Hadera Gebru Hagos

Hadera Gebru Hagos

Senior Consultant, Natural Resource Management and Livestock Specialist
Freelance Consultant
Etiopía

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

My contributions

  • How are mixed methods used in programme evaluation?

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

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

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

       

       

  • Disability inclusion in evaluation

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

      With  regards,

      Hadera

    • Mis comentarios sobre la discusión en curso

      1. ¿Las evaluaciones respetan la inclusión? 
      (¿Consideran que el diseño y las evaluaciones de proyectos y programas tienen siempre en
      cuenta el concepto de evaluación inclusiva)?

       No creo que el diseño y las evaluaciones de proyectos y programas respeten siempre el
      concepto de evaluación inclusiva. Algunas razones:
      (i) En la mayoría de los casos, la inclusión no se tiene en cuenta en la fase inicial y
      de preparación de los proyectos/programas que se van a evaluar.
      (ii) Los mandatos de las evaluaciones no suelen incluir/dar importancia a la inclusión,
      ya que: (a) el conocimiento/concienciación sobre los diferentes tipos de
      discapacidad es limitado; y (b) el presupuesto y el tiempo dedicados a la
      evaluación de proyectos/programas suelen ser reducidos, con independencia del
      tamaño de los proyectos/programas.
      Por ejemplo, hay proyectos de cinco años de duración o más y amplia cobertura
      geográfica que se evalúan de forma muy apresurada, en unos diez días. Esto
      sucede tanto con evaluaciones a mitad de período como con evaluaciones finales.
      En estos casos, no sólo no se tiene debidamente en cuenta a las personas con
      discapacidad (incluidos sus cuidadores y las organizaciones encargadas), sino que
      también se ponen en peligro los debates participativos y la toma de decisiones con
      personas sin discapacidad.

      2. ¿Qué dificulta la participación plena de personas con discapacidad en las evaluaciones de
      proyectos y programas? Por favor, compartan sus experiencias personales.

       Falta de cuidadores/organizaciones representativas adecuados que den voz a las
      personas con discapacidad, a fin de que participen plenamente en las evaluaciones.
       Falta de herramientas adecuadas para facilitar la comunicación con los evaluadores.
       Falta de concienciación adecuada de las personas con discapacidad sobre su derecho a
      participar en las evaluaciones.

      3. ¿Cómo podrían los evaluadores mitigar los riesgos asociados a la ausencia de evaluaciones
      inclusivas, específicamente para personas con discapacidad en nuestras comunidades?

       Comprendiendo mejor la importancia de la inclusión de las personas con discapacidad en
      las evaluaciones.
       Comprometiéndose a dar voz a quienes no la tienen/las personas con discapacidad.
       Promoviendo la inclusión de las personas con discapacidad en las evaluaciones y
      contribuyendo de manera informada al diseño de directrices para este fin.