summary progress report on oida m&e system...

SMALL SCALE AND MICRO IRRIGATION SUPPORT PROJECT (SMIS Project)

Summary Progress Report on OIDA M&E System Development Process (DRAFT)

SMIS Document No. --

Prepared by OSMIS

May 2016 Finfinnee

In association with:

Contents Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................... 2

Figure ............................................................................................................................................................ 3

Annexes ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

1. Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Steps in Designing the M&E system ..................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Step one: Identify Institutional capacity and M&E system need assessment .............................. 2

1.2 Step two: Know the information to be generated by the M&E system - A foundation to

develop the program Logic Model ............................................................................................................ 3

2.3 Step three: Choose indicators ....................................................................................................... 4

2.4 Step four: Develop Performance Measurement Framework (M&E Framework) – putting all in

one 6

2.5 Step five: create the data collection tools to measure the indicators ......................................... 6

2.5.1 Developing the tools ............................................................................................................. 6

2.5.2 Coding ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.5.3 Pre testing ............................................................................................................................. 8

2.6 Data Entry, analysis and reporting ..................................................................................................... 9

3. Overall Outcome gained from the whole M&E system development Process: ................................. 10

3.1 Institutional capability is improved............................................................................................. 10

3.2 Individual competency is improved ............................................................................................ 10

3.2.1 M&E Framework and Indicator Development Workshops Result (Before and After). ...... 11

3.2.1 Data collection tool development Workshops Result (Before and After) ................................. 11

3.2.1 SPSS training Result (Before and After). ............................................................................. 12

4. Constraints .......................................................................................................................................... 12

5. Lessons learned/ solutions .................................................................................................................. 13

6. Next steps ........................................................................................................................................... 13

Annexes

Table 1 Components of the M&E Framework ............................................................................................ 6

Table 2 Indicator Definition Protocol - and example .................................................................................. 7

Table 3 Next steps ...................................................................................................................................... 13

Figure Figure 1 Steps in Designing OIDA's M&E System ........................................................................................ 2

Figure 2 OIDA's Prototypical Logic Model .................................................................................................. 4

Annexes Annex 1 Capacity and Need Assessment ................................................................................................... 14

Annex 2 Information requirement ............................................................................................................ 16

Annex 3The Logic Model ............................................................................................................................ 24

Annex 4 Indicators ...................................................................................................................................... 26

Annex 5 Monitoring & Evaluation Framework ......................................................................................... 29

Annex 6 Data collection Tools .................................................................................................................... 37

Annex 7 Workshop/ Training Evaluation ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………60

1

1. Background

Small-Scale and Micro Irrigation Support (SMIS) Project, in alignment of the Small-Scale Irrigation (SSI) and

Micro Irrigation (MI) capacity development strategy of the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), aims to support

the capacity of PIs in the four major regions. One of the areas of those capacity development is improving

the capacity of public institutions to coordinate and manage the planning, design and construction of SSI

schemes. Specifically, Result Based Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) is one of the thematic areas that is

intended to be supported by the project.

As it is denoted on the project year one (PY1) Annual Work Plan (AWP), the Work Break down Structure

(WBS) 1110.2 is about providing support to Oromia Irrigation Development Authority (OIDA) in producing

M&E template. The corresponding expected output to be delivered through, among others, conducting

this activity is stated as “Staff of Responsible Public and Private Institutions Trained in Result Based

Irrigation Project Management”. Accordingly, after reaching consensus to put in place a standard M&E

system, OIDA and SMIS have jointly been developing the system for OIDA through conducting several

formal and informal discussion consecutive forums.

2. Steps in Designing the M&E system

The precise definition of an M&E system varies between different institutions. In most cases an M&E

system refers to all the results chain, indicators, tools and processes that will be used to measure if a

program has been implemented according to the plan (monitoring) and is having the desired

result (evaluation). Accordingly, the renowned World Banks “a ten steps to result based M&E system “is

followed to develop OIDA’s system with some customization.

using

2

Figure 1 Steps in Designing OIDA's M&E System

1.1 Step one: Identify Institutional capacity and M&E system need assessment

OIDA is one of our key partner PIs that are engaged in SSI and MI development projects which require a

well-established institutionalized project management competency and capabilities.

To assess institutional capabilities, practices, attitude towards the existing M&E activities, if any, OSMIS

has initiate discussion with relevant OIDA experts. It was observed that OIDA M&E system focuses on the

operational results (activity and output levels). In addition, IMEE, NMEE and RMEE have paid official visit

on 1st of December 2015 to the Deputy head to of OIDA to further discuss and reach on consensus on the

issue. From the discussion, it was learnt that OIDA wants to make an M&E system for their program, but

they have limited soft skill where to start. Successively, SMIS has taken an initiative to collaboratively

design the planning and implementation of result based M&E system with particular emphasis on data

integration of the three mandates of OIDA:

Irrigation water supply / study & design, construction management /

Scheme administration

Extension / agronomic practices/

The summary of the need assessment and its result is attached as Annex 1

Assessmnt -Engaging Stakeholders

Information Need - Logic Model

Indicators Dev't

M&E framework Dev't

Data collection tools Dev't

Baselne Data collection

Data analysis, report, sharing & Learning

OIDA’s M&E

System

3

1.2 Step two: Know the information to be generated by the M&E system - A

foundation to develop the program Logic Model

A monitoring and evaluation system depends on information requirements of project management.

Before we started working on the M&E system it was found important that we have to understand as

much about OIDA’s program itself as possible. We should also know why the program was created, what

the goals are, and how the goals will be achieved. We also needed to know what all the activities, outputs

and outcomes are. This information could be available in documents such as the program logic model/ log

frame, problem tree and/or theory of change. However, since we are creating institutional level M&E

system, we opted to get the recent firsthand information from different experts and officials from the

three core departments and other relevant work units of OIDA. The first in house workshop organized

on 25th of December 2015 in which several exceptional ideas have been brainstormed. The major ones

are as follows:

1. about “multiple actors”: there are a number of regional organizations whose work is not under

the direct management control of OIDA but who are critically important to OIDA success

in achieving the objectives/ higher level results. The concern from OIDA was that, OIDA

should not be accountable for combined effort and therefore suggested not to move

beyond the output level. In this regard, SMIS has already identified those organizations

with a view to create linkage platform. Having learnt that these organizations will work

in a coordinated and harmonized manner, OIDA Experts agreed to identify the

information that each core process need for all levels of the results chain including

outputs, immediate and intermediate outcomes.

2. about “alignment” among the types of the data requirement. Current OIDAs data

requirement is of two types/ levels: management and technical. The issue raised here

was as to how to align the technical and the managerial information in the forthcoming

M&E system? The reflection on this issue was just to identify and collect all the required

data and then select as per “who needs what information” approach.

http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-write-a-logical-framework-logframe/

http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-design-a-new-program/

http://www.tools4dev.org/resources/theory-of-change-vs-logical-framework-whats-the-difference-in-practice/

4

Accordingly, we have managed to get as sufficient and representative information as we need.

Annex 2 shows the information need.

The second in-house workshop has also been organized on 12th of January 2016 to convert the

information need into a logical interrelated levels of results by providing responses for the above

mentioned inquiries – what are the goals? How the goals will be achieved? The outcome of the

gatherings was producing a strong and representative institution level Logic model (LM) for

OIDA’s programming which is representing desired outcomes and the assumed causal link

between the activities and outcomes. The LM will also provide a clear road map to a specific end.

It is basically a systematic and visual way of presenting and sharing understanding of the

relationships among the resources operating the program, the planned activities, and the

anticipated changes or result:

Figure 2 OIDA's Prototypical Logic Model

Planned work Intended results

The LM development process was participatory engaging OIDA’s thematic experts while OSMIS

has been playing a facilitation role. The Logic Model is set as Annex 3

2.3 Step three: Choose indicators

The third step is to decide which indicators OIDA will use to measure the success of its program. This is a

very important step that tells whether the intended results are achieved or not on the specified period.

Therefore, the team has tried to involve as multidimensional expertise as possible to get different

perspectives.

one

intermediate

outcome

five

Immediate

Outcomes

Resources/

Inputs

nine

Outputs

Several

Activities

Implementation Direction- Why? So what?

Design Direction-How?

5

Based on the developed Logic Model, the M&E Framework development workshop, which was facilitated

by IMEE, was undertaken on February 5-6, 2016 at Adama. The workshop included a brief training in

developing results-based M&E systems and also most time was spent in a hand-on process of outputs,

outcomes and goal level indicator development. The workshop was very successful as a consensus

building tool with strong debate and useful contributions being made by a range of OIDA staff and

processes, as well as OIDA/ Agricultural Growth Progrem (AGP), OIDA- East Wollega zone, Oromia Bureau

of Finance & Economic Development (Oromia BoFED) and MOA/ Small Scale Irrigation Directorate (SSID)

staff. The outcome of the workshop was a set of rough draft indicators and general suggestions for data

collection methodologies.

Opening session by Extension Process owner-OIDA (left) and group work on indicator and methodologies (right)

To exhaust and refine the indicators and data collection methodologies, several small group in-house

meetings have been arranged. There is more than one indicator for each result level although it has been

managed to keep the total number of indicators manageable i.e 51 (4 at a goal/ intermediate level, 14 at

an immediate outcome level and 33 at an output level). It should be noted that these indicators are not

mutually exclusive across the different level of results.

Each indicator is:

Directly related to the output, outcome or goal listed on the Logic model.

OIDA can measure them accurately using either qualitative and/or quantitative methods within

its available resources.

Something that is useful for decision making to improve the program. There is no point measuring

an indicator if the results won’t make any difference on decisions. Indicators are located as

Annex 4.

6

2.4 Step four: Develop Performance Measurement Framework (M&E Framework) –

putting all in one

After having develop the indicators, a small in-house meetings have been arranged to nurture and develop

the general suggestions made previously on a strategy and data management etiquette. Accordingly, it

was managed to develop an M&E framework comprising eight components/ columns:

Table 1 Components of the M&E Framework

Column Components FRemark/ status

1 The Expected results/ results' chain already taken from Annex 3

2 The indicators already taken from Annex 4

3 The baseline values to be conducted when the weather gets dry to manage field works

4 The Targets to be set after having the baseline

5 The data source already stated in the M&E framework

6 Data collection methods already set in the M&E framework

7 Frequency already set in the M&E framework

8 Responsibility already set in the M&E framework

The responsibility section is about who will be responsible for using the tool to collect and enter

the data into the computer, who will analyze the data , create and share the final report.

In a nut shell, The M&E framework is essential as it links the objectives with the process and

enables the M&E expert know what to measure and how to measure it. Annex 5 shows the

M&E framework.

2.5 Step five: create the data collection tools to measure the indicators

2.5.1 Developing the tools

Once the team has chosen the indicators, it is necessary to write definition for each one, which

describes exactly how the it is calculated.

As per the M&E framework, 17 indicators (3 for intermediate, 9 for immediate and 5 for output level

results) have been allocated to the following six different data collection approaches that include Farm

Survey, WUA Assessment, worda and zone offices Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Efficiency, Verification

7

and, Inspection assessment of schemes. The data on the remaining 34 indicators will be collected either

through existing channel or through developing simple forms.

Each of these approaches are demanding independent data collection tools which usually take the form

of structured questionnaires, observation checklists, various forms and interview guides. Accordingly,

after defining each indicator, 6 different tools have been developed through two workshops, an in-house

on 25th March 2016 and at Adama on 20th April 2016, and successive small meetings. OIDA experts and

OSMIS (the National Regional Team Leader (NRTL) and Regional M&E expert (RMEE) were the facilitators

and participants in the process of developing the tools using the following Indicator definition protocol

with an example.

Table 2 Indicator Definition Protocol - and example

Indicator Parameters Definition

B. Average yield per hectare for

irrigated crops (MHH/FHH)

Total area irrigated ha

by MHH

Total yield in quintal by

MHH

Total area irrigated ha

by FHH

Total Yield in quintal by

FHH

Compute yield in Quintal divided by total irrigated area, i.e; = Total yield in Quintal by MHH Total irrigated area by MHH = Total yield in Quintal by FHH Total irrigated area by FHH

Six tools have been developed to collect data for the 19 indicators through farm survey, verification

assessment, efficiency assessment, inspection and interview to Water user associations. The tools are:

1. Questionnaire to conduct Farm Survey

2. Questionnaire to conduct WUA Assessment

3. Interview Guide to conduct woreda level focus group discussion to get general data

4. Checklist with a form for Efficiency assessment on selected schemes

5. Checklist for Verification Assessment

6. Checklist for Inspection assessment

8

Thematic group work in developing the tools

2.5.2 Coding

The questionnaires are coded for ease of data entry and analysis. At this point, we have a pile of

instruments that ready to be completed by the participants. As the entire response of every participant

will not be entered in a computer, we have to give a code to each questions and their response options.

2.5.3 Pre testing

It’s important to test the survey questionnaire before using it to collect data. Pretesting and piloting (for

complex surveys) can help identify questions that don’t make sense to participants, or problems with the

questionnaire that might lead to biased answers, and many more. Running the survey without any testing

is a big mistake. Even testing with one person is better than no testing at all.

Accordingly, our tools have been pretested at field level to ensure the practicability, to identify the

potential bottlenecks and subsequently to make improvements. The field test team includes, RMEE

and two experts from OIDA.

2.5.3.1. Methods considered for the pre-test:

i. Detail procedure: First, relevant experts from the Irrigation Development Authority of

Ada’a District were approached for briefing of the purpose of the pre-test and enquiring

some general data from the office level.

9

Interviewing Irrigation Farmers (left) Irrigation Water User Associations (right)

Godino scheme, Ada’a District of E/Shoa zone

ii. Site selection: Accessibility, proximity and availability of modern irrigation schemes were the

main criteria considered during site identification. Accordingly, two schemes, namely,

Godino and Harawa, both in Godino Kebele, were considered out of the existing five (5)

schemes for this pilot survey. Both schemes are administered by Ada’a District of East

Showa zone Irrigation development office. Five farmers and two members of the Water

User association (WUA) from each scheme were selected for an interview related to farm

survey and WUA. Discharge measurements at the headwork and the end of the main canals

were carried out for estimation of the conveyance efficiency of both schemes.

2.5.3.2 Outcome of the pretest

Based on the real exposures in the field, a thorough review of the prepared questionnaires was

conducted and significant modifications were applied. In doing so, even the team was surprised how

many improvements it made. Currently, the final version of the questionnaires is ready to be used

to collect the baseline, which is delayed due to the unpredictable climatic situation. It also can be

used to collect subsequent performance data. Data Collection tools are appended as Annex 6.

2.6 Data Entry, analysis and reporting

Monitoring and evaluation consists of data collection, analysis, reporting and sharing. Managers and

stakeholders requires information about project results and impacts for better project planning and

control. With the view to analyze the data that will be collected in the near future, OSMIS has made an

10

arrangement for OIDA experts to be participated in the SPSS training that was organized and conducted by

National Project management Unit of SMIS. Accordingly, 16 experts including 10 (3F) experts from OIDA

have been participating on three- day SPSS training. the analysis and reporting will be done upon

conducting the Baseline survey.

3. Overall Outcome gained from the whole M&E system development

Process: The outcomes gained from the entire process can be classified into two level – institutional and individual.

Both are linked to immediate outcomes (change of capacity) which will lead to change in performance i.e

intermediate outcome.

3.1 Institutional capability is improved

In the Institutional/ organizational level capacity change, OIDA have put in place a standard M&E

system for its program management evidenced by the LM, M&E framework and data collection tools.

As referred to Annex 1 to 6.

3.2 Individual competency is improved

individual level capacity which is about change in knowledge and skills of individuals i.e thematic

experts have competencies related to irrigation infrastructure management specifically to M&E system

design and implementation. Improvements in individual competency evidenced by the self-

assessments made by the participant in each workshop. Feedbacks were provided by the participants

via a workshop/ training evaluation form. The evaluation method employed was five points Likert

scale with before and after scenario focusing on level of understanding, knowledge & skill (KS), ability

to apply the KS gained. Accordingly, the changes in KS are depicted as follow:

11

3.2.1 M&E Framework and Indicator Development Workshops Result (Before and After).

Out of total attendees of 20, 18 (1F) of them have completed more or less all parts of the form.

Before the workshop, 68% of the participants rated their level of knowledge and skill (KS) as disagree and only

11% of them rated as agree. After the workshop, 69% of them rated their KS as Agree a level. Hence, 58% of

the participant who were in the disagree category before the workshop have changed their KS level into Agree

category.

3.2.1 Data collection tool development Workshops Result (Before and After)

Out of the total 13 participants from OIDA, 11 (1F) of them have evaluated their KS with the following result.

38%30%

21%

7% 4%0 0

22%

41% 37%

0%

20%

40%

60%

StronglyDisagree

disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Change in Level of Knowledge and Skill (2)

Before After

16.4%

23.6%

32.7%

25.5%

1.8%5.5%

40.0%

54.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

S.Disagree Disagree neutral Agree S.Agree

Changes in Knowledge & Skill

Before After

12

Before the workshop, 68% of the participants rated their level of knowledge and skill (KS) as disagree and only

27% of them rated as agree. After the workshop, this figure rose to 95%. Hence, 68% of the participant who

were in the disagree category before the workshop have changed their KS level into Agree category.

3.2.1 SPSS training Result (Before and After).

Though there are 17 (5F) participants from OIDA and OSMIS, only 11 of them are able to provided their self-

evaluation results as shown below.

Before the training, only 9% of the trainees rated their level of KS as Agree while after the training this figure

rose to 80% as agree and strongly agree. It can be seen from the graph that the KS level after the training is

concentrated in Agree level which might imply that require another training focusing on other elements of the

package. The training/ workshop KS evaluation questions are appended as Annex 7.

4. Constraints The entire process was participatory in nature. Our relationship with OIDA is going well. They have

been very supportive in making their thematic experts available on meetings for the development of

the M&E system. We are continuing to have subsequent activities (baseline survey, data cleaning and

entry, analysis and reporting) with their experts. However, we have had some difficulty with a small

number of people unable to attend these meetings because they have other priority activities.

The unpredictable weather condition has also affected our progress specially the implementation

phase the M&E system, i.e. conducting the baseline survey and subsequent activities.

49%

38%

4%9%

0%0 0

20%

64%

16%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

StronglyDisagree

disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Changes in level of Knowledge & Skill

Before After

13

5. Lessons learned/ solutions

We have strived to get the management commitment from the OIDA side through dealing/ working

with top management level. This helped the M&E system design activity to be among the priority areas

of OIDA.

There was also flexibility from the OSMIS management side in a way that changing work locations and

schedules becoming increasingly common.

SMIS has been appreciating OIDAs challenges and has been creating a conducive environment to work

in small groups when the whole team members were not available at a time. When required and

possible, RMEE repeatedly went to OIDA to work with the available team members.

6. Next steps

Some steps are remaining to finalize the M&E system development. These are summarized in the following

table:

Table 3 Next steps

Steps Activities Responsible Remark

6 Conducting the survey RMEE/OIDA can be done excluding the efficiency assessment as it requires dry season to get reliable data

7 Data entry and analysis RMEE/OIDA can be done excluding the efficiency assessment

7 Producing Baseline Report and sharing RMEE/OIDA to be done after the data collection

4 Setting baseline and targets RMEE/OIDA Part of M&E framework

5 Developing other data collection tools RMEE/OIDA Simple forms

4 Finalizing the framework with the baseline and target values of indicators.

RMEE/OIDA The framework is waiting for the baseline and target to be finalized.

8 Finalize the M&E manual which is already at draft level.

IMEE/RMEE IMEE is the main responsible. RMEE is responsible to sketch the data flow chart and reporting schedule

14

Annex 1 Capacity and Need Assessment

Concept Note for Identification mission

on

Institutional capacity assessment with respect to M&E system of Oromia Irrigation Development Authority

(OIDA)

On 1st of December 2015, a SMIS team has visited OIDA to discuss on issues related to M&E system with Ato

Samuel- deputy head. The team members were:

Mr. Robin- IMEE;

Mr. Aleazar – NMEE and

Ms. Alemnesh –RMEE

The purpose of the visit was to:

1. Assess OIDAs institutional capacity with regard to M&E and

2. Identify need for M&E system establishment.

Summary of the discussion on M&E capacity need identification of the institution

Discussion Points

From SMIS From OIDA

Do you need to expand the M&E system? Yes, M&E is very important management activity

Do you need SMIS’s support on M&E system development?

Yes, we have no standard M&E system though we plan and monitor activities just in numbers. i.e no narratives. It is important to have a systematic way of collecting data

How can we help you to support you around that?

We need manual to guide us on a step by step process especially for our 3 core processes; namely: 1/ Irrigation water supply / study & design, construction management / 2/scheme administration 3/extension / agronomic practices/

What information do the 3 core processes need to know / With what information the M&E to support them/?

We need accurate grass root level data so that we can have better judgement. We have a system to collect data i.e phones, e-mails, written report. But to have the accurate one is beyond our capacity. For example the size of the land covered, input utilized, etc always comes with +/-. For the last 10 years, we have been implementing a number of projects but we have never conducted strong M&E. Traditional irrigation by farmers by far are better than the moderns /constructed ones/. There are high skilled farmers. We have to evaluate the traditional vs the moderns to compare their impacts.

15

Discussion Points

From SMIS From OIDA

If we develop an M&E system for OIDA, does it need to be linked to MoA/ MoW or any other organizations M&E system and indicators? (do you have any collaboration with MoA and MoW in terms of M&E?

We are independently running Micro, small, medium and large scale Irrigation projects. MoA is in charge of micro and small while MoW is in charge of Medium and large scales.

How many schemes per year do get into pipeline?

It depends on the financiers. However, on, average it is about 60 SSI schemes.

What information do you have now? TBD: Sunyom, the acting head for the M&E section, will coordinate about all issues

What information do you want in the future? TBD: Sunyom, the acting head for the M&E section, will coordinate about all issues

When to start the process with the workshop? TBD: Sunyom, the acting head for the M&E section, will coordinate about all issues

Who would be involved in that TBD: Sunyom, the acting head for the M&E section, will coordinate about all issues. But we need to involve experts from BoFED

Do you have enough staff/ experts in the M&E section?

No, we have only two though we could have more structurally. We have tried to get them through different mechanism, but we couldn’t get competent ones.

Having the discussion, the next step will be developing a process for moving forward. The first step in the

process for developing and implementing M&E system will be conducting a workshop to capture what

information that the M&E will provide.

Activates/ outputs to be treated under this undertaking include:

1110.2 - Conduct a Rapid Review of M&E Systems (consensus building) for OIDA

3150 - Responsible public institutions supported to monitor and evaluate performances of HHMI technologies (though this activity requires further clarification)

M&E head from OIDA and OSMIS RMEE are working on some of the preparatory works for the development of

the Framework.

16

Annex 2 Information requirement

Consensus meeting on OIDA’s Information requirement

Meeting Date: Friday, December 25th

Meeting Time: 9:00am

Meeting Duration: 5 hours

Venue: OSMIS

List of Attendees:

S #

Name of participant

Sex From Position Mobile E-mail

1 Kifle Bekele M OIDA Core, Extension

0911853032 [email protected]

2 Gobena Chemeda

M “ Elec. Me. 0921071341 [email protected]

3 Abdeta Natea M “ Expert 0912230407 [email protected]

4 Abebe Merga M “ M&E expert 0911751785 [email protected]

5 Teferi Dhaba M “ Engineer 0913946250 [email protected]

6 Suniom Garomsa M “ Economist/ head M&E


7 Firaol Muluneh F “ Cont. admin-Engineer


8 Tewodros Gebeyehu

M “ Sr. Economist


9 Yohannis Geleta M SMIS NRTL 0911981665 [email protected]

10 Alazar Tilahun M SMIS NMEE 0911605291 [email protected]

Agenda: to identify what information would help the three OIDA processes (study, design & construction;

scheme administration and extension) and sub processes do their job better.

Executive Overview: The purpose of this meeting to identify what information would help the three OIDA

processes. Based on this, small numbers indicators would be identified to capture the identified information

during the forthcoming workshop. This meeting was held in accordance of SMIS 1st year annual work plan;

activity number 1110.2

Meeting discussion:

17

During the discussion, several ideas has been brainstormed. The major ones are as follows:

1. about multiple actors”: There are a number of regional organizations whose work is not under the

control of OIDA but who are critically important to its success in achieving its objectives. Therefore,

the concern from OIDA is that it might not be easy to get information with respect to project outcomes

as they are results of these organizations’ combined effort. In this regard, SMIS has identified those

organizations with whom the project interacts directly. It is revealed that efforts have being made to

create linkage among these partners. Lastly, the attendees decided to identify the information need

up to the output level and if possible, they may include the immediate outcome level.

2. about the alignment among the types of the data requirements. Current OIDAs data requirement is of

two types/ levels: management and technical. The issue raised here was as to how to align the

technical and the managerial information in the forthcoming M&E system? The reflection on this issue

was just to identify and collect all the required data and then provide as per “who needs what

information”.

3. A number of information have been identified for each of the three processes.

18

Extension core Process

20

Scheme Admin Process

22

Study, Design and Construction

Process

23

4. Core team, comprising of 4 persons has been established to finalize the identification of the

information need.

Meeting Decisions and action points/ plan

Decision/

Action

Expected

deliverable

Dead line for

delivery Responsibility Remark

Finalize the information identification

information requirement in a logic model

4th of January

2016

Core team Next meeting,

4th of January

2016

Reconvene to validate the finalized information need.

Full-fledged Information requirement in a logic model / preliminary Logic model/

12th of January

2016

Whole team Next meeting,

12th of January

2016

Finally, the meeting adjourned at 14:00 pm.

24

Annex 3The Logic Model

25

1200 1300 Quality Irrigation Alternative irrigation

Infrastructure water source developed Constructed and Quality water lifting

(new and existing) devices supplied

1100

Quality Irrigation Study

and Design

1400

Quality scheme

administration

undertaken

2100

Standard extension

manual developed,

trained and exercised

3100

Developed/Improved

irrigation agronomy

package distributed and

trained

4100

Agricultural technology input

supply, distribution and

utilization facilitation

strengthen

4200

Strengthen the

technical support on

distributed

technologies and

inputs

1101

Training on irrigation study,

design and construction

management

1201

Contract

management

1301

Identifying alternative

irrigation water

resource techoniligy

1401

Scheme take-over/

hand-over

2101

Inventory of existing

extension manuals

3101

Assessment and

identification of best

practices

4101

Creating demand for

agricultural input and

technology

4201

Demonstrate

technologies on FTC s

and farmers field

Adequate budget

Skilled man power

Office facilities

Logistic

Agricultural farm inputs

Water Pumps

2102

Conducting review

and situational

analysis of the

manuals

3102

Collecting and compile

best agronomy practice

4102

Collecting data on the created

demand

1402

Training on O&M of

irrigation scheme

4202

Experience sharing/

exchange on

demonstrated

technologies

1202

Construction

supervision

1302

Developing Standard

design

1102

Data Collection (surveying,

Agronomy, Soil, Geology,

Hydrology, Watershed, Socio-

economy, EIA, Engineering,

Community)

4203

Follow-up the

scaling-up and

demonstration of the

technology

2103

Develop/improve

irrigation extension

manual

3103

Analyzing and

interpreting best

practice package

4103

Endorsement of the demand

at different levels

1203

As built drawing,

O&M development

and scheme transfer

1303

Standard water lifting

device identification

and promotion

1403

Implementation of

water scheduling

1103

Data Analysis

1304

Providing technical

assistance for

beneficiaries and

supervision

2104

Provide training on

developed manual

and disseminate

3104

Provide training on

technology package

manual

4104

Transfer the compiled

demand, communicate and

follow-up the supply of inputs

from legal registered suppliers

1404

Planning periodic/

routine facility

supervision

1104

Document Preparation

1105

Review and approval of

prepared document

26

Annex 4 Indicators

Data Collection Tool Indicators Measured Comments

Zone Annual Report - Extension

A. Total production for irrigated crops B. Average yield per hectare for irrigated crops (MHH/FHH) 3000c. Average yield per hectare for main agronomic packages, by package (MHH/FHH) 4100a. Amount of input demand created, by type (seed, fertilizer, chemical)

Already exists

Zone Annual report - Scheme admin

1000a. Average % of irrigated command area per scheme receiving water in new modern/old modern (greater than 5 year old) schemes 1000b. % of schemes delivering 100% of water for whole system in new modern/old modern schemes

Already exists

Zone Quarterly Report – extension

2000b. # of new farmers (MHH/FHH/WMHH) receiving irrigated extension 4000b. % of farmers (MHH/FHH) utilizing minimum technology package per hectare 1300a. # of alternative water sources developed for micro-irrigation by type 1300b. # of water lifting devices supplied by type 3100e. # of farmers supported (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) on agronomy packages 4200a. # of irrigation technologies demonstrated on FTCs 4200b. # of irrigation best practices scaled out from model farmers 4200c. % of irrigated farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) supported on the distributed technologies and inputs for irrigation

Already exists

Zone monthly reports 2100c. # of SMS and DAs trained on extension manual through ToT 2100d. # of model farmers (m/f) trained on extension manual 3100c. # of SMS and DAs trained on agronomy packages 3100d. # of model farmers trained (m/f) on agronomy packages

Already exists

Regional extension training reports

2100c. # of SMS and DAs trained on extension manual through ToT 3100c. # of SMS and DAs trained on agronomy packages

Already exists

27


Farm survey on selected schemes

B. Average yield per hectare for irrigated crops (MHH/FHH) C. Average % of irrigated area used for market-oriented crops (MHH/FHH) D. % of market-oriented crops rejected by traders (MHH/FHH) 2000a. Level of satisfaction of farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) with extension service delivered 3000a. % of farmers (MHH/FHH) using irrigated agronomy packages productivity) 3000c. Average yield per hectare for main agronomic packages, by package (MHH/FHH) 4000a. % of requested inputs supplied by supply organizations on-time (before irrigation season) 4000b. % of farmers (MHH/FHH) utilizing minimum technology package per hectare 5000a. % of farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) receiving advice on crop selection based upon market forecast 1400c. % of schemes implementing water schedule as planned 1400e. Satisfaction of farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) with irrigated water delivery 4200c. % of irrigated farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) supported on the distributed technologies and inputs for irrigation

To be developed To be completed after each irrigation season

Verification Assessment on selected schemes

1000a. Average % of irrigated command area per scheme receiving water in new modern/old modern (greater than 5 year old) schemes 1000b. % of schemes delivering 100% of water for whole system in new modern/old modern schemes

To be developed To be completed once during irrigation season

Efficiency assessment on selected schemes – 2 times per irrig season

1000c. % efficiency of scheme (water conveyance and distribution) for modern and traditional schemes 3000b. Yield per cubic metre of water at farm gate for selected packages (water productivity)

To be developed To be completed twice during irrigation season

Inspection of selected schemes

1200b. % of completed schemes which meet quality standards To be developed To be completed once during irrigation season

Water user association assessment tool

1400c. % of schemes implementing water schedule as planned 1400d. % of water user associations with ability to manage scheme operations and maintenance

To be developed To be completed once during irrigation season

28


Document review by OIDA ADPLAC regional focal person

5000b. # of planned agenda brought to ADPLAC 5000c. # of planned agenda being addressed or solved by ADPLAC 5000d. % of joint planned activities with PIs completed 5100a. # of coordination forums held per year 5100b. # of joint plans developed with PIs (government and non-governmental)

Already exists Need form to capture

Document review by region and zone design and study team

1100a. # of pre-feasibility studies completed 1100b. % of pre-feasibility studies approved based upon OIDA study and design technical guidelines including EIA and watershed-based approach 1100c. # of feasibility/detailed design studies completed 1100d. % of feasibility/detailed design studies approved based upon OIDA study and design technical guidelines including EIA and watershed-based approach


Document review by region and zone construction and contract admin

1200a. # of infrastructure constructed by scale (small, medium, large) and new/rehabilitated scheme 1200c. % of schemes which are completed on-time 1200d. % of schemes which are completed within 15% budget variation 1200e. % of schemes transferred to community upon initial completion (no rejection) 1400a. # of traditional schemes with O&M document developed 1400b. # of O&M documents adapted for older modern schemes with no existing O&M document


Document review by regional extension

2100a. Standard extension manual developed/revised 2100b. Training materials developed/ revised to extend manual throughout OIDA system 3100a. # of agronomy packages developed/revised 3100b. % of agronomy packages with training materials 4000a. % of requested inputs supplied by supply organizations on-time (before irrigation season) 4100a. Amount of input demand created, by type (seed, fertilizer, chemical) 5100c. OIDA with the concerned PIs develops crop recommendation document based on provided market forecast 4200d. # of farmers using IVR for irrigation


29

Annex 5 Monitoring & Evaluation Framework

Indicators Baseline Target Data Sources Collection

Methods

Frequency Responsibility

Intermediate Outcome

Increased quality of irrigated crops production and productivity

A. Total production for irrigated crops

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext. Zone annual report

Annual Extension

B. Average yield per hectare for irrigated crops (MHH/FHH)

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext. Farmers (MHH/FHH) in selected schemes

Zone annual report Survey

Annual Per Irrig season

Extension Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

C. Average % of irrigated area used for market-oriented crops (MHH/FHH)

Farmers (MHH/FHH) in selected schemes

Survey Per Irrig season

Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

D. % of market-oriented crops rejected by traders (MHH/FHH)



Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

Immediate Outcomes

1000. Sufficient and sustainable irrigation water supplied

1000a. Average % of irrigated command area per scheme receiving water in new modern/old modern (greater than 5 year old) schemes

Zone scheme administration Selected schemes

Zone annual report Verification assessment

Per irrig season Per irrig season

Scheme administration Survey team – Scheme and Irr. Dev. & Ext.

30


Methods


1000b. % of schemes delivering 100% of water for whole system in new modern/old modern schemes

Zone scheme administration Selected schemes

Zone annual report Verification assessment

Per irrig season Per irrig season

Planning Dept Survey team – Scheme and Irr. Dev. & Ext

1000c. % efficiency of scheme (water conveyance and distribution) for modern and traditional schemes

Selected schemes Efficiency assessment

2 times per irrig season

Zone scheme administration

2000. Improved irrigation extension service delivery

2000a. Level of satisfaction of farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) with extension service delivered

Farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) in selected schemes

Survey Annual Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

2000b. # of new farmers (MHH/FHH/WMHH) receiving irrigated extension

Zone OIDA Quarterly Report

Annual Irr. Dev. & Ext.

3000. Improved irrigated agronomy

3000a. % of farmers (MHH/FHH) using irrigated agronomy packages



3000b. Yield per cubic metre of water at farm gate for selected packages (water productivity)

Selected schemes Efficiency assessment Farm survey (yields)

2 times per irrig scheme Per irrig season

Zone scheme administration Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

31


Methods


3000c. Average yield per hectare for main agronomic packages, by package (MHH/FHH)

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext Farmers (MHH/FHH) in selected schemes

Zone annual report Survey


Extension Dept Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

4000. Improve the delivery and utilization of agronomic technology (seed, fertilizer, pesticide) for irrigated agriculture

4000a. % of requested inputs supplied by supply organizations on-time (before irrigation season)

Unions/Zone BoA Farmers (MHH/FHH) in selected schemes

Survey Report Survey



4000b. % of farmers (MHH/FHH) utilizing minimum technology package per hectare

Zone OIDA Farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) in selected schemes

Quarterly Report Survey



5000. Strengthen institutional linkages

5000a. % of farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) receiving advice on crop selection based upon market forecast

Farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) in selected schemes


Survey team – extension and planning

5000b. # of planned agenda brought to ADPLAC

OIDA ADPLAC regional focal person

Document review

Annual Planning

5000c. # of planned agenda being addressed or solved by ADPLAC


ADPLAC documents

Annual Planning

5000d. % of joint planned activities with PIs completed


ADPLAC documents

Annual Planning

32


Methods


Outputs

1100 Quality irrigation study and design

1100a. # of pre-feasibility studies completed

Region and zone study and design team

Review of pre-feasibility studies

Annual Study and design

1100b. % of pre-feasibility studies approved based upon OIDA study and design technical guidelines including EIA and watershed-based approach


Appraisal form for pre-feasibility studies


1100c. # of feasibility/detailed design studies completed


Review of feasibility studies

Annual

Study and design

1100d. % of feasibility/detailed design studies approved based upon OIDA study and design technical guidelines including EIA and watershed-based approach


Appraisal form for feasibility studies


1200 Quality irrigation infrastructure constructed (new and existing

1200a. # of infrastructure constructed by scale (small, medium, large) and new/rehabilitated scheme

Region and zone construction, supervision and contract admin

Handover documents

Annual Construction, supervision and contract admin

1200b. % of completed schemes which meet quality standards

Selected schemes Inspection Annual Inspection team- scheme, contract admin, comm

1200c. % of schemes which are completed on-time

Completion report Document review


33


Methods


1200d. % of schemes which are completed within 15% budget variation



1200e. % of schemes transferred to community upon initial completion (no rejection)



1300 Alternative irrigation water sources developed and quality water lifting devices supplied

1300a. # of alternative water sources developed for micro-irrigation by type

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext Quarterly report


1300b. # of water lifting devices supplied by type



1400 Quality scheme administration undertaken

1400a. # of traditional schemes with O&M document developed


Annual report Annual Scheme Administration

1400b. # of O&M documents adapted for older modern schemes with no existing O&M document


Annual report Annual Scheme Administration

1400c. % of schemes implementing water schedule as planned

Water user groups and farmers (MHH/FHH) in selected schemes

Water user association assessment tool Survey for farmers

Per Irrig season

Survey team – scheme and community Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

34


Methods


1400d. % of water user associations with ability to manage scheme operations and maintenance

Water user groups Water user association assessment tool

n/a for Y1 Per Irrig season

Survey team – scheme and community Survey team – Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

1400e. Satisfaction of farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) with irrigated water delivery

Farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH)


2100 Standard extension manual developed and trained

2100a. Standard extension manual developed/revised

Region Irr. Dev. & Ext.

Document review of manual

Annual until completed

Irr. Dev. & Ext.

2100b. Training materials developed/ revised to extend manual throughout OIDA system

Region Irr. Dev. & Ext.

Document review of training materials

Annual until completed

Irr. Dev. & Ext.

2100c. # of SMS and DAs trained on extension manual through ToT

Region and zone Irr. Dev. & Ext training reports

Training report/ monthly report


2100d. # of model farmers (m/f) trained on extension manual

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext training reports



3100 Developed/ improved irrigation agronomy packages

3100a. # of agronomy packages developed/revised

Region Irr. Dev. & Ext

Document review


3100b. % of agronomy packages with training materials

Irr. Dev. & Ext Document review


35


Methods


distributed and trained

3100c. # of SMS and DAs trained on agronomy packages

Region and zone Irr. Dev. & Ext training reports



3100d. # of model farmers trained (m/f) on agronomy packages




3100e. # of farmers supported (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) on agronomy packages


Quarterly report


4100 Agricultural supply and distribution facilitation strengthened

4100a. Amount of input demand created, by type (seed, fertilizer, chemical)

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext and Community

Planning document Annual report


4200 Strengthen the technical support on distributed technologies and inputs for irrigation (seed, fertilizer, chemical, others)

4200a. # of irrigation technologies demonstrated on FTCs

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext. Quarterly report


4200b. # of irrigation best practices scaled out from model farmers



4200c. % of irrigated farmers (MHH/FHH/FIMHH) supported on the distributed technologies and inputs for irrigation

Zone Irr. Dev. & Ext Farmers (MHH/FHH)

Quarterly report Survey

Annual Annual

Irr. Dev. & Ext. Survey team - Irr. Dev. & Ext. and Planning

4200d. # of farmers using IVR for irrigation

Call log reports Document review


36


Methods


5100 Institutional linkages fully operational

5100a. # of coordination forums held per year


ADPLAC documents

Annual Planning

5100b. # of joint plans developed with PIs (government and non-governmental)


ADPLAC documents

Annual Planning

5100c. OIDA with the concerned PIs develops crop recommendation document based on provided market forecast

Market SMS within Regional Extension

Document review


37

Annex 6 Data collection Tools

Annex 6.1 Farm Survey Questionnaire

Code: Farm Survey 2016, ID _______ OROMIA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Survey Questionnaire for Irrigation Water User Farmers, 2016

The following survey checklist is a product of joint endeavors by relevant experts from OIDA and SMIS

Project. The goal of OIDA is to increase the production and productivity of irrigated crops. It is activities are

being implemented in almost all zones with different coverage with a total number of 612 schemes in 18

Zones.

This survey checklist is mainly focused on _________________________ scheme in

_________________district of __________________zone.

In case there is any need of enquiry regarding this survey, please contact the Planning, Budgeting and

Monitoring & Evaluation (PB and M & E) department of OIDA through Telephone number: 011 126 2241.

Objective: the main objective of this baseline survey is to gather baseline data for M & E system which is helpful

for performance indicators that assist the development of data base for baseline and subsequent management

interventions.

Unit of Analysis: In technical terms the unit of analysis is at household level

Sampling method and sample size: It is suggested that the farmer survey sample size for baseline data

should be based on the actual capacity of this project.

Proper sampling method should be used as per the need and the nature of the population

The sample size may range from 5 to 20 % of the total population

For the selected sample size 30% should be FHH and the remaining will be MHH, when available.

Remarks

Do not survey any farmers working only on rain fed agriculture within the command area.

Attention should be given to survey both male and female households. If only a male or female farmer

is available, take whichever is available. If both male and female farmers are available, choose the

female farmer the first time this happens, then a male farmer the next time, alternating to ensure

you get a similar proportion of male and female farmers in the overall sample.

01-Frm-

Survey

38

Explain to farmers that you work for an irrigation project and you are doing a short survey to improve

irrigation performance in Ethiopia.

As a guarantee of confidentiality, tell them that you would like to ask them a short set of questions

to help SMIS project broadly understand the environment of the irrigation system in which farmers

are targeting.

Tell them that their response will only be used for survey purposes.

Request the farmers (respondents) to provide their honest opinion.

Thank them for their time and suggestions.

Section A: General Data

Response code Response options code _______________

A01 Zone

A02 District _______________

A03 Kebele _______________

A04 Scheme

A05 Duration for Interview ____ hr.:______ min

Section B: Demographic data

B01 Name of Respondent ______________

B02 Respondent’s sex 1 = Male; 2 = Female _____________

B03 Respondent’s age ____________

B04 Household/ Family Size _____________

B06 Type of Household How 1 = Male Headed /MHH/

2= Female headed /FHH/

3 = Female in male Household /FIMHH/

_____________

B061 Other__________

B07 How many hectares are irrigable under the command area?

_______________

B08 much area is currently irrigated?

_______________

39

Section C: Yields per ha for each Crops (Indicators B, C, D & 3000c)

No. Crop

C01. How many hectare of land Cultivated per crop

type per irrigation season in 2015/16

C02. How many hectare of land used for market oriented

crops per crop type in 2015/16

C03.How many quintals of irrigated crops yield

do you get per crop type per irrigation round in 2015/16

C011. Irrigation 1st round

C012. Irrigation 2nd round

C021. Irrigation 1st round

C022 Irrigation 2nd round

C031.Irrigation 1st round

C032.Irrigation 2nd round

1 Tomato C0111___________

C0121__________

C0211_________

C0221__________

C0311_______

C0321_________

2 Potato C0112__________

C0122__________

C0212_________

C0222__________

C0312_______

C0322_________

3 Pepper C0113_________

C0123__________

C0213_________

C0223__________

C0313_______

C0323_________

4 Cabbage C0114_________

C0124__________

C0214_________

C0224__________

C0314_______

C0324_________

5 Carrot C0115_________

C0125__________

C0215_________

C0225__________

C0315_______

C0325_________

6 Onion C0116_________

C0126__________

C0216_________

C0226__________

C0316_______

C0326_________

7 Beetroot C0117_________

C0127__________

C0217_________

C0227__________

C0317_______

C0327_________

8 Maize C0118_________

C0128__________

C0218_________

C0228__________

C0318_______

C0328_________

9 Green bean C0119_________

C0129__________

C0219_________

C0229__________

C0319_______

C0329_________

10 Avocado C01110_________

C01210__________

C02110_________

C02210__________

C03110_______

C03210_________

11 Papaya C01111_________

C01211__________

C02111_________

C02211__________

C03111_______

C03211_________

12 Mango C01112_________

C01212__________

C02112_________

C02212__________

C03112_______

C03212_________

13 Apple C01113_________

C01213__________

C02113_________

C02213__________

C03113_______

C03213_________

40

No. Crop

C04.Quantity of products/yield/ fitting to the

market requirement per crop type per

irrigation season in 2015/16

C05. Quantity of products/yield/ not

fitting to the market requirement per

crop type per irrigation season in

2015/16

C041. Irrigation 1st

round

C042. Irrigation 2nd

round

C051. Irrigation 1st

round

C052. Irrigation

2nd round

1 Tomato C0411_______ C0421_______ C0511______ C0521_______

2 Potato C0412_______ C0422_______ C0512______ C0522_______

3 Pepper C0413_______ C0423_______ C0513______ C0523_______

4 Cabbage C0414_______ C0424_______ C0514______ C0524_______

5 Carrot C0415_______ C0425_______ C0515______ C0525_______

6 Onion C0416_______ C0426_______ C0516______ C0526_______

7 Beetroot C0417_______ C0427_______ C0517______ C0527_______

8 Maize C0418_______ C0428_______ C0518______ C0528_______

9 Green bean C0419_______ C0429_______ C0519______ C0529_______

10 Avocado C04110_______ C04210_______ C05110______ C05210_______

11 Papaya C04111_______ C04211_______ C05111______ C05211_______

12 Mango C04112_______ C04212_______ C05112______ C05212_______

13 Apple C04113_______ C04213_______ C05113______ C05213_______

41

Section D: Minimum package and extension service (indicator 3000a)

D01 Do you use agronomic

package?

1 = yes

2 = No

_____________

D02. If yes, please mention the type of technology used per crop type listed below

No Crop

D02-D07.Type of irrigation agronomy package utilized (Ind.4000b)

D02. Type of fertilizer

used

D03. Amount of

fertilizer in kg

D04. types of seeds

used

D05. Methods of

Irrigation employed

D06. Ploughing frequency

D07. Integrated

pest management

1=urea 2=NPS 3=blend 4=organic 5=DAP 6=Urea +DAP

1=improved 2=local seed

1=flooding 2=furrow 3=basin 4=Ring 5=Drip

1 = once 2 = twice 3 = three times 4 = more

1= used 2 = Not used

1 Tomato D021_____ D031_____ D041_____ D051_____ D061_____ B071_____

2 Potato D022_____ D032_____ D042_____ D052_____ D062_____ B072_____

3 Pepper D023_____ D033_____ D043_____ D053_____ D063_____ B073_____

4 Cabbage D024_____ D034_____ D045_____ D054_____ D064_____ B074_____

5 Carrot D025_____ D035_____ D046_____ D055_____ D065_____ B075_____

6 Onion D026_____ D036_____ D047_____ D056_____ D066_____ B076_____

7 Beetroot D027_____ D037_____ D048_____ D057_____ D067_____ B077_____

8 Maize D028_____ D038_____ D049_____ D058_____ D068_____ B078_____

9 Green bean D029_____ D039_____ D0410_____ D059_____

D069_____ B079_____

10 Avocado D0210_____ D0310_____ D0411_____ D0510_____ D0610_____ B0710_____

11 Papaya D0211_____ D0311_____ D0412_____ D0511_____ D0611_____ B0711_____

12 Mango D0212_____ D0312_____ D0413_____ D0512_____ D0612_____ B0712_____

13 Apple D0213_____ D0313_____ D0414_____ D0513_____ D0613_____ B0713_____

D08. Do you get any support from District (Woreda) expert or DA on how to use irrigation technologies

(Improved seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and pumps)? (+4200c)

1= yes 2= No

42

D09. If no, why? _________________________________________________________________

D10. Do you get enough extension services (Improved seeds, fertilizer supply, chemicals, pumps, technical

support and experience sharing) on irrigation activities? (Indi. 2000a)

1= yes 2= No

D11. If no, why? _________________________________________________________________

D12. If yes, what is your level of satisfaction with the extension service provided?

1. Very satisfied

2. Satisfied

3. Medium

4. Dissatisfied

5. If 3 and 4, Why? _____________________________________________________

D13. Do you get water lifting device?

1 = Yes 2 = No

D14. If no, Why? _______________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

D15. If yes, what is the level of your satisfaction with the supplied water lifting devices? (Indi. 4200c)

1. Very satisfied

2. Satisfied

3. Medium

4. Dissatisfied

5. If 3 and 4, Why? ____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________

D16. Do you get enough technical support on installation and the use of water lifting device?

1 = Yes 2 = No

D17. Do you get an advice on selection of market oriented crops? (Ind. 5000a)

1 = Yes 2 = No

43

D18. If no, why? _______________________________________

Section E: Water User

E01. Do you get irrigation water according the proposed schedule? (Ind.1400c)

1 = Yes 2 = No

E02. If no, Why? ____________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

E03. Is the quantity of water enough?

1 = Yes 2 = No

E04. If no, what is the reason? ________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

E05. What is your level of satisfaction on irrigation water supply/schedules? (1400E)

1. Very satisfied

2. Satisfied

3. Neutral

4. Dissatisfied

5. Very Dissatisfied

6. If 4 and 5, Why? _____________________________________________________

F. Comments

F1. Other Comments by respondent ____________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________

We would like to thank you for your time and suggestion. Your information will be kept confidential.

Completed by (enumerator’s name) ____________________________ Signature _________ Date________

Checked and approved by (supervisor name)____________________ Signature ___________ date ________

44

Annex 6.2 Verification Assessment

Code: Verification Assessment, 2016, ID _______ OROMIA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Survey Checklist for Verification Assessment on Irrigation Schemes, 2016




Zones.

This survey checklist is focused on _________________________ scheme in _________________district of

__________________zone.





interventions.

Instruction: Fill the following questions.


Conduct the assessment at the following administrative entities.

A01 Zone

A02 District _______________

A03 Kebele _______________

A04 Scheme

A05 Duration for Inspection ____ hr.: ______min

Section B verification Assessment

(Indicator 1000a)

B01. How old is the scheme?

1 = 0-5 years (New modern)

2 = >5 years (Old modern)

B02. If it is 0- 5 years old, what is the total command area of the scheme (ha)?_______________

02-Ver.

Assess’t

45

B03. Is the scheme providing irrigation water for all the command area?

1 = Yes 2 = No

B04. If no, estimate the area of the irrigated command area getting water (Ha)?

B11. If no, what are the reasons?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

B05. If it is greater than 5 years old: What is the total command area of the scheme (ha)?

_________________

B06. Is the scheme providing irrigation water for all the command area?

1 = Yes 2 = No

B07. If no, estimate the area of the irrigated command area getting water (Ha)?

____________


_________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

(Indicator 1000b)

B09. How many schemes are there in operations for the following years (Indicator 1000b?)

1 = 0-5 years (new modern)

2 = >5 years (old modern)

B10. If it is less than 5 years old, does the scheme fully get water?

1 = Yes 2 = No


_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________

B12. If it is older than 5 years, does the scheme fully get water?

1 = Yes 2 =No

46


_________________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

C. Comments

C1. Other Comments by respondent ____________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________


Completed by (enumerator’s name) _____________________ Signature _______ Date________

Checked and approved by (supervisor name) ______________ Signature ______ date ________

47

Annex 6.3 Efficiency Assessment

Code: Efficiency Assessment 2016, ID _______

OROMIA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Survey Checklist for Efficiency Assessment on SSI Schemes, 2016




Zones.


_________________district of __________________zone.


Monitoring & Evaluation (PB and M & E) department of OIDA through telephone number: 011 126 2241.



interventions.

Unit of Analysis: At scheme level


03-Eff-

Assess’t

48



A01 Zone ___________________

A02 District _______________

A03 Kebele _______________

A04 Scheme

A05 Duration for Inspection _______ hr, ____ min.

Section B: Water Conveyance efficiency for main canal and secondary canal (Indicator 1000c)

B01. What is the design capacity of discharge rate of the main canal at the intake (L/S)? __________

B02. What is the current discharge rate of the main canal at the intake (L/S)/ ___________

B03. What is the current discharge at the end of the main canal (L/S)? ______________

B02. What is the current discharge rate of the secondary canal at the inlet (L/S)? (optional)_________

B03. What is the current discharge at the end of the secondary canal (L/S)? (optional) ________

Section C: Water Productivity (Ind. 3000b)

No. Crop C01.Irrigated area (Ha)

C02. Crop Water Requirement. m

C03. Volume of water

(m3)

C04. Total production

(quintal)

C05. Yield/Volume

(C04/C03)

1 Tomato C011________

_

C021__________ C031______

_

C041_______ C051 _______

2 Potato C012________

_

C022__________ C032______

_

C042_______ C052_______

3 Pepper C013________

_

C023__________ C033______

_

C043_______ C053 _______

4 Cabbage C014________

_

C024__________ C034______

_

C044_______ C054 _______

5 Carrot C015________

_

C025__________ C035______

_

C045_______ C055_______

6 Onion C016________

_

C026__________ C036______

_

C046_______ C056 _______

7 Beetroot C017________

_

C027__________ C037______

_

C047_______ C057 _______

8 Maize C018________

_

C028__________ C038______

_

C048_______ C058 _______

9 Green bean C019________

_

C029__________ C039______

_

C049_______ C059 _______

10 Avocado C0110_______

__

C0210__________ C0310_____

__

C0410______

_

C0510_______

11 Papaya C0111_______

__

C0211__________ C0311_____

__

C0411______

_

C0511_______

12 Mango C0112_______

__

C0212__________ C0312_____

__

C0412______

_

C0512_______

13 Apple C0113_______

__

C0213__________ C0313_____

__

C0413______

_

C0513_______

49

Section D: Comments

D01. Other Comments by enumerator ____________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

Completed by (enumerator’s name) ___________________ Signature _________ Date________

Checked and approved by (supervisor name) ______________Signature _______ date ________

50

Annex 6.5 Inspection Checklist

Code: Inspection 2016, ID _______


Survey Checklist for Inspection Assessment on SSI Schemes, 2016




Zones.

This survey checklist is focused on _________________________ scheme in ______________ district of

__________________zone.





interventions.

Unit of Analysis: At scheme level.


04-

Inspec.

51



A01 Zone

A02 District _______________

A03 Kebele _______________

A04 Scheme

A05 Duration for Inspection _____hr.: ___min

Section B: Scheme Quality (indicator 1200b)

B01. Was the scheme design improved?

1 = yes 2 = No

B02. Was the design amended during construction?

1 = yes 2 = No

B03. If yes, indicate the main design modified for redesign.

1. Lined main canal (MC):

2. Earthen main canal (MC)

3. Others structures, Specify _____________________________________

B04. Regarding its hydrology, is the intake opening enough for the design discharge?

1 = yes 2 = No

If no, why? -------------------------------

B05. Was the main canal constructed according to the design?

1= yes 2 = No

If no, why? -------------------------------

B06. Was the earth canal constructed according to the design?

1 = yes 2 = No

If no, why? -------------------------------

B07. Was their material inspected during construction?

1 = yes 2 = No

If no, why? -------------------------------

B08. If yes, then which material was inspected during construction?

1. stone

2. Sand

3. Cement

B09. Regarding its environmental impact, was the mitigation measures seriously considered?

1 = Yes 2 = No

52

B10. If no, why?

1. On the Headwork _____________________________________________________

2. On the Command area _________________________________________________

3. On the Watershed ____________________________________________________

B11. Was the scheme participatory during the following project stages?

1 = Yes 2 = No

B12. If yes, on what stages?

1. Study

2. Supervision

3. Construction

4. Handover

B13. What was the contract period of the project (month)? ___________

1. How long it took to be completed (months)? ________

2. Delay in months, if any? _________

B14. If 2, why? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B15. Regarding its WUA, do you apply water scheduling?

1 = Yes 2 = No

B16. If no, why not? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B17. If yes, in how many day intervals you get water? ------------------------------------ ------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Comments

C1. Other Comments by respondent ____________________________________

________________________________________________________________________


Completed by (enumerator’s name) ____________________ Signature ________ Date________

Checked and approved by (supervisor name) _____________Signature ________ date ________

53

Annex 6.5 WUA Assessment Questionnaire

Code: WUA Survey, 2016, ID _______


Survey Checklist for Irrigation Water Users’ Association, 2016




Zones.


_________________district of __________________zone.





interventions.

Unit of Analysis: Water user association level

Instruction:

Interview with IC/ WUA board members/ management

Undertake with 1 scheme per district


Respondent’s

code

Response options code _______________

A01 Zone

A02 District _______________

A03 Kebele _______________

A04 Name of Scheme

A05 Duration for Interview ______ hr,: _____ min

05-WUA

54

Section B: Demographic data


B02 Designation

B02 sex 1=Male; 2=Female ______________

B03 age ______________


B05 Designation of

respondent

B06 sex 1=Male; 2=Female ______________

B07 age ______________


B09 sex 1=Male; 2=Female ______________

B10 age ______________

Section C: Implementation of Plans (Indicator 1400c)

C01. Is the scheme providing water as planned schedule?

1 = Yes 2 = No

C02. If no, why not? _____________________________________________________

Section D: Operation& maintenance (indicator 1400d)

D01. Do you formulate internal rules and regulations for IWUA?

1 = Yes 2 = No

D02. If no, why not?

_________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________

D03. If yes did the IWUA implement the rule and regulation formulated?

1 = yes 2 = No


__________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________

55

D05. If yes, did you collect the fee as per the Rules & Regulations?

1 = yes 2 = No

D06. If no, why not?___________________________________________________

D07. Do you have procedures and ways to resolve conflicts on irrigation water distribution?

1 = yes 2 = No


________________________________________________________________________

D09. Is maintenance procedure carried out under the IC/ IWUA responsibility?

1 = Yes 2 = No

D10. If no, who is responsible?

1=District IDA

2 = OIDA

3 = others, specify ______________

D11. If yes, do you maintain it timely?

1 = Yes 2 = No


______________________________________________________________________________

D13. Does the IWUA implement the following activities such as;

1 = Record keeping

2 = Measuring amount of water supplied

3 = Operation of water distribution structures (gates)

4 = Resolving conflicts raised on water distribution

5 = Operation of pump (in case of water supply from a pump)

6 = Managing fuel use of the pump, if any

56

D15.Do you get any training including O & M?

1 = Yes 2 = No

D16. If yes do you think that you have got knowledge & skill from the training?

1 = Yes 2 = No

D17. Do you apply it? _______________________________________________________

1 = Yes 2. No

D18. If no, why not? ________________________________________________________________________

E. Comments

E1. Other Comments by respondent ____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________.


Completed by (enumerator’s name) ____________________ Signature________ Date________

Checked and approved by (supervisor name) _____________ Signature _______ date ________

57

Annex 6.6 Zone/ Woreda Interview Checklist

Code: Zone and Woreda Interview 2016, ID _____


Survey Questionnaire for Zonal and Woreda Sectors, 2016




Zones.


_________________district of __________________zone.





interventions.


1. Name of Zone _______________

2. Name of Woreda _____________

3. Total number of Modern schemes _________, please list them in the following table as required

No Name of Scheme Name of

Kebele

Number

of WUA

Land size Potential

Beneficiaries

Actual

Beneficiaries

Potential Actual MHH FHH MHH FHH

1

2

3

4

5

06-Zone-

Woreda

58

No Name of Scheme Name of

Kebele

Number

of WUA

Land size Potential

Beneficiaries

Actual

Beneficiaries

Potential Actual MHH FHH MHH FHH

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

4. Amount of Input requested in kg / lit / no.

1. Improved seeds _________

2. DAP __________

3. UREA __________

4. NPS ___________

5. Agro-Chemicals in lit _________

6. Pumps ___________

5. Amount of Input received in kg and lit

1. Improved seeds _________

2. DAP __________

3. UREA __________

4. NPS ___________

5. Agro-Chemicals in lit _________

6. Pumps ___________

6. How many times you give training on different topics since 2013 /1005 E.C/? ________, please list

them in the following table.

List of Trainings No pf participants Remark

59

Comments

7. Other Comments by respondent ____________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________.


Completed by (enumerator’s name) ____________________ Signature________ Date________

Checked and approved by (supervisor name) _____________ Signature _______ date _____

60

Annex 7 Workshop/ Training Evaluation

M&E system Development Workshop Participant Evaluation form

SMIS requests your assistance in evaluating this discussion forum event. As part of this evaluation, please

provide SMIS with information about your experience. The data compiled will be used to improve future

capacity development events and facilitation processes. SMIS will be monitoring the overall effectiveness of

SMIS capacity development events.

Participant Kebele Identification Number

Name of Event M&E Workshop for OIDA

Date of Event February 5-6/2016

Region Oromia

Location where event took place Adama, Dire 2 International Hotel

Please rate your level of agreement as per the rating scale below (Likert).

The estimated time to complete this questionnaire is 20 minutes. Section A: Assessment of Learning - Knowledge and Skills Gained Please reflect on your knowledge and skills gained through this capacity development event. Rate your level of agreement using a X with each statement from two perspectives: before the event and after the event.

Before the training

Knowledge and Skills Gained

After the training

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

A.1 I understand how M&E framework is established (K).

A.2 I know the relationship between results statement and Indicators (K).

A.3 I can identify information needs/ indicators for results statement(S).

A.4 I can design an M&E framework for SSI and MI projects (S)

A.5 I understand the role of M&E framework (K)

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree

3 Neither Disagree or Agree

4 Agree5

Strongly Agree

61

Tool Development Workshop Participant Evaluation

SMIS requests your assistance in evaluating this discussion forum event. As part of this evaluation, please

provide SMIS with information about your experience. The data compiled will be used to improve future

capacity development events and facilitation processes. SMIS will be monitoring the overall effectiveness of

SMIS capacity development events.


Name of Event Data Collection tool Development Workshop for OIDA

Date of Event April 20/2016

Region Oromia

Location where event took place Adama, Tokuma Hotel


The estimated time to complete this questionnaire is 20 minutes. Section A: Assessment of Learning - Knowledge and Skills Gained Please reflect on your knowledge and skills gained through this capacity development event. Rate your level of agreement using a X with each statement from two perspectives: before the event and after the event.

Before the training

Knowledge and Skills Gained

After the training

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

A.1 I understand how to develop questions (K).

A.2 I know the relationship between indicators and questions to collect data to answer indicators (K).

A.3 I can identify questions on for indicators (S).

A.4 I can design effective questionnaire and checklists for data collection for irrigation projects (S)

A.5 I understand the role of questionnaire (K)

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree


4 Agree5

Strongly Agree

62

SPSS Training Participant Evaluation

SMIS requests your assistance in evaluating this discussion forum event. As part of this evaluation, please provide SMIS with information about your experience. The data compiled will be used to improve future capacity development events and facilitation processes. SMIS will be monitoring the overall effectiveness of SMIS capacity development events.


Name of Event SPSS training

Date of Event 9-11/ May 2016

Region Oromia

Location where event took place Adama


The estimated time to complete this questionnaire is 20 minutes. Section A: Assessment of Learning - Knowledge and Skills Gained Please reflect on your knowledge and skills gained through this capacity development event. Rate your level of agreement using a X with each statement from two perspectives: before the event and after the event. 1 is the lowest value; 5 is the highest value.

Before the training

Knowledge and Skills Gained After the training

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

A.1 I know the use of SPSS (K)

A.2 I understand how to use SPSS (K).

A.3 I can use/ operate SPSS (S).

A.4 I can summarize the interpretation of survey findings

A.5 I am acquainted with baseline report format

1 Strongly Disagree

2 Disagree


4 Agree5

Strongly Agree

summary progress report on oida m&e system...

Documents