GLOBAL POVERTY ACTION FUND (GPAF) – IMPACT WINDOW PROPOSAL FORM
SECTION 1: INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPLICANT
1.1 / Lead organisation name / Send a Cow
1.2 / Main contact person / Name: Dr Peg Bavin
Position: Grants Manager
Email:
Tel: (0)1225 871921
1.3 / 2nd contact person / Name: Martin Long
Position: Head of Programmes
Email:
Tel: (0)1225 874 222
1.4 / Please use this space to inform of any changes to the applicant organisation details provided in your Concept Note / No changes.
SECTION 2: BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT
2.1 / Concept Note Reference No. / IMP-01-CN-0480
2.2 / Project title / Developing farmers towards food & income security.
2.3 / Country(ies) where project is to be implemented / Ethiopia
2.4 / Locality(ies)/region(s) within country(ies) / Gamo Gofa & Wolayita zones of the Southern Nations, Nationalities, & People's Region.
2.5 / Duration of grant request (in months) / 36 months (January 2012 - december 2014)
2.5 / Total project budget? In GBP sterling / £844,537
2.6 / Total funding requested from DFID in GBP sterling and as a % of total project budget / £578,724
68.5% of total project budget
2.7 / Year 1 funding requested from DFID / £78,417 (NB for DFID financial year 2011/12; the first quarter of the project)
2.8 / Please specify the % of project funds to be spent in each project country / 91% of project funds to be spent in Ethiopia
9% of project funds to be spent by UK (incl external evaluation costs)
2.9 / Total match funding and status (sources of match funding, amounts, and secured or not secured) - Please enter match-funding details in the table below
Source of funding / Year 1 (£) / Year 2 (£) / Year 3 (£) / Year 4 (£) / Total (£) / Secured? (Y/N)
IFAD (SAC invited to submit proposal) / £40,443 / £63,521 / £64,705 / £42,691 / £211,360 / N
SAC Unrestricted / £8,147 / £18,508 / £18,902 / £8,896 / £54,453 / N
SECTION 3: FIT WITH GPAF IMPACT WINDOW
3.1 / CORE SUBJECT AREA - Please identify between one and three core project focus areas (insert '1' for primary focus area; '2' for secondary focus area and; '3' for tertiary focus area)
Agriculture / Health (general)
Appropriate Technology / HIV/AIDS / Malaria / TB
Child Labour / Housing
Climate Change / Income Generation
Conflict / Peace building / Justice
Core Labour Standards / Land
Disability / Livestock
Drugs / Media
Education & Literacy / Mental Health
Enterprise development / Reproductive Health / FGM
Environment / Rural Livelihoods / 2
Fisheries / Forestry / Slavery / trafficking
Food Security / 1 / Water & sanitation
Gender / 3 / Violence against women/ girls/children
Governance
Other: (please specify)
3.2 / Which of the following Millennium Development Goals is the project contributing to (if any)? - Please identify between one and three MDGs in order of priority (insert '1' for primary MDG focus area; '2' for secondary MDG focus area and; '3' for tertiary MDG focus area)
1.  Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger / 1
2.  Achieve universal primary education
3.  Promote gender equality and empower women / 2
4.  Reduce child mortality
5.  Improve Maternal Health
6.  Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
7.  Ensure environmental sustainability / 3
8. Develop a global partnership for development
None of the above (please explain in section 3.3)
3.3 / Explain why you are focusing on these specific MDGs.
Are the above MDGs “off track” in the implementing countries? Please state the source of the information you are using to determine whether or not they are “off track”. Your response should also inform section 4.4.
The project is focussing on these MDGs (1,3,7) as: they are off track in the project areas; they are areas in which the expertise and focus of Send a Cow (SAC) and Kale Heywet Development Programme (KHDP) can have significant impact; they fit with the local government and Ethiopia’s Poverty Reduction strategies; and they fit with DFID’s priorities.
MDG 1: The official MDG monitor puts Ethiopia as achievable for MDG1 but only if changes are made. Significant change has been achieved towards this goal through Ethiopia’s Poverty Reduction Strategies but the country still has a long way to go particularly in remote rural areas. Ethiopia is ranked at 80 in the Global Hunger Index (2010) with a rating of 'alarming' and the country’s population is 44% undernourished (FAO: The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2009). The Ethiopia Government indicates that MDG1 can be met if inequality, sustainability of growth and asset accumulation can be overcome (MDG report Sept 2010). In the Southern Nations, Nationalities and People's Region (SNNPR) food insecurity and malnutrition are rated as high (UNOCHA Hotspot Map 04/08/10) and the farmers need help to overcome extreme poverty in the project woredas. The project will focus on food security, income generation and rural livelihoods.
MDG 3: Although this goal is seen as ‘on-track’ Ethiopia-wide, the country itself admits there is still a lot to achieve to make this possible. Ethiopia’s MDG report highlights significant policy changes made to protect rights of women and girls (1995 Constitution, 2001 Family Code, 2005 revised Penal Code, PASDEP and GTP) but admits there are still challenges to overcome to change traditional attitudes in order to achieve MDG3. To bring families out of poverty women’s roles need to change in remote rural areas of SNNPR where customary rather than national laws are followed. (DFID’s Gender Equality & Action Plan states that poverty will only end if women have equal rights to men.) The project will focus on empowerment of women, women’s rights and girl child education.
MDG 7: DFID’s annual report in 2009 places Ethiopia as on track to achieve the water target but off track in access to improved sanitation. Ethiopia’s 2010 MDG Report indicates that to ensure water is accessible family wells need to be encouraged; and with regards to land degradation emphasises the need to ensure, “community led environmental protection and sustainable use of environmental resources”. The project will focus on water, sanitation, natural resources and the environment.
3.4 / Please list any of the DFID’s standard output and outcome indicators that this fund will contribute to? Note if stated here, these also need to be explicit in your logframe.
The primary focuses of the project are food security, income generation, gender and the environment (areas less represented by DFID standard indicators). The fund will contribute to DFID´s ‘standard’ output indicator “number of households provided with new/improved drinking water”, alongside several DFID ‘suggested’ indicators in ‘Food & Agriculture’, ‘Humanitarian’ and 'Water & Sanitation' areas - these are reflected in the logframe.
SECTION 4: PROJECT DETAILS
4.1 / ACRONYMS
Please list all acronyms used in your application in alphabetical order and explain them in full.
ARMing: Annual Review Meetings; CBO: Community Based Organisation; CFs: Community Facilitators; FGM: Female Genital Mutilation; FOMDALS: Farmer Owned & Managed Demonstration & Learning Site; GBV: Gender Based Violence; GTP: Five Year Growth & Transformation Plan; GTZ: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit; HH: Household; HTPs: Harmful Traditional Practices; IFAD: International Fund for Agricultural Development; IGA: income generating activities; KHDP: Kale Heywet Development Programme; NRM: Natural Resource Management; PASDEP: Plan for Accelerated & Sustained Development to End Poverty; PIF: Policy Investment Framework; PFs: Peer Farmers; PRS: Poverty Reduction Strategy; PSNP: Productive Safety Net Programme; SAC: Send a Cow; SACEth: Send a Cow Ethiopia; SNNPR: Southern Nations, Nationalities & Peoples Regional State.
4.2 / SUMMARY: maximum 5 lines - Please provide a brief project summary including the overall changes that the initiative is intending to achieve and who will benefit. (This is for dissemination about the fund and should relate to the purpose statement in the logframe).
The project will bring change to the lives of poor and vulnerable smallholder farmers in southern highlands of Ethiopia, especially women, to becoming food secure, productive and self-confident agents of their own development through increased farm productivity, improved environmental management, creation of new employment opportunities, establishment and development of community support systems, women’s empowerment and inclusion of socially marginalised groups.
4.3 / PROJECT DESIGN PROCESS
Describe the process of preparing this project proposal. Who has been involved in the process and over what period of time? If a consultant or anyone from outside the lead organisation and partners assisted in the preparation of this proposal please describe the type of assistance provided.
Send a Cow Ethiopia (SACEth) has conducted and led an in-depth assessment into developing this proposal. A participatory bottom-up project design approach was followed. Two assessment sessions of 15 days each were carried out in the target areas by SACEth and KHDP staff (including country directors, gender experts, environment officers, community facilitators) in June 2010 and April 2011 with the aim of collecting relevant and comprehensive primary and secondary quantitative and qualitative information. Zonal and District Government representatives from Wolayita and Gamo Gofa Zones assisted the team throughout. Sample surveys and focus group discussions with women, men, elders and youth from extremely impoverished families were the basis for problem tree development, needs assessment, analysis of food quality and availability, income/expenditure analysis, wealth ranking and trend analysis on climate change. Coping/survival strategies of extremely poor community members, female condition and access to basic needs/services were discussed in detail and analysed. Household visits, individual interviews, and transect walks were conducted to integrate and substantiate all information. Relevant government offices from the woredas provided the team with secondary up-to-date quantitative socio-economic data and with information on service delivery gaps. Further quantitative data was collected from Omo Microfinance Institution, Gununo Soil and Conservation Research Centre and other development actors. Additional statistics and information were obtained from the National Census 2007, ad-hoc researches, and SACEth case studies to validate and triangulate the collected data. Government policies and strategies were an important guideline throughout the project design process. Problem analysis and development of project strategy were based on quantitative and qualitative information obtained from the field assessment. The development of objectives and related indicators was based on the above data integrated with baseline surveys carried out by SACEth and lessons learned from previous SACEth projects.
4.4 / PROJECT RATIONALE (PROBLEM STATEMENT)
Describe the context for this project? What specific aspects of poverty is the project aiming to address? What gaps in service delivery have been identified? How has your proposal considered existing services or initiatives? Why have these particular project locations been selected and at this particular time? Please also refer to your response to section 3.3 when answering this section.
Smallholder highland communities in rural Southern Ethiopia are suffering from shortage and unpredictability of rainfall, soil erosion, decrease of grazing land, rapid population growth and lack of skills and technology. As a result, their level of vulnerability is constantly increasing. In addition, the poorest farmers are frequently exploited by those who control local markets and are often denied access to loans, ending up in a vicious cycle of poverty and food insecurity. Needs assessments within the project woredas have identified 6 interlinked aspects of poverty:
1) food insecurity: irregular and insufficient food production, extremely low food purchasing capacity, unequal food distribution within HHs, unbalanced diets and lack of knowledge of food conservation / post-harvest management have lead to severe malnutrition strongly contributing to existing vicious poverty cycles. Food insecure and unhealthy HHs in physical and psychological depression have less earning opportunities, are less efficient and less productive. (linked to MDG 1).
2) lack of sufficient and regular income from farm activities: smallholder farmers are suffering from extremely low agricultural crop and livestock productivity. Poor harvests and exploitative marketing structures exacerbate the problem. These factors contribute to a lack of regular income, causing desperate surviving strategies which include: child labour, sale of assets, leasing out land, seasonal migration, begging and taking up loans at extremely high interest rates. (linked to MGD 1).
3) vulnerability from climate change and environmental degradation: in the project area unawareness and inability to manage natural resources sustainably, alongside overexploitation, contribute to depletion of water resources, soil erosion, land degradation and impoverishment of vegetation cover. As a result, productivity of land and other natural resources, upon which the livelihoods of the community depend highly, is increasingly declining. The growing vulnerability and exposure to climate change, ultimately contributes to perpetuation of poverty. (linked to MDG 7).
4) lack of community support structures: people in the target area are not aware of the importance of community support structures and lack skills and abilities to develop efficient mutual support systems that can help them overcome natural/economic shocks and crises. As a consequence, community members think/act individually, are vulnerable, exploitable and do not have enough power to mitigate poverty. (linked to MGD 1).
5) lack of employment: shortage of land, extremely limited access to loan/credit institutions, lack of saving culture, lack of technical knowledge and skills, unawareness of income generating activity (IGA) opportunities and infrastructure and service gaps, are factors contributing to the lack of non-farming employment opportunities and ultimately to poverty accentuation. (linked to MDG 1).
6) gender inequality and social exclusion: continued practice of traditional law, seeing women as inferior, coupled with harmful traditional practices (HTPs) exacerbates poverty. Inequality of women and abuse of their rights prevents them from having space and skills, negatively affecting their productivity, ability to make decisions and self-esteem. Socially marginalised groups, families with disabilities, those affected/infected by HIV/AIDS, also suffer acutely from poverty. (linked to MDG 3).
Emergency aid measures, without long-term development strategies, provide the only support to the poorest population in the target area and large-scale interventions such as PSNP are not able to reach all those in need. Specifically, gaps in the following fields of service provision have been identified: financial and credit services, sanitation and health services, access to safe water, effective marketing infrastructure, access to information and appropriate technologies. The locations were selected being remote hard to reach areas reached by extremely limited service delivery. The few non-residential NGOs operating in the area focus on education, vaccination and child adoption, leaving a gap in food security and livelihood interventionss. If action is not taken soon, the socio-economic condition of smallholder farmers will irreversibly deteriorate: dramatic consequences of climate change, rapidly growing population, increasing local migration and school drop-out rates make this a crucial time for intervention. In addition, the collaborative attitude of local government officials, who learned of SACEth’s expertise and positive experiences in neighbouring woredas, can provide an extremely constructive support at this time.