(5.3) x 100%}
QUESTION 6. – For indicator 2.2
6.1 Area of the watershed covered with tree plantation: _________ha.
a) Area of communal land covered with tree plantation: ______ha.
b) Area of individuals’ land planted by tree/woodlot/: ________ha.
c) Closure area with enrichment plantation: _____ha.
6.2 An area of land that need to be planted with trees: __________ha.
6.3 Total plantation area( planted + to be planted): _________ ha. { = (6.1) + (6.2) }

28
6.4 Percentage (%) of the area covered by plantation : ________%
{ % = (6.1)/(6.3) *100% }
7.1 Total farmland area in the watershed (in hectare):___________ha.
7.2 Area of farm land treated with biological measures, (Eg. , bund stabilization, grass strip,
Agroforestry):_________ha.
7.3 Percentage ( %) of farm land treated with biological /vegetative measures: _______%
{ % = (7.2) /(7.1) x 100%}
8.1 Area (hectare) of Gully rehabilitated/treated by vegetative measures: _________ha.
8.2 Area of gully still untreated/or which need to be treated by vegetative measures::
__________ha.
8.3 Total area of gully (treated with vegetative measures and untreated): ________ha. { =
(8.1) + (8.2) }
8.4 Percentage (%) of gully treated by vegetative measure: _______%
{% = (8.1) / (8.3) x 100%}
IV. Criteria/output 3: Soil fertility management Practices adopted
QUESTION 9 – For indicator 3.1
9.1 Total number of households in the community watershed: ____________
9.2 Number of Households implementing organic fertility management practices: ________
9.3 Percent of the Households utilizing soil fertility management practices___________
9.4 Indicate amount of soil fertility management practiced last year.
Soil Fertility improvement
Activities
Unit Quantity
No. of HHs
practicing the
activity
Compost Making M3
Animal/farm manure M3
Mulching Ha
Green Manuring Ha
Crop residues Management Ha

29
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________ __________________________________________________
QUESTION 10, For indicator 3.2
10.1 Total Area of Farmland in the watershed: ___________ha
10.2 Is there farm land closed from free grazing in the watershed?
a) Yes b) No
10.3 If YES, what area of Farm land is closed from free grazing? :________________ha.
10.4 Percentage (%) of farm land closed from free grazing? _________%
{ %= (10.3)/(10.1) *100% }
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________
V. Criteria/Output 5-Community self-help contribution in activity
implementation
QUESTION 11- for indicator 5.1 ,5.2, 5.3, 5.4 ,5.5
11.1 Are the community members in the watersheds participating through self-help basis in the
creation and maintenance of Asset?
a) Yes b) No
11.2 If yes, fill the table below on the achievement of main activity, component starting the
project intervention to date and calculate % of contribution through self-help basis
and fill at the end column of the table below.

30
Major activity component Unit
Achievement through
% of self-help
basis = (B)/(C
) * 100%
Food For
Asset (A)
Self-help
basis (B)
Total (C )=
( A) +( B)
1. Physical Soil &water conservation
measures
1.1 Farmland terraces ha
1.2 Hillside terraces ha
1.3 In-suit moisture harvesting
measures ha
1.4 Gully rehabilitation ha
sub total
2. Water points
2.1 community pond No
2.2 spring development No
2.3 SS dam/pond/ No
2.4 stream diversion No
sub total
3. Reforestation & afforestation ha
3.1 pit preparation ha
3.2 seedling planting ha
sub total
4. Area closure ( Site guard ) ha
11.3 Who is responsible in maintaining the already installed assets?
a) All (100%) of the community asset are maintained by the community
b) Some community assets are maintained by external support
11.4 If your answer for Q11.3 is (b), why? Give reason
_____________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
11.5 Recommendations of the woreda task force:

31
A p p e n d i x 3 : D a t a C o l l e c t i o n F o r m a t ( C W T a n d D A )
COMMUNITY WATERSHED TEAM (CWT)
&
DEVELOPMENTAL AGENTS (DA’S’)
Name Position Signature
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF THE WATERSHED SITE
i. Region: _____________________
ii. Zone: _____________________
iii. Woreda: _____________________
iv. PA: _____________________
v. Watershed site: ________________
vi. Number of households in the site: ________
vii. Total population: _______________
viii. Family size
ix. Average total landholding size (ha) /family head ________
x. Average cultivated land size (ha)/family head ________
xi. When did 2488 project start operating in this area:
II.The capacity of the community in project cycle management improved
QUESTION (1) - for indicator 7.1
1.1 Does the site have CommunityBasedParticipatoryWatersheddevelopmentplan? a) Yes b) No
1.2 Does the community revise their plan? a) Yes b) No
1.2.1 If yes, how often are they revising their plan?
1.3 If yes, how often are they revising their plan?
a) Once per year
b) Once per two years

32
1 . 4 Was the revision done through community re-planning process?Yes b) No
1 . 5 If your answer is YES for (1.2.2), who carried it out? (Chose only one)
a ) The planning team only
b ) The planning team and the community
c ) The planning team and DA
d ) The DA only
e ) The planning team,the DAandthe community
1.6 I f your answer is NO for (1.2.2), what were the main reasons?
a) Lack of training
b) Lack of formats
c) Lack of follow up and support
d) Other, specify___________________
1.7 If your answer is No to the above question 1.2, when was the last revision?
a) Never revised b) 2 years ago c) Not known
QUESTION 2. – For indicator 7.2&7.3
1.1 Does the CommunityWatershedhaveCWT?a) Yes b ) No
1.2 If yes, how many members are they? Total No. __________Male: __________ Female:
___________
1.3 Did the CWTget integrated watershed development and management technology training since
onset of the project? Yes b) No
1.4 I f yes, how many times did you get? a) Once since the onset of the project b) Twice since the
onset of the project
1.5 Do the CWT members conduct meeting about their community watershed issues? a) Yes b) No
1.6 If yes, how often do they conduct? a) Once per month b) Once per quarter c) Once biannual
d) once per year
1.7 How did the CWT undertake decisions? By consensus b) by vote c) Both
1.8 Do the CWT records their data? a) Yes b) No
1.9 If yes, for (2.8), what are the available records exist at hand?
a) Only watershed plan b) Meeting minutes c) Both
QUESTION 3 - for indicator 7.4
1.1 Does the community have agreed bylaws for excluding free riders, sharing of the communal
assets, and for grazing?a) Yes b) No

33
1.2 Ifyes, what percentage of the community members respect and implement the community
bylaws? Chose
a) > 75% of the community members respect the bylaws
b) About 55% to 74% of the community members respect the community bylaws
c) 45% to 54% of the community members respect the community bylaw
d) Below 45% of the community members respect the community bylaws
1.3 Ifthepercentageofcommunitymembersthat respectandapplythecommunity’sbylawsarebelow 45%
,why?
PleaseSpecify_____________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________
Comments on the overall sustainability of this output 7
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________
Recommendation for decision making
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
III. Criteria/Out 4; Access to water sources developed
QUESTION 4. - For indicator 4.2 &4.5
4.1 Fill below in the table (1), the types & numbers of water schemes constructed till now, the number
of functional water points currently, type of use of the water points and the number of beneficiary
households from each of the water points

34
4.2 Table (1)
Types of
water
points( WP)
No. of
Constructe
d water
points
( A)
No. of
Functiona
l water
points
(B)
% of
functional
WP (C)
= B/A
Type of Use
No of
Beneficiary
Households
Home
consumption
Irrigation
For
Livestoc
k
Spring
Hand dung
well
Household
Pond
Check dam
Ponds /SS
Dam
Community
Pond
Stream
diversion
Total
4.3 Number of beneficiary Household from the water points
Total beneficiary HHS :___________Male HHs :___________Female HHs:_______________
% of Females HHs:______________
QUESTION 5 for indicator 4.3
5.1 Total number of established water user groups: ___________
5.2 Number of functional User groups: _________________
QUESTION 6 -for Indicator 4.1 & 4.4

35
6.1 Number of households who are currently practicing small scale irrigation through at least one
water points
6.2 Estimate the area of land ( in hectare) under irrigation just at the beginning of project
intervention: ____________ ha.
6.3 Identify the area ( in hectare )of irrigated land presently: ______________
Comments on the overall sustainability of output 4
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
_______________
IV. Criteria/Output 6: Income generating activities diversified & enhanced
QUESTION 7- for indicator 6,1 , 6.2, & 6.4
7.1 Fill in the table (2) below, the number of Households and User Groups involved per the types of
IGAs
Table (2)
Types of IGAs
Household Level User Groups
No. of
Male HH
No. of
Female
HH
Total
HH
% of
Female
HHs
No.of User
Groups
Number of
members of
the UGs
Grass from closed areas
Trees from private woodlot
Fruit production

36
Vegetable production
Trees from area closure
Bee keeping products
Poultry products
Small scale fattening
Cash crops
Others specify
Total
7.2 Total number of established IGA User Groups: _______________________
7.2.1 Number of functional/ active IGA user groups:__________________
7.2.2 If there are un-functional /in active established IGA User groups, Why?
a) Lack of awareness
b) Lack of knowledge and skill
c) Lack of credit
d) Lack of access to market
e) Lack of inputs
f) Lack of budget
g) Lack of water availability
h) Lack of farmland
i) Other reason specify_______
7.2.3 The total number of community members under the IGA User Groups:______
7.2.4 Number (Types) of IGAs practiced by the User Groups : _____________
7.4 Total Number of Households Involved in IGA:_________________
Male HHs:___________ Female HH:________ % of Female HHs:______
Remark Please take care of recording the total number of the HHs involved in the different IGAs.
Taking the sum total as it has been indicated in the above table will create redundancies and double
counting of HHS.
In order to avoid this double counting and redundancy it will be better to record as follows in the table (3)
below

37
Table (3)
Households Involved in
No.of Male
HHs
No of Female
HHs
Total Number
Households
1. Only one type of IGAs
2. Any two types of IGAs
3. Any three types of IGA
4. In Four types of IGA
5. In Five and above types of IGAs
Grand total
The Grand total will give you the number of households involved IGA
7.5 Number of households involved in two and more IGA types: _____________
(Subtract the number of households who have involved only in one type of IGA from the Grand Total(3)
of HHs involved in IGAs)
7.6 Number of households in the watershed who have not involved in any type of Income Generating
Activities: _____________________
7.5.1 Give reason for NOT to be engaged in any type of IGA. Tick that apply
a) Lack of awareness e) Lackofknowledgeandskill
b) Lack of credit f) Lackofaccesstomarket
c) Lack of inputs g) Lackofbudget
d) Lack of water availability h) Lackoffarmland I) Other reason specify_________
QUESTION 8. For indicator 6.3
8.1 Is revolving fund in place in the watershed? a) Yes b) No
8.2 If Yes, since when? ___________________ By whom?__________________
8.3 Who is responsible in the management of the revolving fund?
a) Community Watershed Team (CWT)
b) I G A group
c) other (specify)____________
8.4 How many Households and IGA User Groups exist and benefited from the revolving fund since the
start?
a) Total number of households: _________: Male _______ HHs: _____
b) Number of IGA User groups: __________ number of community members: _________

38
8.5 Is there a binding agreement in utilizing the revolving fund? a) Yes b) No
8.4.1. Loan Reimbursement period: _____________years
8.4.2 Amount to be reimbursed:
8.4.3 The amount reimbursed:__________
8.6 How much has been distributed since beginning of project?
8.7 Actual amount in revolving fund(Eth. birr)_________
8.8 Number of households and User groups involved per different IGA benefiting from the revolving
fund
Types of IGAs
Revolving fund beneficiaries
Number of Households Number of user Groups
Grass from closed areas
Trees from private woodlot
Fruit production
Vegetable production
Trees from area closure
Bee keeping products
Poultry products
Small scale fattening
Cash crops
Comments on the overall sustainability of this output 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

39
V. Criteria / Output 2: Biological Measures
Question 9: For analysis
(Discuss with the member of the WCT)
9.1 As compared to before the project intervention, how is the vegetation cover of the watershed?
9.1.1 Total watershed area (ha.) _____________
9.1.2 Estimate Vegetation cover ( by natural & planted trees, grass, shrubs natural vegetation, etc.) of
the watershed before the project intervention: ( ha.) _______
9.1.3 Estimate the current vegetation cover (afforestation area, natural re-vegetation due to
closure,grasses, woodlots, re-vegetated gully etc.) of the watershed (in ha.)_______
9.2 Now, as compared to before the project intervention, animal fodder has
a) Increased c) Decreased
b) Stayed the same d) Don’t know
9.3 If increased, why?
a) Area enclosed for fodder increased
b) Improved grassland management
c) Integration of grasses and forage trees with physical structure
d) More crop residues available
e) Other, Specify ____________________________________
f) A combination of the above, specify _______________________
9.4 If deceased, why?
a) Area for fodder decreased d) Reduced soil fertility e) Poor rains
b) Less crop residue available Overgrazing Other, Specify
______________________________________
c) A combination of the above, specify _______________________
9.5 Now, compared to before the project are there more trees in your area/watershed?
a) Yes b) No c) Don’t know
9.6 If yes, why?
a) More trees planted
b) Less tree felling
c) Government control
d) More farmer awareness

40
e) Other, Specify _____________________________________
9.7 If no, why?
a) No new planting
b) More tree cutting
c) Not enough Government control
d) Less farmer awareness
e) Other, Specify______________________________________
9.8 Now, as compared to before the project, the amount of wood for construction and/or for fuel :
a) Increased
b) Decreased
c) Stayed the Same
d) Don’t know
9.9 If the amount of wood for construction material, or for fuel is increasing, is this happening in a
sustainable way?
a) Yes
b) No
c) Don’t know
Participants during discussions
1.) Development Agents
Name of DA’s Position Signature
1
2
3
4
2. ) Planning teams involved during the discussion
Name of the members of the PDT Sex Position in the PDT Signature
1
2

41
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3) Key informants and user groups participated in the discussions
Name of the Key inforamts Signature Name of User Groups Signature
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Meret phasing out implementation guide revised

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Meret phasing out implementation guide revised

Similar to Meret phasing out implementation guide revised (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Meret phasing out implementation guide revised