This study was basically initiated with general objective of assessing the Pastoral CommunityrnDevelopment Projects monitoring and evaluation practice of OPADC in relation to thernimplementation of PCDPs at Fentalle and Mieso districts. To achieve its objective, the studyrnemployed descriptive research approach and both primary and secondary data were used.rnQuestionnaires, focus group discussion, interview, and document review were, therefore, usedrnas data collection tools. Furthermore, it employed both stratified and judgmental samplingrntechniques. The generated data was analyzed using quasi- qualitative approaches.rnThe study examined checklists, questionnaires, focus group discussion, field visit andrnobservation, review of administrative records, interview, simulation game, cost-benefitrnanalysis and case studies set by OPADC as PCDPs monitoring and evaluation gathering toolsrnand techniques. It was found out that efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, impact,rnsustainability, environment and socio-economic impacts have been employed by the OPADCrnas PCDPs evaluation criteriaâ€™s and lack of project evaluation principles and standards, thatrnwere not included in monitoring & evaluation manual.rnMoreover, the result of study indicated that OPADC employed all stages of evaluation andrnthe tasks that were carried out mostly in monthly, quarterly, mid-term and annual bases inrnplanned manner in regional level while at specified districts level the monitoring andrnevaluation process were unplanned and irregular. Additionally, most of, regional and districtrnlevel PCDPs steering Committee members were not involved in monitoring and evaluation;rnthey were only based on repots they obtained to assess the performance of the project. Hence,rnthe study revealed that the PCDPs monitoring and evaluation process was participatoryrninvolving stakeholders through meetings and discussions held at different stages.rnIt was also disclosed that some completed projects like Grain Mills with shops have not beenrnfunctioning due to poor management. The other finding is that there were limited humanrnresources both in terms quality and quantity to conduct monitoring and evaluation at bothrnspecified districts. Especially, there were no engineers in both districts to handle constructionrnprojects monitoring and evaluation. Competition over projects resource was also otherrnobstacle identified by this study.rnThe study recommended that OPADCrnshould conduct PCDPs outcomes evaluations; OPADCrnneeds to reconsider the human resource structure; To avoid, competition over projectrnresources, OPADC should provide adequate resources for district PCDPs coordination office;rnand OPADC should improve its monitoring and evaluation manual by including projectsrnmonitoringrnandrnevaluationrnprinciplesrnrnandrnstandards