Hadera Gebru Hagos

Hadera Gebru Hagos

Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist
Freelance Consultant

I have rich and progressive technical knowledge and expertise in: market oriented and climate smart  agriculture/livestock and natural resources management. I have dependable expertise in natural resource management and I have experience in livestock related drought risk management (increasing resilience, emergency preparedness and response). I have also knowledge on climate change impacts and events, and relevant climate change adaptation and mitigation measures as well as their coordinated implementation.

I have expertise in initiating, planning developing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating national/regional livestock development programs and projects designed within the context of food security, poverty reduction and enhancing economic growth, without compromising natural resources.

I have expertise in agriculture/livestock/natural resource relevant: policy formulation and preparation of proclamation; designing of strategies; development of programs and projects; implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programs and projects. Over the years, I have successfully initiated/coordinated/led/ technically assisted in the: formulation/preparation of development policies/proclamation; designing of strategies; preparation of programs and projects; and in the implementation, supervision, monitoring and evaluation of government, EU, AfDB and FAO financed national/regional projects.

Over my professional working years, I have demonstrated technical/ leadership/managerial excellence in various livestock and natural resource management/ development works in Ethiopia, and in other Eastern Africa countries, working under different levels and capacities: from grass-root level working as junior Animal Feed Resources Development and Nutrition expert to the level of Director of Livestock in the Federal Ministry of Agriculture in Ethiopia, Team Leader, Natural Resources Management in the Africa Union-Inter-Africa Bureau for Animal Resources (AU/IBAR), Nairobi, Kenya, and as a senior animal production and natural resource management consultant working for regional and international organizations including FAO and  AfDB.







My contributions

  • How are we progressing in SDG evaluation?

    • 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

    • 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.



  • Disability inclusion in evaluation

    • 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,


    • 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.