Hadera Gebru Hagos

My contributions

• Posted on 03 Apr 2024

  How are development projects affecting the environment and how do we evaluate this impact?

  Discussion

  • 

    Hadera Gebru Hagos

    Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist Freelance Consultant

    Ethiopia

    My contribution to the ongoing discussion:

    Thank you Yosi for raising this important and contemporary discussion topic.

    In my experience in development project evaluation and project preparation works (projects related to agriculture/animal farming and natural resource management),   indicators are inbuilt in the  development projects.  The indicators can be direct indicators or proxy indicators.  During development project evaluation, evaluators are provided with “TOR” to evaluate the success of the project.  In doing the evaluation works, indicators inbuilt in the project document and their respective means of verification are core base for the evaluation work.  The type/nature of the development project (say is the project climate smart/environment friendly) determines the level of contribution of the project to climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

    Thus at the stage of development project evaluation, I believe evaluators mainly depend on the indicators inbuilt in the project. So the question would be: was due attention given to  prepare and implement  climate smart projects,  in the face of the alarming  climate change; and what indicators are used/can be used to measure  the  level of the projects’ contribution to climate change  mitigation and adaptation.   

    Since the last 10-15 years or so, development partners including financial institutions at all levels (national, regional and at international levels) are better aware and have better understanding  of the alarming  climate change . They understand climate change is real, although, it is true that the level of awareness/understanding varies. 

    To this end, I believe substantial efforts have been made by relevant development parties including FAO, among others, to identify, made available and promote/scale up climate smart agricultural/animal farming/fishing   practices to mitigate and adapt climate change. These days it is becoming mandatory in most cases (when situation allows) to design and implement climate smart development projects.  That is projects, which contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.   Said so:  how can then the climate change mitigation and adaptation contribution levels of climate smart development projects be measured?   What type of indicators can be/have been used? Direct indicators or proxy indicators?

    My experience: To mention one of the development project evaluation works I was involved in was, in the evaluation of the “National Livestock Development Project implanted in Ethiopia, which was thoughtfully designed to be climate smart/environment friendly”.  Among others, this project has employed different climate smart practices with the aim to overcome/decrease animal feed shortage. The understanding during the preparation of the project was to reduce the emission of the major Greenhouse Gases (Carbon dioxide, Nitrous oxide and Methane), by employing climate smart practices, while also meeting the objective of the project.   Under the animal feed improvement component of the project, the activates carried-out include:

    • Back yard forage development (perennial grass and legumes);

    Indicator(s): number of farmers growing forage in their back yard; rate (%) of adoption; yield of forage  produced;

    • Establishment  of pasture including perennial grasses and legumes: and planting fodder trees;

    Indicator(s): Size of the established pasture; yield of forage produced; and number of communities, which established pasture; rate (%) of adoption; 

    • Pasture rehabilitation by over sowing with legume plants;

    Indicator(s): area /size of pasture rehabilitated; yield of pasture produced; 

    • Under sowing crop lands with legume plants for forage use;

    Indicator (s): area/size of crop land under sowed; number of farmers that under sow their cropland; yield of forage produced from the land; rate (%) of adoption;

    • Alley cropping that is planting fodder trees within crop lands.

    Indicator(s): No of fodder trees planted; number of farmers who planted fodder trees in their crop land; rate (%) of adoption; and yield of forage produced.

    The above indicators are proxy indicators (indirect indicators), are, which are assumed to be related to direct impacts, in this case to the  climate change mitigation and adaptation contribution levels  of  the animal feed  improvement practices. All the animal feed improvement practices employed by the project, are believed to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaption. To mentions some, they:

    • reduce emission of carbon dioxide from soils because of soil c plant cover;
    • remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the process of plant photosynthesis;
    • enrich soil organic matter and  are reservoir of carbon in the soil; 
    • Improve the year round availability/ production of animal feed/forage and as such minimizes overgrazing (which fuels carbon emission). 
    • Improve soil fertility of crop lands, and hence improve crop production due to the inclusion of legume plants to the crop land. This in turn contributes to enhance food security and reduces natural resource degradation caused due to scarcity of food

     

     

     

    • read on a separate page
• Posted on 17 Jan 2024

  How are we progressing in SDG evaluation?

  Discussion

  • 

    Hadera Gebru Hagos

    Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist Freelance Consultant

    Ethiopia

    Greetings!

    Here is my contribution to the on-going discussion topic: how are we progressing in SDG evaluation?

    I appreciate and thank all who have contributed/share their experience/ to this important discussion topic. I also extend my thanks to the UN and relevant parties who have put efforts and minds together way back in 2015 to establish the SDGs (17 ambitious and inter-linked goals) for the betterment of the world people and the planet. 

    From my experience development evaluation works are often encountered with constraints such as lack/inadequate data, limited budget, time constraint and lack of appropriate evaluation techniques and etc. These constraints can also be compounded/ aggravated with natural and man-made crises (e.g. Covid- 19; War). Likewise, SDG evaluation works if/when conducted can face similar constraints.

    Let me reflect the situation in Ethiopia regarding the progress in SDG evaluation. In 2015 Ethiopia proactively mainstreamed, aligned the SDGs with the Second National Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II), which was very encouraging. In fact Ethiopia then  had good track record in some development initiatives, similar to some of the   GDGs.

    However, the encouraging momentum of development, monitoring and evaluation initiatives/works related to the achievement of the SDGs have either almost shattered/stagnated/reversed due to the natural crises/e.g Covid-19) and devastating on- going  civil war in most parts of Ethiopia. To my understanding, it has and is hard to conduct/even think about evaluating achievements of the of SDGs since the last six years. Thus, I guess the progress of evaluating SDGs in Ethiopia given the on-going devastating civil war compounded with the prior Covid-19 effect is poor. Due to the on-going civil war, let alone to achieve the SDGs, the situation is in a reversal mode. To mention few: millions of Ethiopians are internally displaced and are under poverty/ hunger; millions of students cannot attend school; millions have poor access to clean water and sanitation; there is high human right violation/particularly of women in many parts of the country.  Thus, even with the absence of evaluation work of the achievement of SDG in Ethiopia by evaluation experts, ordinary people can understand the achievement of SDG goals is generally not good, which requires attention of all relevant parties, at national, regional and international levels.

    With regards,

    Hadera Gebru
    Senior Development and Evaluation Consultant
    Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

    • read on a separate page
• Posted on 18 Sep 2023

  How are mixed methods used in programme evaluation?

  Discussion

  • 

    Hadera Gebru Hagos

    Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist Freelance Consultant

    Ethiopia

    I would like to thank and appreciate all the contributors to the ongoing discussion, which I find it very interesting, awareness raising and inducing rethinking of evaluation methodologies. The discussion has surfaced experiences of different intellectuals with basic research and applied research background and of development professionals.  The various experiences, I believe have deepened and widen the understanding with regard to “how mixed methods are used in programme evaluations”.

    I am development professional in the area of agriculture (livestock and fisheries and natural resource management). From my experience the “how mixed methods are used in development/program evaluations” often depends  on the type of data/information to be evaluated. Thus, depending the nature of the development program/project to be evaluated, the required data could be for example, quantitative and qualitative data.  As we are all aware quantitative data are information that can be quantified, counted or measured, and given a numerical value. While qualitative data is descriptive in nature, expressed in terms of language rather than numerical values.

    I would also like to relate this to “Logical Frame work Approach of project planning”(project which will be later evaluated during implementation). To my understanding most development programs have “Logframe” which clearly shows: program/project goals; outcomes; outputs; activities along with narrative summaries; objectively verifiable indicators; means of verification and assumptions.  Thus during evaluation, the program/project will be evaluated based to what is put in the logeframe , which would require mixed evaluation methods depending the nature of the program/project. For example, among others use of qualitative and qualitative method can help to conduct successful evaluation. Using both qualitative and qualitative methods will strengthen the evaluation.  Apart from quantitative method, qualitative methods, to mention few such as focused group discussions; in-depth interviews; case studies etc. can be used.

     

     

    • read on a separate page
• Posted on 25 Jul 2023

  Disability inclusion in evaluation

  Discussion

  • 

    Hadera Gebru Hagos

    Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist Freelance Consultant

    Ethiopia

    Thank you very much for the well consolidate key points from the discussion, which are stepping stones for future improvement measures. Thanks to all who have contributed to the discussion. God bless you all!

    With  regards,

    Hadera

    • read on a separate page

  • 

    Hadera Gebru Hagos

    Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist Freelance Consultant

    Ethiopia

    My comment to the ongoing discussion

    1: Are evaluations respecting inclusivity? 
    (Do you consider the concept of inclusive evaluation always respected during design and actual evaluations of projects and programs)?

    • I do not consider the concept of inclusive evaluation always respected during design and- actual evaluations of projects and programs. Reasons include:

    (i) Inclusivity is not mostly mainstreamed within the projects/programs to be evaluated right from their inception and preparation stage;
    (ii) Evaluation ToRs rarely include/attach importance of the need for inclusivity, due to : (a) to less understanding/awareness of the diverse group of people’s disabilities; and (b) budget and time limitation, given the often short time and budget allocated to projects/programs to be evaluated, this is regardless of the size of the project/programs.

    For example, there are cases that five and more year projects, with large geographic coverage are planned to be evaluated within say 10 days or so, with a lot of rush. This happens both for mid and end term evaluations. In such cases let alone to rightly include relevant people with disabilities (which include their care takers and or responsible organizations), even adequate participatory discussions
    and decision taking with people without disabilities are compromised.

    2: What hinders full involvement of people with disabilities in projects and program evaluations?
    Please share personal experiences.

    • Lack/inadequate care takers/ representative organizations which voice for people with disability to fully involve in evaluations;
    • Lack/inadequate tools for ease of communication with evaluators;
    • Lack/inadequate awareness of people with disabilities of their right to be involved in evaluations.

    3: How could Evaluators mitigate the risks associated with absence of inclusive evaluations specifically for people living with disabilities in our communities?

    • Improve their understanding of the importance of the inclusion of people living with disabilities in evaluations;
    • Be committed to be voice for the voice less/ the people with disabilities;
    • Sustained advocacy with this regard and sustained informed move to the designing of guidelines for the inclusion of people living with disabilities in evaluations.

    • read on a separate page