Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ

This decentralized evaluation was commissioned by the Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ Ethiopia Country Office. It covers the Satellite Index Insurance for Pastoralists in Ethiopia (SIIPE) Programme from 2019-2022 with a budget of USD 5.6 million co-financed by the Sweden and Swiss Agencies for Development and Cooperation. The evaluation¡¯s objectives focused on both accountability and learning, aiming to understand if and how SIIPE protected pastoralists against drought risks, whether there was any behvioural change among participants, and changes in household well-being attributable to the programme. The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach, relying on a quasi-experimental quantitative method in combination with qualitative interviews and data.

Key evaluation findings & conclusions:

• Relevance: SIIPE was highly relevant and aligned to Â鶹³ÉÈË°æ and national strategies, demonstrating a wide and high level of stakeholder engagement. Consultative processes facilitated adjustments to the programme, ensuring alignment with community needs and inclusion of marginalized and underrepresented groups.
• Effectiveness: While reaching 94% of its targeted beneficiaries, the SIIPE programme faced challenges that impacted its effectiveness, such as: stakeholder unfamiliarity with livestock insurance, limited private sector interest due to low profitability, delays in insurance payouts, labour and budget constraints, and satellite data reliability issues. The programme also identified capacity gaps in agricultural insurance and climate science among insurance companies and government offices. Gender specific analyses were hindered due to lack of disaggregated data. Despite these challenges, successes were also demonstrated, with collaboration, full premium coverage, and a focus on livestock protection being key.
• Efficiency: The average cost per beneficiary was approximately USD 200, but efficiency analyses and cost-comparisons were not possible due to data availability.
• Impact: Overall impact of the SIIPE programme was mixed. SIIPE had a positive impact on knowledge and attitudes towards livestock insurance, increased engagement with formal and informal financial services, especially for women, and a positive impact on productive resources and decision-making (e.g. higher spending on livestock essentials such as water, veterinary medicine and forage). SIIPE was also found to improve food security. However, this did not translate into improved livelihoods, incomes and asset ownership, dietary diversity, or expenditure patterns. Nearly half of beneficiaries found the enrolment process to be complex, compensation lower than expected, and payouts not covering actual losses. Nevertheless, 3 out of 4 beneficiaries found the insurance to have value.
• Scale & Sustainability: Overall awareness of livestock insurance remained low, and unaffordable premiums were significant barriers to wider uptake. Benefits for livestock management also faded after payouts ended, and were influenced by programme budget shortfalls. Some community assets were also not adequately maintained and fell into disuse over time, stemming from lack of community commitment, labour and capital intensive nature of projects, and budget shortfalls. However, SIIPE shows promise in enhancing sustainability through collaboration and strategic interventions, despite challenges. The programme also supported sustainability through capacity strengthening, gender mainstreaming, and protective measures for affected populations. Qualitative interviews suggested.

Key recommendations:

• Enhanced awareness and education campaigns are key to ensuring high understanding and adoption of the programme;
• Simplified enrolment to ensure beneficiaries can access the services with ease;
• Customised insurance products should be used to enhance uptake through a wider variety of options and a more holistic programme approach;
• Improve claims process to ensure a transparent, timely, efficient, and useful system for beneficiaries;
• Strengthen partnerships between all entities working with the same beneficiary group, including integrating insurance schemes with other humanitarian and development interventions;
• Collect disaggregated and consistent data on beneficiaries, outputs, and outcomes, as well as associated costs;
• Recruit more female staff at woreda level to create a more conducive space for female beneficiaries.