1 
 
ZIMBABWE
 
ZIMBABWE LIVESTOCK FOR ACCELERATED RECOVERY AND IMPROVED
RESILIENCY (ZRR)
Mid-term Evaluation Report
Agreement AID-OFDA-G-12-00032
2 
Contents
1.0 Introduction and Background............................................................................................................................. 3
1.1 Need for the Program .......................................................................................................................................... 9
1.2 Program goals and Objectives........................................................................................................................ 9
1.3 Interventions, Implementation Strategies and Anticipated Results .......................................................10
1.4 Geographic coverage......................................................................................................................................11
1.5 Purpose of program Evaluation...................................................................................................................11
2.0 Evaluation Methods and Limitations...............................................................................................................13
2.1. Methodology..........................................................................................................................................................13
2.2 Limitations.......................................................................................................................................................13
2.3 Structure of the report...................................................................................................................................14
3.0 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1 Project progress..............................................................................................................................................15
3.2 Processes that affect achievement of project results (behavior change and capacity strengthening)24
3.3 Assessment of sustainability of project outcomes.....................................................................................25
3.4 Challenges and lessons learnt .......................................................................................................................26
4.0 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................................28
5.0 ZRR Program Response to Midterm Evaluation Recommendations........................................................29
6.0 Annexes ................................................................................................................................................................ 34
Annex 1: Scope of Work.............................................................................................................................................34
Annex 2: Midterm Evaluation tools..........................................................................................................................40
Annex 3: List of information sources (including documents reviewed, sites visited, and key informants, 
assuming they gave permission to be identified).....................................................................................................59
3 
Executive Summary
A Mid Term evaluation for the Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency 
(ZRR) Project implemented by Land O’Lakes was carried out in June and July 2013 with the purpose of 
answering two key evaluation questions:
• How has and to what extent has ZRR met, not met, or exceeded its objectives? 
• What are the key strengths and weaknesses of the project, including specific activities and overall 
program strategy? 
• The above evaluation questions will provide concrete (doable) recommendations to strengthen the 
project and address any areas of concern in the second half of the project.
Evaluation results show that the ZRR project has realized some impressive results in its first year of 
operation, especially regarding the output indicators. Notable achievements include distributing goats to 617 
households in the first year against a target of 700 in life of project, realized some reduction in Kidd mortality 
through increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services, and benefitted 
5770 individuals against a target of 6000 in the life of project. Results are positive and provide a favorable 
indication of what the program will achieve at the end of its life. Considerable progress in both components 
was observed, though some activities still require extra work and focus if they are to be achieved before 
project ends in April, 2014. In some cases however, more time than the two years proposed – especially for 
IR 2 Rangeland management activities – is needed if the project outcomes are to be realized
Program background
The ZRR project objective is to expedite recovery, reduce risk and mitigate effects of economic and 
environmental disasters on Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management 
and marketing. To achieve this objective, Land O’Lakes and its partner, the African Holistic Rangeland 
Management (ACHM) are addressing gaps in human knowledge and capacity with targeted trainings; the lack 
of a sustainable and productive asset base at the individual household level by establishing a goat distribution 
and pass on scheme; weaknesses within the livestock value chain by training goat producer groups in basic 
business skills and marketing; how to better protect against disease outbreaks and foster animal productivity 
through training and by developing a network of Community Livestock Workers (CLW) who can improve 
access to animal health services; and restoration of a degraded natural resource base through capacity building 
in improved rangeland management techniques, implementation of prescribed grazing plans, and integration 
of fodder and forage production into conservation agriculture methods.
ZRR results are to be achieved through implementation of activities under two Agriculture and Food Security 
subcomponents and divided into three Intermediate Results (IRs), as follows:
Subcomponent 1: Livestock: IR 1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in 
vulnerable households and communities; and IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of 
sustainable rangeland management; and;
Subcomponent 2: Veterinary Medicines and Vaccines: IR 3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health 
and livestock extension services.
Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation team conducted an extensive review of project reports and other technical documents before 
embarking on the exercise. In order to obtain a reasonable picture of the strengths and weaknesses of project 
implementation, a household survey (from a representative sample of 194 participating farmers, 15 Focus 
Group Discussions with participating farmers, and Key Informant Interviews with project partners, relevant 
4 
stakeholders’ extension agents and traditional leaders. Key findings and recommendations were then shared 
with project staff for their input and to inform Year two activities.
Key Findings
The ZRR project has been well implemented and has realized impressive results in its one year of operation 
in two out of the three result area. The project also is meeting its intended result, that of building resiliency to 
economic and environmental shocks. As observed in our field visits, participating farmers appreciate the 
project approach – that is distributing three goats, and that every household in the target area has a chance to 
benefit through a well-established and implemented pass on scheme. Farmers we talked to appreciate goats 
because ‘goats can rapidly increase in number and can easily be sold in case one has a problem’. Nutritional 
and soil treatment benefits – manure and goat milk and meat, were also mentioned as critical benefits of the 
project design and approach. In terms of targeting the most vulnerable, results indicate that the poor, 
households with sick members, and orphans have benefitted, with the community members assisting them to 
build appropriate goat housing, which is the basic requirement by the program to get goats.
ZRR project has distributed goats to 617 households (88%) of project targeted goat beneficiary
householdsand provided trainings on goat management to 1154households, about 58% of the project target. 
Sixty-eight Community Livestock Workers, 36% more than the project target have been trained and 
equipped. Trainings have covered animal health, feeding, housing, fodder production, breeding, among other 
livestock management practices. At household level, some progress has been realized in the uptake of 
livestock husbandry practices that ZRR promotes, especially those targeting improved animal health. 
However, no major changes have been observed from baseline in terms of outcomes. Practices that have 
shown considerable change in terms of adoption by farmers from baseline are vaccination and dipping.
Achievements that have been observed in terms of adoption of recommended practices and resulting changes 
in animal – especially goat - productivity include:
• About 60% of individuals participating in the project are women. Evaluation findings indicate that 
more male headed households have adopted promoted veterinary practices that the female headed 
households. However, an interesting observation was that no considerable differences were noted at 
the outcomes level – kidding interval, age at first kidding, goat mortality, among others. 
• 61.3% of respondents did not report any deaths for mature goats in the last one year. This again is 
not different from baseline, at 64.1%. On Kid mortality, a slight decrease in proportion of those 
reporting Kid deaths was observed, at 41.7% compared to 49.6% at baseline. 
• On breeding, respondents mention adopting recommended practices and recording one mating per 
pregnancy, a maximum of ten months as the average age at first kidding (Mean of 8.9 months for 
Male HH and 8.4 for Female HH), and a maximum of 6.1 months kidding interval from 8.13 at 
baseline (mean of 5.5 months for Male HH and 5.2 for Female HH). Results due to adoption of 
promoted management practices include an increase in number of litter to two on average, from 1.15 
kids at baseline, and reduced abortion rates, reported by 9.2% of those surveyed.
• Those surveyed have realized 2.2 additional kids to their goat herds in the first half of 2013 as 
opposed to 2.6 additional kids in the entire 2012.
About 83.5% of participating farmers are highly satisfied with the ZRR project services, with project activities 
on dipping campaigns, training on fodder production, CLWs’ services and timing of training rated the best 
five
Project design, implementation and achievements, including changes in context and review of 
assumptions
Participating farmers appreciate the project approach – that is distributing three goats (does), and that every 
household in the target area has a chance to benefit through a well-established and implemented pass on 
scheme. Farmers interviewed appreciate goats because ‘goats can rapidly increase in number and can easily be 
5 
sold in case one has a problem’. Nutritional and soil treatment benefits – manure, goat milk and meat, were 
also mentioned as critical benefits of the project. Farmers interviewed mention specific benefits they have 
received from the project. These benefits by program result area are:
IR 1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households and 
communities
• Training in goat husbandry, fodder production and conservation and goat production as a business. 
• Increased goat population in the project area was also mentioned. The project has distributed goats 
to a number of households in the area, and goats now give birth twice in 12 months kids than 
before.
• Feed preservation: Farmers have learnt to produce fodder in the demo plots. Farmers also 
mentioned preserving maize stovers and ground nut stocks which they then treat with urea and feed 
their livestock. 
IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management
Some progress reported in this result area, though limited. Movable kraals were observed to be in very high 
demand, sometimes leading to misunderstandings in the target communities due to its perceived benefits in 
improving soil fertility, comfortable to cattle because if the kraal is moved, cattle get to sleep in a clean place, 
and for easy breeding because whole community can benefit from a few bulls instead of all villagers acquiring 
a breeding bull. Those interviewed mentioned there is limited grazing areas in the communities due to new 
settlements and ‘because of the increasing number of goats in the village’, which corroborates the statement 
on increasing goat herd. 
IR 3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services
The MTE results demonstrate considerable progress in this result area compared to baseline findings. At 
baseline, farmers expressed that access to veterinary drugs and vaccines was a challenge, as these were not 
sold locally, and that CLWs only assisted in disease identification, and were not able to treat many diseases, as 
they do not have access to veterinary drugs. Communities were in addition not paying for CLW services, and 
hence, it is difficult to for the CLWs to purchase drugs on behalf of the farmers. Now CLWs treat livestock 
and get paid for their services in some districts.
• Improved livestock health due to the establishment of a drug revolving fund and training of CLWs, 
improved livestock body condition as a result of improved goat management – due to the fact that 
they have abandoned tethering and now free graze. 
• Project has organized farmers who now contribute money to buy animal health drugs as a group, 
saving them money and time – on transport.
• Reduced goat mortality
Implementation strategies and impact on progress towards results
Some factors that were observed and/or mentioned to have contributed to the success in the two result areas 
are:
Project implementation is utilizing the existing structures in the target area. ZRR has not created parallel 
structures within the wards it operates in. Rather, it is using the community structures, most notably the Ward 
Development Committees/Ward Executive Committees. All farmer groups are required to develop a 
constitution and laws governing their operation, which are then enforced by the Ward Executive Committees. 
This has ensured a smooth enforcement of the goat pass on scheme and will be critical in implementing the 
communal grazing plans once these are operationalized. The project also uses the Provincial Veterinary 
Officer to train the CLWs. While other players, especially the ward level veterinary service providers 
6 
complained about the duration of the CLWs training, we noted that they do not complain about the quality of 
the training or its content. Farmers also mentioned that the CLWs working with the project have similar skills 
to the veterinary service providers and therefore call them first given their closeness to the community.
Another critical factor that was observed to have contributed to the ZRR success is that the project is 
working in wards and districts that had participated in the Rebuilding Livelihoods and Resiliency in 
Zimbabwe a USAID funded Economic Growth project that initially had a goat distribution component but 
which was eliminated. This continuation – in a few Wards – ensured a quick start up since most of the 
households in the wards had already put up goat houses and attended some goat trainings – even though they 
still required refresher trainings – to receive the goats and implement the improved management practices 
adopted by the project.
Some activities are still lagging behind however. The ZRR management will need to revisit its implementation 
approach for the project to achieve its intended results.
Rangeland management 
Discussions with ACHM, the ZRR partner in Rangeland Management mentioned a number of issues which 
the project team needs to consider going forward. These include:
Use of the community action cycle to ensure all community members are consulted, engaged and empowered 
to act to ensure ownership of the grazing plans, movable kraals among others. We noted that the project team 
trained by ACHM has trained CLWs and empowered them to carry on activities related to rangeland 
management. ZRR has also exposed community leaders to the Holistic Land and Rangeland Management 
approach through the trip to the ACHM. Results have been varied. The consistent observation however was 
that there is lack of ownership of and none of the communities ZRR works in is implementing a grazing plan. 
The project therefore needs to revisit the community action cycle – explore and plan with the entire 
community- to make sure members identify the problem and solutions, and design the grazing calendar 
themselves.
Time to recovery of rangelands: ZRR should ideally have more time to develop and integrate this concept 
at community level than the two years proposed. Even in the ACHM Campus, recovery took longer than the 
two years ZRR will be implemented. 
Marketing 
The ZRR project has introduced a good marketing concept – that of selling based on goat weight. However, 
Land O’Lakes is the only one buying based on this concept at the moment for restocking purposes. This is 
not sustainable. ZRR needs to link producer groups with buyers who will buy based on this concept in year 
two.
Fodder production
Two issues were observed: Approach to promote fodder production has been through the demonstration 
farms. This has been appreciated by farmers interviewed. However, farmers lack fodder seeds. In fact the 
demonstration farms main objective was to produce fodder seeds and may have compromised quality of 
fodder. ZRR needs to ensure farmers get seeds as proposed to ensure they this concept is adopted. The ZRR 
project intended to work closely with the local research stations in Grassland and Matopos to select fodder 
seeds, including seed testing of up to seven fodder varieties . However, this has not been accomplished given 
that USAID does not allow projects to pay for goods or services provided by government agencies. 
Challenges
Lack of grazing lands in some communities
7 
Lack of grazing land in some communities bordering those that work with ZRR, who may not comply with 
the plans once developed was identified by both project staff and community members. Appropriate 
measures, involving incorporating such communities in the plans will be mandatory. Another challenge is the 
cultivation or habitation of formerly designated grazing lands in ZRR target communities, which locals say, 
could render such lands nonexistent.
Fodder seed production
ZRR intended to work closely with the local research stations in Grassland and Matopos to select fodder 
seeds; including seed testing of up to seven fodder varieties. However this activity cannot be implemented 
because of USAID does not allow projects to pay for goods or services provided by government agencies. 
Project duration
The two years proposed will not be adequate to realize results for IR 2. As discussed, it takes at least 4 years 
at community level to see any results from Holistic Rangeland management initiatives. Other activities that 
will require additional time to adequately implement include:
• Goat marketing: The ZRR project has improved goat production to an extent that improves 
resiliency. The project will require more time for farmers to learn how to engage in the markets, both 
local and urban. For the innovation of purchasing goats based on weight to be entrenched in the 
project area, ZRR will need to link the benefitting households to urban goat markets. This can only 
happen if there is enough supply of goats to sustain demand which will need more time for the 
benefitting households to build their goat herds. 
• Fodder production: The ZRR project has only had one cropping season which was used to introduce 
the concept of fodder production in demonstration plots. Given that fodder production is a new
concept in the project area, it will require a few more seasons to be an established practice in the 
area. 
It is the evaluation team’s considered view that more cropping seasons/ an extended program duration would
help fodder production, rangeland management, market integration and commercialization and thus enable 
the project to achieve its targets.
Lesson learnt
• Holistic Rangeland management initiatives, commercial goat production and marketing and 
introduction of fodder production goat generally take longer than two years. This needs to have been 
factored in at design. It will be difficult for the project to realize the intended results - IR2.4: and 
IR2.5 within two years.
• ZRR has introduced an innovation in the program area – that of local sourcing of goats which has 
enabled the program to realize two critical results – to reinvest USAID funds within neighboring
communities and to purchase goats based on weight, age and teeth thus showing farmers that quality 
pays. Purchase of goats based on weight has not only resulted in a sharp increase in goat prices in 
the area, but also opened the eyes of the community members that commercial goat production is 
can be achieved.
Recommendations
Project activity related recommendations:
8 
• Project to request for additional time to implement activities and realize results on Rangeland 
management, goat marketing and fodder production.
• Goat restocking: Goat distribution should be finalized by as soon as possible for staff to monitor 
implementation of the pass on scheme. Buck distribution should target higher quality goat breeds 
than those in local communities
• Project should prioritize linkage with commercial buyers in the second year, who can buy based on 
weight as promoted. Households say they have enough goats to sell. 
• Fodder production: ZRR to distribute seeds to farmers in the second year early enough for fodder 
production at farm level. Farmers mentioned having the knowledge to enable the produce fodder but 
lack seeds.
• Rangeland management: Project staff to conduct planning events – explore issues around rangeland 
management and design community maps and grazing plans with all community members. Project 
staffs need to spend more time on ground on this activity and not leave it entirely to leaders and 
CLWs, including training herders. Regarding movable kraals a more involved approach by staff in 
preparing the roster and monitoring its use is recommended. In addition, ZRR staff should 
encourage communities to invest in their own Kraals. This result area however requires more time, at 
least four years to see benefits/results.
• Animal health: CLWs complained of lack of coordination with relevant stakeholders’ livestock and 
agriculture extension people. In addition, some trained CLWs (very few though in Bulilima District) 
do not have bicycles and kits and so provide limited extension services – farmers do not pay them 
for ‘advising and training’, when farmers buy syringes, medicine. ZRR should therefore equip all 
CLWs as soon as possible and to ensure all CLWs are linked to veterinary service providers and 
other relevant extension personnel to ensure they refer complicated cases to them, since private vets 
are non-existent in the program area.
Management related recommendations
• Monitoring: It was observed that some project target districts have many issues which have not been 
identified but which the evaluation team was of the opinion should have been rectified earlier. A 
clear case is the problem with the rangeland management activity - both communal grazing planning 
and movable kraal. While it is not possible to correct all problems in implementation, it pays to 
identify emerging problems early. 
• Reconciling sustainability concerns with stakeholder buy in: In some districts village heads demand to 
be given goats in exchange for enforcing the pass on scheme and marketing groups’ constitutions. 
The ZRR project need to ensure that all community leaders understand our focus – which is to 
empower vulnerable members of their communities. 
9 
1.0 Introduction and Background
This report presents the Midterm Evaluation results and recommendations of the Zimbabwe Livestock for 
Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency (ZRR) Project. The Project is funded by the United States 
Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), and is 
assisting targeted vulnerable households in Matabeleland South and Manicaland to reduce vulnerability to 
both economic and climatic disasters, diversify livelihoods, build assets, and rebuild resiliency to shocks.
1.1 Need for the Program
The ZRR Project is assisting targeted vulnerable households in Matabeleland South and Manicaland to reduce 
vulnerability to both economic and climatic disasters, diversify livelihoods, build assets, and rebuild resiliency 
to shocks through training in livestock production; restocking of household herds; building community 
capacity in rangeland management; development of rangeland management plans; reviving livestock 
infrastructure; and increasing returns from livestock sales gained by smallholder farmers. Goat distribution, 
paired with training and support of community-based goat production and improved natural resources 
management, will provide an opportunity for individual households that are vulnerable to climatic shocks and 
recovering from economic turmoil to build a sustainable productive asset base. 
While stressing individual ownership of the productive assets, ZRR works to strengthen existing goat 
marketing groups to solidify community-level engagement, increase market access, improve economic returns 
to livestock keepers and their communities, and enable efforts to use livestock for proactive environmental 
restoration through communal herding. ZRR in addition is building the foundation for increased access to 
animal health services through the development of a community-based preventive animal health program that 
is closely linked to private veterinary and drug suppliers. Building a grassroots animal health network linked to 
larger private enterprises will improve herd productivity, reduce mortality, and increase the availability of 
breeding stock in the area. Finally, ZRR is addressing the need to improve the natural production base of 
livestock systems; specifically, ZRR is building the local capacity and applying Holistic Rangeland 
Management (HM) techniques to restore degraded farm and rangelands for more resilient and productive 
forage, feed and fodder resources. 
1.2 Program goals and Objectives
The Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency (ZRR) project is being 
implemented in Zimbabwe since May, 2012 with expected completion date of April, 2014. The project 
objective is to expedite recovery, reduce risk and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on 
Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing.
To achieve this goal, Land O’Lakes and its partner, the African Holistic Rangeland Management (ACHM) are 
addressing gaps in human knowledge and capacity with targeted trainings; the lack of a sustainable and 
productive asset base at the individual household level by establishing a goat distribution and pass on scheme; 
weaknesses within the livestock value chain by training goat producer groups in basic business skills and 
marketing; how to better protect against disease outbreaks and foster animal productivity through training 
and by developing a network of Community Livestock Workers (CLW) who can improve access to animal 
health services; and restoration of a degraded natural resource base through capacity building in improved 
rangeland management techniques, implementation of prescribed grazing plans, and integration of fodder and 
forage production into conservation agriculture methods.
ZRR results are to be achieved through implementation of activities under two Agriculture and Food Security 
subcomponents and divided into three Intermediate Results (IRs), as follows:
10
Subcomponent 1: Livestock
• IR 1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households 
and communities;
• IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management; and;
Subcomponent 2: Veterinary Medicines and Vaccines
• IR 3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services.
1.3 Interventions, Implementation Strategies and Anticipated Results
Key activities implemented by ZRR and their associated outputs and outcomes are presented in Table 1 
below.
Table 1: Results Framework
Goal/Intermediate 
Result
Description Activity Key Performance Indicator:
OFDA Subsector 
Goal
Farmer resiliency to environmental 
and economic shocks enhanced 
through development, testing, 
documentation and dissemination 
of sustainable fodder and fodder 
seed production and marketing 
systems
Na Indicator A: Number of animals 
benefitting from or affected by livestock 
activities 
Indicator B: Number of people benefiting 
from livestock activities
Indicator C: Number of veterinary 
interventions, treatments or vaccinations 
administered
Indicator D: Number of animals treated 
or vaccinated 
Program Goal Expedite recovery, reduce risk, and 
mitigate effects of economic and 
environmental disasters on 
Zimbabwe’s vulnerable 
communities through livestock 
production, management and 
marketing.
Na Indicator E: Number of individuals 
participating in disaster risk reduction 
activities 
Indicator F: Percentage of beneficiary 
households with improved productive asset 
base
Indicator G: Percentage of Female 
Headed Households with improved 
productive asset base
Sub Component 1: Livestock 
IR 1 Increased productivity and market 
access of the livestock asset base in 
vulnerable households and 
communities 
Activity 1.1: Goat 
production
Activity 1.2: 
Restocking
Activity 1.3: Goat 
Marketing
Activity 1.4: 
Fodder 
production
Activity 1.5: Goat 
Marketing 
IR1.1: Number of households trained or 
receiving technical assistance in goat 
production and marketing (Output)
IR1.2: Average value of assets (tools, 
livestock, domestic) in targeted 
participating households (Impact)
IR1.3: Number of households receiving 
goats from the project and participating in 
producer groups (Output)
IR1.4: Number of goat producer groups 
formed or strengthened (Output)
IR1.5 Proportion of producer group 
membership comprised of females
(Output)
IR1.6: Number of producer groups 
linked to markets (Output)
11
IR 2 Increased communities’ capacity for 
and practice of sustainable 
rangeland management
Activity 2.1:
Training of 
trainers
Activity 2.2: 
Community and 
farmer training
Activity 2.3: 
Rangeland 
management 
planning and 
extension services 
provision 
IR2.1: Number of CLW’s trained in 
farm and sustainable rangeland 
management techniques (Output) 
IR2.2: Number of people trained in 
improved farm and rangeland 
management (Output) 
IR2.3: Number of grazing management 
plans developed and utilized by 
communities (Outcome) 
IR2.4: Communities applying improved 
farm and sustainable rangeland 
management techniques (Outcome) 
IR2.5: Number of hectares (Ha) under 
improved land management (Outcome) 
IR2.6: Percentage of community farmers 
applying improved farm and sustainable 
rangeland management techniques 
(Outcome)
Sub component 2: Veterinary medicines and vaccines 
IR 3: Increased Capacity of and Access to 
Animal Health and Livestock 
Extension Services
Land O’Lakes will 
identify potential 
CLWs through 
existing goat 
producer groups 
and work with 
them to provide 
animal health 
services to 
participating 
farmers.
IR3.1: Number of CLWs trained 
(Output)
IR3.2: Percentage of CLWs utilizing 
their training and skills to train farmers 
(Outcome)
IR3.3: Number of women responsible for 
making household decisions in veterinary 
care and management of their goats 
(Outcome)
IR3.4: Number of Households served by 
CLWs (Output)
The ZRR project supports USAID/OFDA Southern Africa DRR strategy 2012-2014 as well as the UN￾ISDR Hygro framework.
1.4 Geographic coverage
ZRR project is being implemented in two provinces of Matabeleland South and Manicaland (five districts) 
found within agro-climatic Zones IV and V. 
1.5 Purpose of program Evaluation
The main objective of the Midterm evaluation (MTE) was to assess ZRR’s strengths and weaknesses to 
improve its effectiveness. The evaluation team looked at project performance and the implementation of 
planned project activities and planned outputs against actual results. Working with project staff, the team 
identified successes, problems or constraints (design, administrative, or operational), focusing on both 
components, and developed actionable recommendations on the work plan for the remainder of the project 
period.
Specific objectives included: 
• Assessing the extent to which ZRR has met, not met, or exceeded its objectives; 
• Identifying key strengths and weaknesses of the project, including specific activities and overall 
program strategy; and
12
• Providing concrete (doable) recommendations to strengthen the project and address any areas of 
concern
Specific areas evaluated were:
• Project progress
• Project design, implementation and achievements, including changes in context and review of 
assumptions
• Processes that affect achievement of project results (behavior change and capacity strengthening)
• Sustainability of project outcomes
• Unintended outcomes if any
• Challenges and lessons learnt
Findings of the evaluation are meant to guide the rest of program implementation and accordingly redefine 
approaches and pace of work. The MTE also focused on corrective actions needed for the project to achieve 
maximum impact. 
13
2.0 Evaluation Methods and Limitations 
2.1. Methodology
2.1.1 Preparation
The Evaluation team started by designing the Midterm Evaluation Terms of Reference, complete with the 
purpose, key questions and methodology to be used in undertaking the evaluation (See Annex 1 for the 
complete Scope of Work). Before commencing field work, the lead Evaluator reviewed program 
documentation, including program proposal, program reports, baseline evaluation report, follow on 
household data, Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP), and the program work plan (2012-2013).
2.1.2 Fieldwork
To investigate project impact on beneficiaries – households and at farmer group level, a survey, using mixed 
methods (quantitative and qualitative interviews – Annex 2a, 2b and 2c) was designed and executed. A score 
card was also included as part of the survey to elicit beneficiary feedback on the program and their 
satisfaction with implementation. The purpose was to give them a chance to participate in the evaluation by 
anonymously expressing their views about the work and results achieved to date and their ideas as to how the 
program might be strengthened. A total of 194 participating farmers in the five target districts, selected by 
simple random sampling, were surveyed. 
In addition to the quantitative survey, the evaluation team carried out 15 focus group discussions (FGDs),
three in each focus district - with women and men farmers separately, and a FGD with Community Livestock 
Workers (CLWs). Key ZRR stakeholders in each district were also interviewed. The key informants included 
representatives from Agritex, Ministry of Livestock, Political leaders; mainly ward councilors, village headmen 
and chiefs/traditional leaders. Thereafter, through field visits to the project sites in Mutare Rural and Buhera 
Districts, Evaluator met and held discussions with farmers in five sites. Meetings were also held with a
representative of ACHM, a ZRR partner, a Councilor, Agritex personnel, a village headman and CLWs. At 
the end of each day, the team leader ensured the questionnaires were correctly filled in and all notes from 
semi structured interviews were coherent and legible. A consolidation of findings from the focus group 
discussions was then done. The Evaluators then met with ZRR staff for a briefing on the survey findings, 
ZRR design, implementation status and results achieved to date. The staff meetings also discussed the 
challenges and lessons learnt in implementation, and explored, with the project staff, various options to 
maximize program results. ZRR management responses to some of the recommendations are included in 
Chapter 6 of this report.
Assessment results reveal significant progress in implementation and results achieved to date. Beneficiary 
feedback – from score cards and field observations - in addition provided a snap shot of feelings and 
observations which complemented the information gathered from PH9 staff and partners. References to 
survey responses will be found in many sections of this report. 
2.2 Limitations
Three limitations were noted. 
• In conducting the household, CLWs and farmer group level surveys, we hired three enumerators, 
with the ZRR M&E Specialist also being part of the team. This may have biased responses touching 
on adoption of improved goat husbandry practices promoted by the program and beneficiary score 
card responses on questions relating to satisfaction with program activities. 
• The other limitation noted was the lack of a control sample to compare project results to. We 
considered a performance evaluation approach to the MTE, and do not think that these limitations in 
any way impact validity of the results.
14
• At baseline, data was collected from households that participated in the Rebuilding Livelihoods and 
Resiliency in Zimbabwe (ZLD). Farmers interviewed had received training and goats from the 
project. The evaluation team observed that some results at midterm were not different, or lower than 
the baseline figures. This will be observed in the report.
2.3 Structure of the report
The report is organized by the questions contained in the Midterm evaluation Scope of Work (Annex 1), as 
well as by others that are worth mentioning given the findings. It first presents the findings regarding 
program progress towards set targets and in the process, tests the validity of the assumptions on which the 
program is based. It then looks at overall program operations, and how they have contributed to program 
progress and where they could be strengthened. It also looks at the important issue of synergy between ZRR 
and other initiatives who work along similar lines and in the same area. Although not covered in the scope of 
work, the report also discusses the program results and provides recommendations given performance so far 
and the implementation context. Finally, it offers recommendations on improving the ZRR project. 
15
3.0 Findings
Overall, the ZRR project has realized some impressive results in its first year of operation, especially 
regarding the output indicators. Notable achievements include distributing goats to 617 (So far 1773 does 
purchased and a balance of 33 will be bought by end of August 2013. 26 bucks have so far been purchased
and a balance of 124 will be bought by end of this quarter) households in the first year against a target of 700 
in life of project, realized some reduction in Kidd mortality through increased capacity of and access to 
animal health and livestock extension services, and benefitted 5770 individuals against a target of 6000 in the 
life of project. 
These results are positive and provide a favorable indication of what the program can achieve at the end of 
the project period. Considerable progress in both components was observed, though some activities still
require extra work and focus if they are to be achieved before project ends. In some cases however, more 
time than the two years proposed – especially for IR 2 Rangeland management activities – is needed if the 
project outcomes are to be realized as discussed in the sections below. Results of the program’s interventions 
in each of the three program Intermediate Result areas are presented below (Table 2). It was however 
observed that most outcome level results are however yet to be felt by participating households given that the 
project has just got into the second year of implementation. ZRR project management has devised a plan to 
meet the set activities and indicator targets as shown in Chapter 4.
3.1 Project progress
Table 3: Summary of project progress by component and indicators
Activity Activity status Key Performance 
Indicator
Indicator status
OFDA Subsector Goal: Farmer resiliency to environmental and economic shocks enhanced through development, 
testing, documentation and dissemination of sustainable fodder and fodder seed production and marketing systems
N/A Indicator A: 6200 
animals benefitting from 
or affected by livestock 
activities 
Indicator B: 6200 people 
benefiting from livestock 
activities 
Indicator C: 2000 
veterinary interventions, 
treatments or 
vaccinations administered
Indicator D: 1500 
animals treated or 
vaccinated 
Indicator A: 8747
animals benefitting 
from or affected by 
livestock activities
Indicator B: 5770
people benefiting from 
livestock activities
Indicator C: 6748
veterinary 
interventions, 
treatments or 
vaccinations 
administered
Indicator D: 6189
animals treated or 
vaccinated 
Program Goal: Expedite recovery, reduce risk, and mitigate effects of economic and environmental disasters on 
Zimbabwe’s vulnerable communities through livestock production, management and marketing.
N/A Outcomes generally good with participating 
households mentioning improved nutrition 
(meat and milk), access to health services and 
education for households not able to access 
these before through ale of goats. Kidd 
mortality also mentioned to have reduced to 
Indicator E: 6200 
individuals participating 
in disaster risk reduction 
activities 
Indicator E: 5770
individuals 
participating in 
disaster risk reduction 
activities 
16
by half.
Lagging activities are fodder production and 
goat marketing. Farm gate sales mentioned as 
the dominant channel.
Indicator F: 60 per cent 
of beneficiary households 
with improved productive 
asset base
Indicator G: 60 per cent 
female Headed 
Households with 
improved productive asset 
base
Indicator F: 31 per 
cent of beneficiary 
households with 
improved productive 
asset base
Indicator G: 49.2 per 
cent female Headed 
Households with 
improved productive 
asset base
Sub Component 1: Livestock 
IR 1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households and communities
Positive response, including reduced mortality, increased litter size with a 6 month kidding interval. Main concerns are 
on goat distribution and marketing.
Activity 1.1: Goat 
production
Activity 1.2: Restocking
Activity 1.3: Goat 
Marketing
Activity 1.4: Fodder 
production
Training going on very well and appreciated 
by farmers.
So far 1773 does bought and a balance of 33 
will be bought by end of August 2013. Bucks 
26 so far bought and a balance of 124 will be 
bought by end of this quarter; Talk of non￾compliance with pass on list when 
distributing goats by project staff in one 
program area, noted to be an isolated case.
Still lagging. Goat marketing study has been 
finalized though. Rehabilitation of marketing 
infrastructure not yet done; linkage with other 
marketing channels not realized yet with Land 
O’Lakes mentioned as the buyer.
ZRR has introduced a good concept on goat 
marketing of purchasing based on weight. 
However, no commercial buyers buy goats. 
ZRR was to work closely with the local 
research stations in Grassland and Matopos 
to select fodder seeds, including seed testing 
of up to seven fodder varieties. However this 
has not been done since USAID does not 
allow payment for goods or services provided 
by government agencies. 
Distribution of fodder seeds to all 
participating farmers to establish fodder plots 
not done in first year. Fodder production at 
farm level was not achieved in year one. ZRR 
advanced this activity through demo plots (2 
per district). 
No farmer produces fodder for livestock, a 
number use urea treatment on maize Stover’s 
though. In addition, poor rains impacted 
fodder production. Farmers said they were 
concentrating on seed production and may 
have impacted quality of fodder in the 
process within the demo plots.
IR1.1: 2000 households 
trained or receiving 
technical assistance in 
goat production and 
marketing (Output)
IR1.2: Average value of 
assets (tools, livestock, 
domestic) in targeted 
participating households 
(Impact) – 2070 USD
IR1.3: 700 households 
receiving goats from the 
project and participating 
in producer groups 
(Output) 
IR1.4: 10 goat producer 
groups formed or 
strengthened (Output)
IR1.5 30 per cent of 
producer group 
membership comprised of 
females
(Output)
IR1.6: 10 producer 
groups linked to markets 
(Output)
IR1.1: 1154
households trained or 
receiving technical 
assistance in goat 
production and 
marketing (Output)
IR1.2: Average value 
of assets (tools, 
livestock, domestic) in 
targeted participating 
households (Impact) –
USD 2141
IR1.3: 617
households receiving 
goats from the project 
and participating in 
producer groups 
(Output) 
IR1.4: 10 goat 
producer groups formed 
or strengthened 
(Output)
IR1.5 60 per cent of 
producer group 
membership comprised 
of females
(Output)
IR1.6: 0 producer 
groups linked to 
markets (Output)
IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management
Activity 2.1: Training of Changed as per the agreement but done – IR2.1: 50 CLW’s IR2.1: 68 CLW’s 
17
trainers
Activity 2.2: Community 
and farmer training
Activity 2.3: Rangeland 
management planning 
and extension services 
provision 
ACHM trained program staffs who then have 
trained Community Livestock Workers 
(CLWs) as community based facilitators. This 
was done well as observed by ACHM staff.
Some progress was observed, though not as 
intended. Community members have been 
trained on range land management by project 
staff and CLWs. However, study tour of key 
community leaders was done late. Last lot of 
community leaders visited ACHM in June, 
2013 rather than in the first three months as 
proposed; all leaders receptive and say 
approach will be implemented in their areas; 
say ZRR should help them in planning. One 
district has grazing plans which are not 
implemented. Challenge observed in this is 
that Some villages do not have designated 
grazing areas and so cannot implement a 
communal grazing plan. In addition, 
communal grazing is a new concept in the 
project area and will take time to be adopted. 
Some community members say this approach 
will starve their animals.
This activity is seriously lagging – only one 
district has grazing plans but none is being 
implemented. ACHM’s view is that the 
communities were not involved in planning. 
Project staffs shall involve communities in 
coming up with grazing plans in the second 
year so that they get their buy in.
trained in farm and 
sustainable rangeland 
management techniques 
(Output) 
 
IR2.2: 6200 people 
trained in improved farm 
and rangeland 
management (Output) 
 
IR2.3: 6 grazing 
management plans 
developed and utilized by 
communities (Outcome) 
 
IR2.4: 6 Communities 
applying improved farm 
and sustainable 
rangeland management 
techniques (Outcome) 
 
 
IR2.5: 2000 hectares 
(Ha) under improved 
land management 
(Outcome) 
 
IR2.6: 50 per cent of 
community farmers 
applying improved farm 
and sustainable 
rangeland management 
techniques (Outcome)
trained in farm and 
sustainable rangeland
management 
techniques (Output) 
 
IR2.2: 3220 people 
trained in improved 
farm and rangeland 
management (Output) 
 
IR2.3: 1 grazing 
management plans 
developed and utilized 
by communities 
(Outcome) 
IR2.4: 6 
Communities applying 
improved farm and 
sustainable rangeland 
management 
techniques (Outcome) 
 
IR2.5: 125 hectares 
(Ha) under improved 
land management 
(Outcome) 
 
IR2.6: -45% per cent 
of community farmers 
applying improved 
farm and sustainable 
rangeland management 
techniques (Outcome)
Sub component 2: Veterinary medicines and vaccines 
IR 3: Increased Capacity of and Access to Animal Health and Livestock Extension Services
Land O’Lakes will 
identify potential CLWs 
through existing goat 
producer groups and 
work with them to 
provide animal health 
services to participating 
farmers.
Good progress in this. Farmers appreciate 
CLWs skills and effort; say ‘they call them 
first when they have a problem with their 
livestock’. CLWs however complained of lack 
of coordination with relevant livestock and 
agriculture extension personnel, some trained 
CLWs (very few though in one District) did 
not have bicycles and kits and so do not 
practice – farmers do not pay them for 
‘advising and training’, when farmers buy 
syringes, medicine, etc, by the time of the 
evaluation. This has however been corrected 
and all now have kits.
In addition, the revolving fund is working in 
most communities; farmers vaccinate, spray, 
deworm and seek treatment when their 
animals are sick. This has led to a reduction in
Kidd mortality and general goat mortality in 
the target area.
IR3.1: 50 CLWs 
trained (Output)
IR3.2: 60 per cent of 
CLWs utilizing their 
training and skills to 
train farmers (Outcome)
IR3.3: 2480 women 
responsible for making 
household decisions in 
veterinary care and 
management of their 
goats (Outcome)
IR3.4: 2000 
Households served by 
CLWs (Output)
IR3.1: 68 CLWs 
trained (Output)
IR3.2: 90 per cent of 
CLWs utilizing their 
training and skills to 
train farmers 
(Outcome)
IR3.3: 1154 women 
responsible for making 
household decisions in 
veterinary care and 
management of their 
goats (Outcome)
IR3.4: 1200
Households served by 
CLWs (Output)
18
Evaluation findings show positive but mixed results in the various project’s IRs. Progress has been realized in 
the uptake of livestock husbandry practices that ZRR promotes, especially those targeting improved animal 
health. Practices that have shown considerable change in terms of adoption by farmers from baseline are 
vaccination and dipping as shown in Table 4. 
Table 4: Proportion of participating households practicing various veterinary interventions
Veterinary
Intervention
Per cent (%) 
practicing at 
Baseline
Per cent (%) 
practicing at Mid 
term
Per cent (%) of 
Female HH 
practicing at 
midterm
Per cent (%) of 
Male HH 
practicing at 
midterm
Treatment of 
diseases
59.5 33 39% 30%
Dehorning 4.6 10 2% 12%
Castration 13 16 11% 13%
Vaccination 51.9 68 47% 61%
Dipping 36.6 68.4 60% 71%
De worming 43.5 25 21% 27%
Results indicate that more male headed households have adopted ZRR promoted veterinary practices than 
female headed households, with treatment of diseases being the only practice with more females than males 
practicing. A similar trend was observed for livestock ownership. The ZRR team needs to put in place a 
strategy to ensure female headed households adopt these practices to realize greater results.
This seems to have resulted to a slight increase in number of livestock1 owned by participating households 
interviewed, as indicated in Tables 5.
Table 5: Livestock ownership: Proportion owning and number owned by type
Livestock 
type
Per cent (%) 
owning at 
baseline
Average 
number per 
HH owning 
at baseline
Per cent 
(%) owning 
at mid term
Per cent 
(%) Male 
HH owning
Per cent 
(%) 
Female HH 
owning
Average 
number per 
HH owning 
at mid term
Cattle 80.9 4 75 81% 63% 5.3
Goats 93.9 6 90 93% 84% 7.1
Sheep 9.2 1 5 7% 0 3.4
Poultry 88 9 85 89% 77% 9
Activities aimed at increased productivity and market access were observed to have been implemented, 
although not all as proposed. ZRR project has distributed goats to 88% of the total number of households 
targeted, and plans to finalize goat distribution by end of quarter two of the 2012/13 FY. The same success 
was however not observed for activities targeting fodder production and goat marketing.
The ZRR project has introduced a good concept on goat marketing - that of purchasing based on weight.
However, no linkage with commercial buyers has been done, with farmers citing the project as the main goat 
buyer. This is not sustainable. The project has finalized a goat marketing study though and aim to do more on 
linkages in the remainder of the project duration. The other task lagging in marketing include rehabilitation of 
 
1 The proportion of respondents owning appears to have declined compared to baseline. This could be explained by the 
fact that the baseline survey was conducted in areas targeted by the Land O’Lakes implemented dairy project, while the 
Mit term included households not targeted by the dairy project.
19
marketing infrastructure. Evaluation results indicate that farmers do not access formal markets, but sell goats 
locally amongst themselves as shown in Table 6. As shown, no major difference was observed compared to 
baseline on the market channel used.
Table 6: Goat marketing: Main market cited (Percent of farmers citing)
Marketing channel Per cent (%) citing at Mid 
term
Per cent (%) citing at Mid term
Farm Gate 66.4 64.4
Rural District Council Cattle Pens 9.2 3.4
Collection points Na 12.3
Business center 24.4 10.3
Other Na 9.6
This needs to be fast tracked since farmers say they have enough goats to sell but lack a favorable buyer. 
Fodder production at farm level is another activity that should be fast tracked. ZRR worked to demonstrate 
fodder production in its first year by establishing demonstration plots in all the five districts, with the 
intention of producing seeds and fodder which would then be shared by the farmers to plant in their own 
plots. This realized mixed results in Year 1. Table 7 shows the proportion of farmers participating and the 
quantity of seeds harvested in the year.
Table 7: Fodder production results
Fodder crop Sum Area(HA) Sum Yield (kgs)
Velvet beans 0.95 48
Sugar graze 1.27 122
cowpeas 0.85 155
Soya beans 0.92 100
Yellow maize 0.62 85
Ground nuts 0.27 132
other 1.2 550
All this was realized in the demo plots. This is another activity that ZRR needs to give more emphasis in year 
two, especially since the project proposed to pay ‘Special attention to forage and fodder production and storage. 
Land O’Lakes will distribute certified forage seeds to all goat producer group members for establishment of simple and 
effective home-based fodder storages constructed with locally-available materials’ 
3.1.1 Other ZRR results 
Household Dietary Diversity Score
Analysis of program progress in improving household dietary diversity revealed a drop in household dietary 
diversity score to a mean of 6, a 14% drop compared to the baseline mean of 7 (Table 4). The evaluation 
team however notes that the drought that affected crop production in 2013 could have contributed to this 
drop. 
Table 4: HDDS Scores by District
District HDDS at Baseline HDDS at MTE
20
Buhera 7 7
Makoni 7 7 
Mutare rural 7 6 
Mangwe 5 5 
Bulilima Na 6 
HDDs for the sample 7 6 
Beneficiary Scorecard
About 83.5% of participating farmers are highly satisfied with the ZRR project services, with project activities 
on dipping campaigns, training on fodder production, CLWs’ services and timing of training rated the best 
five (Table 5). This mirrors the challenges that farmers experience in the area, especially with animal health – 
goat mortality, and animal feeds.
Table 5: Beneficiary Scorecard
Service Highly Satisfied Satisfied
Dipping Campaigns 79.9 6.7
Fodder production 76.8 8.2
CLWs 76.3 13.4
Training materials 66 23.2
Training delivery 71.1 19.6
Training structure 68.6 22.2
Training duration 71.6 19.1
Training timing 75.3 15.5
Drug revolving fund 72.2 13.9
Rangeland management 71.6 17
Goat marketing 74.7 11.9
Overall rating 83.5 6.2
Some comments that the ZRR project management may want to consider going forward regarding the 
various project services include:
• Goat dipping: Knowledge on goat dipping that participating farmers have acquired is appreciated. 
However respondents say they have not yet dipped their goats, as they do not have dip tanks. 
• Fodder production: Some respondents said they need to put in practice what they have learnt in the 
demonstration plots in their own plots. This corroborates the recommendation that fodder 
production at farm level needs to be fast tracked in the second year.
• Timing of training, training content and structure very well rated and appreciated. A few respondents 
however said the sessions are sometimes too long given house chores. Some mentioned not 
attending all sessions.
• Revolving drug generally appreciated, with respondents saying they can easily access drugs when they 
need to. Some communities have not established the revolving fund however. This need to be 
followed up.
21
• Rangeland management: A few respondents said they need additional information on this. Some 
communities, in the FGDs, mentioned a need for the ZRR team to assist them hire cartographers 
and land surveyors to help them design grazing plans. This demonstrates a lack of understanding of 
the ACHM concept and how it works. The project team therefore needs to organize planning 
meetings with all communities to ensure this move forward. Otherwise, this result area will not 
realize the intended outcomes.
• Goat marketing: Respondents said they now know the importance of selling goats based on weight – 
‘scaling’. However, they mention Land O’Lakes as the only buyer they know who buys based on this 
concept. A number also said they need additional information on markets, implying a need for 
market linkages.
Overall, farmers said they can now sell goats to pay school fees, buy food, clothing among other things.
3.1 Project design, implementation and achievements, including changes in context and review 
of assumptions
The ZRR project has been well implemented and has realized impressive results in its one year of operation 
in two out of the three result area. The project also is meeting its intended result, that of building resiliency to 
economic and environmental shocks. As observed in our field visits, participating farmers appreciate the 
project approach – that is distributing three goats, and that every household in the target area has a chance to 
benefit through a well-established and implemented pass on scheme.
Farmers we talked to appreciate goats because ‘goats can rapidly increase in number and can easily be sold in 
case one has a problem’. Nutritional and soil treatment benefits – manure and goat milk and meat, were also 
mentioned as critical benefits of the project design and approach. 
‘Those who did not have goats in their households can now own one. If any of my children fall sick, I can sell one of my goats and 
take him/her to the hospital. We also slaughter the goats whenever we need meat’
In terms of targeting the most vulnerable, results indicate that the poor, households with sick members, and 
orphans have benefitted, with the community members assisting them to build appropriate goat housing, 
which is the basic requirement by the program to get goats.
As shown in Table 2, the project has surpassed some indicator targets and achieved more than half the targets 
in almost all remaining indicators, with the exception of IR 2 - Increased communities’ capacity for and 
practice of sustainable rangeland management.
Farmers we interviewed mention specific benefits they have received from the project. These benefits by 
program result area are:
IR 1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households and 
communities
• Training (in goat housing, feeding, goat management techniques, heat detection), fodder production 
in demonstration plots, fodder harvesting and storage, goat production as a business, and goat 
health. 
• Increased goat population in the project area was also mentioned. The project has distributed goats 
to a number of households in the area, and goats now give birth twice a year to many kids than 
before.
• Feed preservation: Residents have learnt to produce fodder in the demo plots. Farmers also 
mentioned preserving maize stovers and ground nut stocks which they then treat with Urea and feed 
their livestock. 
22
‘Goat feathers are now healthy and shiny; body shape is better than before, and that shedding of goat feathers has now stopped’
Female farmers FGD, Mutare Rural
IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management
Some progress reported in this result area, though limited. Movable Kraals were observed to be in very high 
demand, sometimes leading to mis understandings in the target communities due to its benefits in treating 
soil, comfortable to cattle because if the Kraal is moved, cattle get to sleep in a clean place, and for easy 
breeding because whole community can benefit from a few bulls instead of all villagers acquiring a breeding 
bull.
Those interviewed mention said there is limited grazing areas in the communities due to new settlements and 
‘because of the increasing number of goats in the village’, which corroborates the statement on increasing 
goat herd. 
IR 3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services
The MTE results demonstrate considerable progress in this result area compared to baseline findings. At 
baseline, farmers expressed that access to veterinary drugs and vaccines was a challenge, as these were not 
sold locally, and that CLWs only assisted in disease identification, and were not able to treat many diseases, as 
they do not have access to veterinary drugs. Communities were in addition not paying for CLW services, and 
hence, it is difficult to for the CLWs to purchase drugs on behalf of the farmers. Now CLWs treat livestock 
and get paid for their services in some districts.
‘CLWs are close to us, are fast and reliable. They are the ones we call first when we have a problem with our livestock. If she/he 
does not have drugs, they will call another CLW to get the drug. If the problem is complex, they call other experienced vets for 
assistance. Before, we used to travel up to 10 kilometers with the sick animal to see a government veterinary officer’.
Male farmer in Mutare Rural
• Improved livestock health due to the establishment of a drug revolving fund and training of CLWs, 
improved livestock body condition as a result of improved goat management – due to the fact that 
they have abandoned tethering and now free graze. 
• Project has organized farmers who now contribute money to buy animal health drugs as a group, 
saving them money and time – on transport.
• Reduced goat mortality
‘In the past, it used to be up to 60%, now it is at most 20%. Livestock deaths only occur if one delays asking a CLW to come 
visit once you notice a problem’
Male farmer FGD, Mutare Rural District
3.1.1 Implementation strategies and impact on progress towards results
The ZRR project has realized good results as discussed above in two out of the three result areas. IR 2 
however requires more work and the intended outcomes will require more time to be observed than the two 
years originally proposed.
Some factors that were observed and/or mentioned to have contributed to the success in the two result areas 
are:
• Project implementation is utilizing the existing structures in the target area that has ensured 
maintenance of existing power relations and enforcement of rules necessary for goat distribution, 
23
including the pass on scheme. ZRR has not created parallel structures within the wards it operates in. 
Rather, it is using the community structures, most notably the Ward Development 
Committees/Ward Executive Committees. All farmer groups are required to develop a constitution 
and laws governing their operation, which are then enforced by the Ward Executive Committees. 
This has ensured a smooth enforcement of the goat pass on scheme and will be critical in 
implementing the communal grazing plans once these are operationalized. 
The project also uses the Provincial Veterinary Officer to train the CLWs. While other players, 
especially the ward level veterinary service providers complained about the duration of the CLWs 
training, we noted that they do not complain about the quality of the training or its content. Farmers 
also mentioned that the CLWs working with the project have similar skills to the qualified veterinary 
service providers and therefore call them first given their closeness to the community.
• Another critical factor that was observed to have contributed to the ZRR success is that the project 
is working in a few wards and districts that had participated in the Rebuilding Livelihoods and 
Resiliency in Zimbabwe a USAID funded Economic Growth project that initially had a goat 
distribution component but which was eliminated. This continuation – in a few Wards – ensured a 
quick start up since most of the households in the wards had already put up goat houses and 
attended some goat trainings – even though they still required refresher trainings – to receive the 
goats and implement the improved management practices adopted by the project.
“Farmers have a very good perception of the project and enforcement of the pass on scheme will not be a problem”
Area Councilor, Ward 11, Mutare Rural
As mentioned, some activities are still lagging behind. The ZRR management will need to revisit its 
implementation approach for the project to achieve its intended results.
• Rangeland management: Discussions with ACHM, the ZRR partner in Rangeland Management 
mentioned a number of issues which the project team needs to change going forward. These include:
 Use of the community action cycle to ensure all community members are consulted, engaged 
and empowered to act to ensure ownership of the grazing plans, movable kraals among 
others. We noted that the project team trained by ACHM has trained CLWs and empowered 
them to carry on activities related to rangeland management. ZRR has also exposed 
community leaders to the Holistic Land and Rangeland Management approach through the 
trip to the ACHM. Results have been varied. The consistent observation however was that 
there is lack of ownership of and none of the communities ZRR works in is implementing a 
grazing plan, with some farmers saying the approach, combined with communal kraaling, 
‘will starve their livestock’, while community leaders we talked to said the approach is good 
and that ‘they will ensure all members comply with the project grazing plans once designed’. 
As currently implemented, it will not yield results and is not sustainable given the ‘policing 
approach’ that some community leaders are thinking of.
‘Go and plan, when you have planned, come to me and tell me what you have planned and I will ensure it is 
implemented’
Village headman, Buhera District
The project therefore needs to revisit the community action cycle – explore and plan with 
the entire community- to make sure members identify the problem and solutions, and design 
the grazing calendar themselves.
24
‘Lack of awareness is one of the main problems leading to noncompliance with the grazing plans that we have 
experienced. If only a few people understand the concept, recovery takes longer because the bigger the herd, the 
faster the impact, but once majority understand, they will enforce the grazing plans. This is why we introduced 
the community actin cycle in 2010 to build ownership. We noticed that people would act when we were still 
working with them because of policing but would not push it further once we leave.’
ACHM Representative 
 Time to recovery of rangelands: ZRR should ideally have more time to develop and 
integrate this concept at community level than the two years proposed. Even in the ACHM 
Campus, recovery took longer than the two years ZRR will be implemented. The ACHM 
representative said that ‘In ACHM, it took more than three years and we had a bigger herd. 
At community level, people have personal differences and other cultural issues also play a 
big role in delaying results. It is only in the fourth and fifth year that people will start 
appreciating the results because it will be visible in some plots’. 
• Marketing: The ZRR project has introduced a good marketing concept – that of selling based on goat 
weight. However, Land O’Lakes is the only one buying based on this concept at the moment for 
restocking purposes. This is not sustainable. ZRR needs to link producer groups with buyers who 
will buy based on this concept in year two.
• Fodder production: Two issues were observed:
 Approach to promote fodder production has been through the demonstration farms. This 
has been appreciated by farmers interviewed. However, farmers lack fodder seeds. In fact 
the demonstration farms main objective was to produce fodder seeds and may have 
compromised quality of fodder. ZRR needs to ensure farmers get seeds as proposed to 
ensure they this concept is adopted.
 The ZRR project intended to work closely with the local research stations in Grassland and 
Matopos to select fodder seeds, including seed testing of up to seven fodder varieties . 
However, this has not been accomplished given that USAID does not allow projects to pay 
for goods or services provided by government agencies. The project will be engaging private 
players for the sourcing of certified seeds for distribution to all Goat Producer Groups in the 
second year. This is in the Management’s response to evaluation recommendations in section 
4.
3.2 Processes that affect achievement of project results (behavior change and 
capacity strengthening)
The ZRR project has distributed goats to 88% of project targeted households, and provided trainings on goat 
management to 1154 farmers, about 58% of the project target. Trainings have covered animal health, feeding, 
housing, fodder production, breeding, among other management practices. No major changes have been 
observed from baseline in terms of outcomes. Achievements that have been observed in terms of adoption of 
recommended practices and resulting changes in animal – especially goat - productivity include:
Goat husbandry 
About 60% of households participating are headed by women. Evaluation findings indicate that more male 
headed households have adopted promoted veterinary practices that the female headed households. 
However, an interesting observation was that no considerable differences were noted at the outcomes level – 
kidding interval, age at first kidding, goat mortality, among others.
• About 90.7% of farmers attending training practice open grazing of goats as opposed to tethering.
This however is not different from baseline – at 93.1% of respondents practicing open grazing. 
25
• 61.3% of respondents did not report any deaths for mature goats in the last one year. This again is 
not different from baseline, at 64.1%. On Kidd mortality, a slight decrease in proportion of those 
reporting Kidd deaths was observed, at 41.7% compared to 49.6% at baseline. 
• On breeding, respondents mention adopting recommended practices and recording one mating per 
pregnancy, a maximum of ten months as the average age at first kidding (Mean of 8.9 months for 
Male HH and 8.4 for Female HH), and a maximum of 6.1 months kidding interval from 8.13 at 
baseline (mean of 5.5 months for Male HH and 5.2 for Female HH). Results due to adoption of 
promoted management practices include an increase in number of litter to two on average, from 1.15
kids at baseline, and reduced abortion rates, reported by 9.2% of those surveyed.
• Those surveyed have realized 2.2 additional kidds in to their goat herds in the first half of 2013 as 
opposed to 2.6 additional kidds in the entire 2012.
Rangeland management
Only one community has developed grazing plans which is not implemented. The issues, as discussed above, 
were identified to be non-engagement of all livestock owners in exploring the problems and coming up with 
appropriate solutions.
Another problem to this is the lack of grazing land in some communities bordering those that work with 
ZRR, who may not comply with the plans once developed. Appropriate measures, involving incorporating 
such communities in the plans will be mandatory.
Animal health
Two observations were made:
• Over 90% of the trained CLWs are supporting farmers – they castrate, deworm, and vaccinate 
livestock in their various areas. The CLWs have been trained and equipped with the exception of a 
few in Bulilima District. The evaluation team observed that most of the CLWs already equipped are 
paid by farmers for their services, including in kind.
Some CLWs however complained of not being paid by farmers. ZRR should therefore equip the 
CLWs as soon as possible. On the broader issue of payment for service - even though recorded in a 
few project sites - one area the project should look at is using the CLWs who are charging for their 
services as their champions to ensure this succeeds for it to be a sustainable approach.
• All communities/farmer groups have not adopted the revolving fund for purchasing animal health. 
The fund also faces operational challenges in some areas. ZRR should ensure these challenges are 
corrected.
3.3 Assessment of sustainability of project outcomes
In assessing ZRR sustainability initiatives, efforts to ensure an ongoing transformational process to address 
the different interests of all players in the project area were considered. Project integration with relevant 
institutions in the area was also assessed. Three issues came out:
• The ZRR project’s use of existing administrative structures, especially the Ward Development 
Committee/Ward Executive Committees will possibly ensure that results, especially implementation 
of the goat pass on scheme and grazing plans, are sustainable. The project should however desist 
from appeasing the local administration by jumping the pass on list as mentioned in Buhera as this 
could lead to internal group conflicts and negatively impact sustainability.
• The evaluation team noted that ward level veterinary service providers are not as engaged in the 
project, and therefore do not work closely with the CLWs. Program use of these personnel for 
26
especially for capacity strengthening and supervision of CLWs will link ZRR beneficiaries to their 
resources and can sustain program results after closeout. ZRR should therefore aim to involve them 
more in the last year of implementation as this was an area that the CLWs pointed out as wanting in 
implementation. 
• Community involvement in rangeland management activities has to be reconsidered to ensure 
sustainability, especially since this will take longer that the project duration for all to see the benefits.
3.4 Challenges and lessons learnt
3.5.1 Challenges
Lack of grazing lands in some communities
Lack of grazing land in some communities bordering those that work with ZRR, who may not comply with 
the plans once developed was identified by both project staff and community members. Appropriate 
measures, involving incorporating such communities in the plans will be mandatory. Another challenge is the 
cultivation or habitation of formerly designated grazing lands in ZRR target communities, which locals say, 
could render such lands nonexistent. 
Project duration
The two years proposed will not be adequate to realize results for IR 2. As discussed, it takes at least 4 years 
at community level to see any results from Holistic Rangeland management initiatives. Other activities that 
will require additional time to adequately implement include:
• Goat marketing: The ZRR project has improved goat production to an extent that improves 
resiliency. The project will require more time for farmers to learn how to engage in the markets, both 
local and urban. For the innovation of purchasing goats based on weight to be entrenched in the 
project area, ZRR will need to link the benefitting households to urban goat markets. This can only 
happen if there is enough supply of goats to sustain demand which will need more time for the 
benefitting households to build their goat herds.
• Fodder production: The ZRR project has only had one cropping season which was used to introduce 
the concept of fodder production in demonstration plots. Given that fodder production is a new 
concept in the project area, it will require a few more seasons to be an established practice in the 
area. 
It is the evaluation team’s considered view that more cropping seasons/ an extended program duration would
help fodder production, rangeland management, market integration and commercialization and thus enable 
the project to achieve its targets.
3.5.2 Lessons learnt
• Holistic Rangeland management initiatives, commercial goat production and marketing and 
introduction of fodder production goat generally take longer than two years. This needs to have been 
factored in at design. It will be difficult for the project to realize the intended results - IR2.4: and 
IR2.5 within two years.
• ZRR has introduced an innovation in the program area – that of local sourcing of goats which has 
enabled the program to realize two critical results – to reinvest USAID funds within neighboring
communities and to purchase goats based on weight, age and teeth thus showing farmers that quality 
pays. Purchase of goats based on weight has not only resulted in a sharp increase in goat prices in 
27
the area, but also opened the eyes of the community members that commercial goat production is 
can be achieved.
28
4.0 Recommendations
Project activity related recommendations:
• Project to request for additional time to implement activities and realize results on Rangeland 
management, goat marketing and fodder production.
• Goat restocking: Goat distribution should be finalized by as soon as possible for staff to monitor 
implementation of the pass on scheme. Buck distribution should target higher quality goat breeds 
than those in local communities
• Project should prioritize linkage with commercial buyers in the second year, who can buy based on 
weight as promoted. Households say they have enough goats to sell. 
• Fodder production: ZRR to distribute seeds to farmers in the second year early enough for fodder 
production at farm level. Farmers mentioned having the knowledge to enable the produce fodder but 
lack seeds.
• Rangeland management: Project staff to conduct planning events – explore issues around rangeland 
management and design community maps and grazing plans with all community members. Project 
staffs need to spend more time on ground on this activity and not leave it entirely to leaders and 
CLWs, including training herders. Regarding movable kraals a more involved approach by staff in 
preparing the roster and monitoring its use is recommended. In addition, ZRR staff should 
encourage communities to invest in their own Kraals. This result area however requires more time, at 
least four years to see benefits/results.
• Animal health: CLWs complained of lack of coordination with key stakeholders’ livestock and 
agriculture extension personnel. In addition, some trained CLWs (very few though in Bulilima 
District) do not have bicycles and kits and so do not practice – farmers do not pay them for ‘advising 
and training’, when farmers buy syringes, medicine. ZRR should therefore equip all CLWs as soon as 
possible and to ensure all CLWs are linked to relevant extension personnel to ensure they refer 
complicated cases to them, since private vets are non-existent in the program area.
Management related recommendations
• Monitoring: It was observed that some project target districts have many issues which have not been 
identified but which the evaluation team were of the opinion should have been rectified earlier. A 
clear case is the problem with the rangeland management activity - both communal grazing planning 
and movable kraal. While it is not possible to correct all problems in implementation, it pays to 
identify emerging problems early. This is currently lacking in some project districts. To correct this, 
we recommend that project field facilitators should spend more time in the field while M&E 
personnel should make frequent monitoring visits. If this happens, you will identify problems much 
earlier and act sooner before they get out of hand like in Manzununu Ward where the movable Kraal 
has overstayed in one CLWs farm and her neighbor since its distribution in April, with the rest of the 
community members requesting for ‘their’ movable Kraal.
• Reconciling sustainability concerns with stakeholder buy in: In some districts village heads demand to 
be given goats in exchange for enforcing the pas on scheme and marketing groups’ constitutions. 
The ZRR project need to ensure that all community leaders understand our focus – which is to 
empower vulnerable members of their communities. 
29
5.0 ZRR Program Response to Midterm Evaluation Recommendations
Evaluation 
Recommendations 
Key issues (I) from field and 
Recommendations Management Response 
Time 
Frame to 
Address
Goal: Expedite 
recovery, reduce risk, 
and mitigate effects of 
economic and 
environmental 
disasters on 
Zimbabwe’s 
vulnerable 
communities through 
livestock production, 
management and 
marketing.
I: Outcomes generally good - households 
mention improved nutrition (meat and milk), 
access to health services and education for 
households not able to access these before
Lagging activities are fodder production and 
marketing. HHs mentioned farm gate as the 
dominant channel. 
R: Recommend program to prioritize linkage 
with commercial buyers in the second year. 
Households say they have enough goats to 
sell. This could be achieved by hiring 
someone to focus on marketing. 
Restocking needs to be finalized in the first 
quarter of year two to enable staff to 
monitor the pass on scheme for 
sustainability.
So far 1773 does bought and a balance of 33 
will be bought by end of August 2013. 
Bucks 26 so far bought and a balance of 124 
will be bought by end of this quarter
Training of Trainers on Marketing will be 
done and market sourcing
This will be done looking at a balance of 
only 33does
Does By 
August 
2013
Bucks by 
end of this 
quarter
By end of 
this quarter
Sub Component 1: Livestock
IR 1: Increased 
productivity and 
market access of the 
livestock asset base in 
vulnerable 
households and 
communities
I: Positive response, including reduced 
mortality, increased litter size with a 6 month
kidding interval. Main concerns are on goat 
distribution and marketing.
R: As above on goal. 
Activity 1: Goat 
production: Training
I: Training going on very well and 
appreciated by farmers. 
Activity 2: 
Restocking: 
Distribution of 1,500 
goats to 700 
individual households
I: Goats yet to be distributed to all targeted 
HHs; quality of bucks distributed – farmers 
want better quality – boar goats to improve 
herd; Talk of non-compliance with pass on 
list when distributing goats by project staff in 
one program area, noted to be an isolated 
case.
R: Goat distribution should be finalized by 
end of quarter one for staff to monitor pass 
on scheme
R: Buck distribution to target higher quality 
goat breeds than those in local communities
R: We need to follow the pass on list 
prepared before to ensure sustainability 
R: Tag all distributed goats and the pass on 
ones
High quality bucks to be sourced and 
distributed
Yes this is agreed but we have situations 
when a beneficiary on the list does not 
coming for training and has no standard 
housing.
All project goats will be tagged
By end of 
this quarter
By end of 
this quarter
Goat marketing Still lagging. Goat marketing study has been 
finalized though. Rehabilitation of marketing 
infrastructure not yet done; linkage with 
other marketing channels not realized yet 
with Land O’Lakes mentioned as the buyer.
LOL has introduced a good concept on goat 
marketing of purchasing based on weight. 
However, no commercial buyers buy goats. 
This needs to be fast tracked.
The project is going to put up new 
marketing infrastructures in the program 
areas 
Linking farmers to commercial buyers
By end of 
second 
quarter of 
year 2
By end of 
1st quarter
30
Activity 3 a: Fodder 
production: work 
closely with the local 
research stations in 
Grassland and 
Matopos to select 
fodder seeds, 
including seed testing 
of up to seven fodder 
varieties 
I: Not done. USAID does not allow us to 
pay for goods or services provided by 
government agencies.
I: Fodder production changed – ‘Special 
attention will be paid to forage and 
fodder production and storage. Land 
O’Lakes will distribute certified forage 
seeds to all goat producer group 
members for establishment of simple and 
effective home-based fodder storages 
constructed with locally-available 
materials’ 
This has not been done. Farmers intended to 
produce seeds in demo plots which may 
have impacted quality of forage.
R: Distribute seeds to farmers in the second 
year early enough for fodder production at 
farm.
R: This needs to be communicated to donor. 
Program has to find another organization to 
work with on seed production, otherwise, 
this component will negatively impact fodder 
production at farm level.
Because of this we shall engage private 
players for the sourcing of certified seeds for 
distribution to all Goat Producer Groups
Farmers shall be encouraged to put up 
fodder conservation structures for safe 
storage of their fodder
By end of 
September 
2013
By 
February 
2014 before 
harvesting 
starts
Activity 3b: Promote 
household 
conservation and 
storage of fodder 
(grasses, stovers, crop 
byproducts) at the 
appropriate times to 
improve the 
nutritional status of 
the goats at the end 
of the dry season
I: Mixed results. Program advanced this 
activity through demo plots (2 per district). 
No farmer produces fodder for livestock, a 
number use urea treatment on maize 
Stover’s. In addition, poor rains impacted 
fodder production. Farmers said they were 
concentrating on seed production and may 
have impacted quality of fodder in the 
process.
R: More focus on fodder production in 
second year. Link farmers to seed suppliers 
too. 
Urea treatment is currently on going with 
maize stover and shall be continued during 
the second year.
Farmers will also be encouraged to conserve 
groundnuts stover as well us other materials 
from leguminous crops
By May 
2014
IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management: This is lagging behind, with 
the bulk of the work left to the community - CLWs and community leaders to do. Requires a lot of focus in the second year.
Activity 1: Training 
of trainers: Project 
identified trainers 
from the community 
and Land O’Lakes 
trained by ACHM
I: Changed as per the agreement but done–
ACHM trained program staffs who then 
have trained CLWs as community based 
facilitators. This was done well.
R: Communicate why changed
Activity 2: 
Community and 
farmer training: 
Project to facilitate a 
study tour of key 
community leaders to 
the ACHM 
Dimbangombe Ranch 
within the first three 
months
I: Some progress. Community members have 
been trained on range land management by 
project staff and CLWs. However, study tour 
of key community leaders was finalized late – 
June, 2013 – Last lot of community leaders 
visited ACHM in June, 2013 rather than in 
the first three months as proposed; all 
leaders receptive and say approach will be 
implemented in their areas; say LOL to help 
them in planning. One district has grazing 
plans which are not implemented. Some 
villages do not have grazing areas.
R: Done even though late
31
Activity 3: 
Rangeland 
Management 
Planning and 
Extension Services 
Provision: Trained 
CLWs and local 
traditional leadership 
will assist each 
community to 
develop an annual 
grazing and rangeland 
management plan
I: This activity is seriously lagging – only one 
district has grazing plans but none is being 
implemented. ACHM’s view is that 
community was not involved in planning. 
This is also my view.
R: Project staff to conduct planning events – 
explore issues around rangeland 
management and design community maps 
and grazing plans with community; Project 
staff to spend more time on ground on this 
activity and not leave it entirely to leaders 
and CLWs, train herders, involve entire 
community in exploring problems around 
grazing land and constructing the grazing 
plans instead of leaving it to the community 
to do.
R: Movable kraals – prepare a roster and use; 
encourage communities to invest in their 
own.
R: Need more time, at least three years to see 
benefits/results so may seek for more time.
Project staff shall involve communities in 
coming up with grazing plans so that they 
get their buy in.
Project staff will assist the community 
leaders in coming up with grazing plans and 
spend more time with them to see the 
implementation
The roster will be made
By 
September 
2013.
May 2014
Mid July 
2013
Subcomponent 2: 
Veterinary Medicines 
and Vaccines: Trained 
CLWs will focus on a 
community-based 
preventive animal 
health program
I: Good progress in this. Farmers appreciate 
CLWs skills and effort, say ‘they call them 
first when they have a problem with their 
livestock’.
CLWs complained of lack of coordination 
with key stakeholders’ livestock and 
agriculture extension personnel, some 
trained CLWs (very few though in one 
District) do not have bicycles and kits and so 
do not practice – farmers do not pay them 
for ‘advising and training’, when farmers buy 
syringes, medicine, etc.
R: Equip all CLWs as soon as possible; 
R: Ensure all CLWs are linked to relevant
extension personnel to ensure they refer 
complicated cases to them, since private vets 
are non-existent in the program area
CLWs shall be encouraged to work closely 
with extension agencies this is important for 
sustainability.
Administration is in the process of acquiring 
some balances for the Vet kits for 
distribution
September 
2013
By July 
2013
IR 3: Increased 
capacity of and 
access to animal 
health and livestock 
extension services: 
CLWs, with the 
support of private￾sector veterinarians 
and Land O’Lakes 
staff, will work with 
goat producer groups 
and livestock owners 
to develop treatment 
programs, including 
timely livestock dip 
campaigns and clinics 
to control ticks and 
tick-borne diseases; 
vaccinations of goats 
to prevent clostridial 
Revolving fund working in most 
communities; farmers vaccinate, spray, 
deworm and seek treatment when their 
animals are sick.
However, CLWs mention lack of 
cooperation by key stakeholder extension 
workers when they need to refer complicated 
cases. They also complain of compensation, 
with some saying they do not get 
compensated through the revolving fund. 
We observed that this is currently working 
for some CLWs and in some communities.
R: Work with CLWs charging for their 
services as champions for this for the other 
CLWs to learn.
For sustainability the issue of remuneration 
of CLWs should left to the communities 
guided by the Goat Producer Associations
On going
32
diseases such as 
tetanus, black leg, or 
enterotoxanemia; and 
strategic dewormings
Cross cutting issue: 
Gender: A minimum 
of 60 percent of 
participants targeted 
shall be women
Only 50% currently women. Some districts 
have as high as 90% participation by women 
however.
R: Project to have more targeted selection of 
participants going forward
Selection of 
program 
participants: 
Farmers 
In some districts, those without goats are 
excluded. In some areas, community 
interview revealed that no household in 
program area is denied participation and 
even households without goats in the 
districts where LOL is distributing bucks 
have enrolled and actively participating in 
group activities – including contributing to 
the drug Revolving Fund.
Community interviews reveal that no one is 
denied participation – free will. In addition, 
households with orphans, elderly and the 
sick have also benefitted from goat 
distribution.
R: All community members willing to 
participate in program activities should be 
allowed to enroll. Currently in Buhera and 
Makoni, households without goats are not 
allowed to enroll.
Enrollment should be allowed for all 
community members with or without goats - 
we still have pass on and if left there is room 
to benefit from the pass on
Ongoing 
until
May 2014 
Selection of 
program 
participants: 
Communities
Satisfactory – vulnerable (drought prone 
areas mostly) communities targeted
Selection of 
program 
participants: CLWs
Apart from Mutare Rural where some group 
members had issues with one CLW, their 
selection seems to have been done well. A 
number are carry over from the ZDL 
project. 
Management: Field 
monitoring
I: It was observed that some areas have 
many issues which have not been identified 
but which I felt should have been rectified 
earlier. A clear case is the problem with the 
rangeland management activity - both 
communal grazing planning and movable 
kraal. 
While it is not possible to correct all 
problems in implementation, it pays to be on 
top of things. This is currently lacking in 
some project districts. 
R: Project field facilitators should spend 
more time in the field
R: M&E personnel should make frequent 
monitoring visits. If this happens, you will 
identify problems much earlier and act 
sooner before they get out of hand like in 
Manzununu Ward where the movable Kraal 
has been labeled to belong to Nyama and 
one CLW, with the community requesting 
Project activity monitoring shall be on top of 
the agenda for this second year of 
implementation. Field visits by management 
supported by written reports shall be used to 
monitor
M&E to make more frequent visits to 
project areas for monitoring purposes and 
compliment the Technical lead person's 
efforts. 
Throughout 
the year to 
May 2014
Through to 
May 2014
33
for ‘their’ movable Kraal.
Management: 
Staffing
I: Some districts need additional support 
from the program technical lead person to 
ensure everything runs smoothly. Not all 
project field facilitators have equal strengths. 
It was observed that in some areas, even 
though there are problems, there’s a general 
appreciation of the field staff and the project 
as a whole. In some Districts, this is starkly 
lacking, with some activities lacking behind. 
This was also observed by ACHM in their 
supervisory visit, leading to the lag in the 
rangeland management activity.
R: Technical lead to be more in touch with 
field facilitators and provide support as 
necessary. 
The technical lead person shall constantly 
make follow ups and give the necessary 
guidelines and support to field staff
Through to 
May 2014
Management: 
Reconciling 
sustainability 
concerns with 
stakeholder buy in
I: Village heads demand to be given goats in 
exchange for enforcing the pas on scheme 
and marketing groups’ constitutions.
R: Program need to ensure community 
leaders understand our focus – on vulnerable 
members of their communities. If this is not 
complied with, as is happening in other 
districts 
Compliance through and through
May 2014
34
6.0 Annexes 
Annex 1: Scope of Work
Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency Program Mid Term 
Evaluation Scope of Work
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Objective of the Midterm Evaluation (MTE)
The main objective of the Midterm evaluation (MTE) is to assess ZRR’s strengths and weaknesses to 
improve its effectiveness. The assignment will involve assessing what the project proposed to accomplish and 
the progress to date in realizing these accomplishments. Working with project staff, the midterm assessment 
team will identify successes, problems or constraints (design, administrative, operational, among other). The 
team will focus on the four project activities and develop actionable recommendations to improve 
implementation.
Specific objectives include
 Assess the extent to which ZRR has met, not met, or exceeded its objectives; 
 Identify key strengths and weaknesses of the project, including specific activities and overall program 
strategy; and
 Provide concrete (i.e. doable) recommendations to strengthen the project and address any areas of 
concern
Findings of the evaluation will guide the rest of program implementation and accordingly redefine approaches 
and pace of work.
1.2 Project Description
Land O’Lakes and its sub-partner, ACHM, are implementing the Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated 
Recovery and Improved Resiliency project, which aims to assist targeted vulnerable households in 
Matabeleland South and Manicaland to reduce vulnerability to both economic and climatic disasters, diversify 
livelihoods, build assets, and rebuild resiliency to shocks through training in livestock production; restocking 
of household herds; building community capacity in rangeland management; development of rangeland 
management plans; reviving livestock infrastructure; and increasing returns from livestock sales gained by 
smallholder farmers.
Goat distribution, paired with training and support of community-based goat production and improved 
natural resources management, will provide an opportunity for individual households that are vulnerable to 
climatic shocks and recovering from economic turmoil to build a sustainable productive asset base. While 
stressing individual ownership of the productive assets, Land O’Lakes will work to strengthen existing goat 
marketing groups to solidify community-level engagement, increase market access, improve economic returns 
to livestock keepers and their communities, and enable efforts to use livestock for proactive environmental 
restoration through communal herding. 
Land O’Lakes also proposes to build the foundation for increased access to animal health services through 
the development of a community-based preventive animal health program that is closely linked to private 
veterinary and drug suppliers. Building a grassroots animal health network linked to larger private enterprises 
will improve herd productivity, reduce mortality, and increase the availability of breeding stock in the area. 
35
Finally, Land O’Lakes will address the need to improve the natural production base of livestock systems. 
Specifically, the project will build the local capacity and apply Holistic Rangeland Management (HM) 
techniques to restore degraded farm and rangelands for more resilient and productive forage, feed and fodder 
resources.
Key anticipated outcomes include an expanded and strengthened productive asset base, decreased prevalence 
of herd depleting emergency livestock sales, sustained body condition of livestock throughout dry seasons 
(especially during times of delayed rains), and more productive and drought resistance farmlands due to 
improved soil composition
1.3 Project activities: Program results are consolidated and expanded through continued 
implementation of activities under two Agriculture and Food Security subcomponents and divided 
into three Intermediate Results (IRs), as follows:
Subcomponent 1: Livestock
IR 1: Increased productivity and market access of the livestock asset base in vulnerable households 
and communities;
Activity 1: Goat production: Land O’Lakes will rebuild this lost productive asset base through a herd 
growth scheme that includes distribution of 1,500 goats to 700 individual households. The project will reach 
an additional 300 households through goat producer groups and increased farm productivity; trainings in 
improved goat husbandry; and ‘planned’ production, fodder establishment and storage techniques.
Activity 2: Restocking: Land O’Lakes will implement a goat distribution and pass-on scheme to increase the 
size of local and household herds. The goat distribution scheme will reach 700 households within the 24-
month project through direct distribution of goats. Four hundred households will receive three female goats 
directly from
the project. Another 300 households will receive a buck or male goat for local breed improvement efforts. 
Target beneficiaries will purchase goats utilizing a voucher system in coordination with local livestock 
auctions. Although we promote individual goat ownership, our goat restocking efforts center on the producer 
group. A livestock record tracking system enables effective monitoring of the herd, including the number 
offspring produced and off-take rates
Activity 3: Fodder production: Two distinct sub activities to be implemented: Land O’Lakes will work 
closely with the local research stations in Grassland and Matopos to select fodder seeds, including seed testing 
of up to seven fodder varieties and promote the household conservation and storage of fodder (grasses, 
stovers, crop byproducts) at the appropriate times to improve the nutritional status of the goats at the end of 
the dry season.
Activity 4: Marketing groups: LOL will strengthen goat marketing groups to make them stronger and more 
commercially- and member-oriented. The program will also focus on the rehabilitation of existing 
infrastructure (e.g. goat auction pens) and establish market linkages
IR 2: Increased communities’ capacity for and practice of sustainable rangeland management;
ACHM will train 15 Master Trainers from both the community and Land O’Lakes. A total of 12 communities 
will be reached with training in HM practices, group herding techniques, construction of movable kraals, 
resource mapping and development of community grazing plans.
Activity 1: Training of trainers: Project identified trainers from the community and Land O’Lakes will 
travel to ACHM’s training center at Dimbangombe Ranch near Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe to attend a series of 
three sessions under the HM Master Trainer Program, lasting 5.5 days, 11 days, and 5.5 days respectively. 
36
Once trained, Master Trainers will return to their communities and coordinate with goat producer groups to 
transfer their new skills to additional group members and peers in the community.
Activity 2: Community and farmer training: Project to facilitate a study tour of key community leaders to 
the ACHM Dimbangombe Ranch within the first three months. With the blessing and support of local 
leaders, Land O’Lakes’ team of trainers will begin transferring their skills and knowledge to smallholders, 
including cattle owners. They will be trained in construction and use of moveable kraals, planned grazing and 
forage banking, and improved herding and group herding practices.
Utilizing a management structure perfected in our Zambia and Zimbabwe programs, each master trainer will 
report directly to the executive committee for the community producer organization that they serve. Land 
O’Lakes will work closely with each group to identify the member who will participate in the master training
program. Program will also assist each group to define a clear role and reward system for the master trainers 
that will enable them to track progress and incentivize performance.
Activity 3: Rangeland Management Planning and Extension Services Provision: Trained CLWs and 
local traditional leadership will assist each community to develop an annual grazing and rangeland 
management plan for their animals (both goats and cattle), designed to improve rangeland productivity and 
reverse environmental degradation over time. They will monitor implementation of the plans and assist 
communities with herd and rangeland management to maximize productivity.
Subcomponent 2: Veterinary Medicines and Vaccines
Trained CLWs will focus on a community-based preventive animal health program. Although the CLWs will 
be trained for, and be a member of, one of the goat producer groups, he/she will also assist non-member 
livestock farmers within the communities through a fee-for-service arrangement. Each CLW will be provided 
with a toolkit that will enable them to deliver basic veterinary services within the community. 
CLWs will be associated with a private-sector veterinary service or input provider in his or her area and will 
consult private veterinarians on more difficult or urgent cases. Routine services such as vaccinations and 
dewormings will be pre-paid by the producer group through contributions from the multi-purpose fund, with 
the service delivery fee imbedded within the cost of the drugs. This activity will improve goat productivity, 
reduce mortality, and increase the availability of breeding stock in project areas. Use of the multi-purpose 
fund to purchase veterinary medicines in bulk will enable producer groups to buy these medicines at 
decreased costs, with lower per unit costs passed on to the individual farmers.
IR 3: Increased capacity of and access to animal health and livestock extension services.
Emphasis will be placed on preventing illness and disease outbreaks. CLWs, with the support of private￾sector veterinarians and Land O’Lakes staff, will work with goat producer groups and livestock owners to 
develop treatment programs, including timely livestock dip campaigns and clinics to control ticks and tick￾borne diseases; vaccinations of goats to prevent clostridial diseases such as tetanus, black leg, or 
enterotoxanemia; and strategic dewormings. Preventative and proactive treatments are necessary for the 
rebuilding of a fragile livestock sector. Disease outbreaks that result in death and lost production (poor animal 
condition) cause financial losses for smallholders, in addition to the cost of replacing valuable farm-level 
inputs (manure, animal traction). Although Zimbabwe once had an effective veterinary sector, the collapse of 
that system costs smallholder farmers thousands of U.S. dollars annually. This project will develop grassroots 
veterinary service provision closely linked to town-based private veterinary service providers for stability and 
sustainability.
CLWs will be provided with a bicycle for transportation and a toolkit of basic equipment that will allow them 
to provide basic services. This CLW toolkit includes: elastrator; elastrator rings; hoof clippers; weigh band, 
overalls, drum; trochar (bloat knife); livestock tags and a tag applicator. Refresher training and monitoring of 
CLWs will be conducted throughout the project by Land O’Lakes staff as well as the partnering private-sector 
37
veterinarian to ensure effective service provision. To overcome challenges arising from a lack of payment by 
households, Land O'Lakes will facilitate the creation of stocks of supplies at the community-level through the 
goat producer groups. Resources for purchasing supplies will be raised by individual member contributions to 
group multi-purpose funds established by each goat producer group.
1.4 Geographic coverage
Land O’Lakes is targeting two districts (five wards) found within agro-climatic Zones IV and V, Matabeleland 
South and Manicaland. Our current presence within Zimbabwe will allow for rapid project start-up, as Land 
O’Lakes is currently operating in project sites that are adjacent to the proposed geographic location of the 
Zimbabwe Livestock for Accelerated Recovery and Improved Resiliency program.
1.5: Cross cutting issues
Gender: A minimum of 60 percent of participants targeted shall be women. Female involvement will be 
encouraged through self-help groups, the solicitation of participants through targeted campaigns, and the use 
of female extension staff to disseminate knowledge and tools aimed at addressing the unique socio-cultural 
constrains women face in Zimbabwe around livestock. Land O’Lakes will ensure that training times do not 
conflict with household obligations in order to ensure higher female participation rates.
1.6 Selection of program participants
1.6.1 Households: To qualify, a household must: Be a member of a producer and marketing group or be 
willing to join one; Be willing to build livestock housing and other necessary facilities; Have access to 
communal land for grazing; Have the basic resources required to participate in the program, e.g., household 
labor; Reside within program target area; Show clear involvement of household members in the farm 
activities; Be capable to initially receive three female goats from the project through the group and, later, 
receive another two female goats from the group through pass-on; Be willing to sell off all local male bucks 
and use the buck introduced by the group from the project; Be willing to establish a stand of fodder crops on 
their farm; and Be willing to contribute to the Multi-Purpose Fund.
1.6.2 Communities: The project will target mixed herd communities, i.e. communities that will 
communally graze cattle alongside of goats. Second, early identification of communities where leaders are 
open to new ideas about grazing practices and maintain a degree of influence within the community to ensure 
that improved practices take hold is critical. Third, communities that are already organizing around civic 
projects – such as clinics and school construction – make for more engaged individuals and more successful 
outcomes. Lastly, communities that tout a critical mass of early adopters, have less risk-averse farmers willing 
to adopt new rangeland management practices or have a level of control over their rangeland (including 
livestock movement), and communities with which Land O’Lakes has already worked all have a higher 
potential of successfully adopting holistic grazing techniques. Land O’Lakes will work closely with ACHM to 
develop a targeting tool to aid in the selection of high-potential communities for inclusion in the program.
1.6.3 ACHM trained master trainers: ACHM will coordinate with Land O’Lakes to select appropriate 
master trainers from the community. 
1.6.4 Community Livestock Workers: Potential CLWs will be identified through existing goat producer 
groups. Selected individuals will possess characteristics necessary for serving as a valuable community 
resource, namely trustworthiness, commitment to the community, basic literacy skills, good communication 
skills, desire to serve in the role, and willingness to be called upon at any time to provide assistance to fellow 
farmers.
1.6.5 Private animal heath input providers: While CLWs are being identified, Land O’Lakes will pinpoint 
established private sector animal health input and service providers, typically located in larger commercial 
centers. These veterinarians and animal health professionals will serve as mentors and points of reference for 
38
the newly trained CLWs. Additionally, CLWs will acquire all vaccines and medications from identified drug 
shops and have the opportunity to pose technical questions to technical experts working there. In return, 
private sector veterinarians are able to reach more remote locations and increase their sales. Land O’Lakes 
will make every effort to include mentors in the CLW training program.
2.0 Mid Term Evaluation Questions
The MTE will follow four key evaluation parameters discussed in FANTA guidelines on Title II Evaluation 
Scopes of Work (Bonnard, 2002), and will answer the following questions:
Assessment of project progress: Has the program achieved its targets to date (See attached APDT – Annex 1)? If 
not, why not? What is the likelihood of achieving them upon project completion? Are the program activities 
in line with the schedule of activities as defined by the project document, team and annual work plans? Are 
established targets reasonable given the current program context? If not, how do they need to be modified? 
As defined and measured, do the performance indicators provide useful and reliable data on program 
progress and impacts? Are M&E data collected and reported regularly and in a timely fashion? Are M&E data 
and anecdotal information used for management purposes? 
Assessment of project design, implementation and achievements, including changes in context and review of assumptions 
(relevance): Do the framework, assumptions and design match the local conditions and evolving needs of target 
beneficiaries? Are planned activities appropriate for the problems identified? What internal and external 
factors (selection criteria of participants, participation of women, location) have influenced ability of 
beneficiary groups and project staff to meet projected targets? Which interventions are most critical and/or 
effective in achieving project objectives and intermediate results? Are there any unexpected but important 
benefits or impacts and/or negative impacts or unintended consequences of the project that should be 
documented? What improvements can be made to the design and/or implementation to improve results or 
given the changes in country, sector and operational context? 
Assessment of processes that affect achievement of project outputs (behavior change and capacity strengthening): Are 
beneficiaries adopting desired practices or behavior? Are there certain groups (gender, age, location) within 
the population with lower rates of adoption and why? Which practices have beneficiaries been more inclined 
to adopt and why? What is their primary source of information concerning practices and behavior? What are 
other key channels of information? Is the beneficiary to extension agents ratio and frequency of contact 
adequate for the type of behavior change envisioned? Are training materials/duration/trainers capacities 
appropriate for participants? If necessary, how can these be improved to better meet the objectives of the 
training? Are the materials/content consistent with those of the key stakeholders’ or other development 
agency? 
Assessment of sustainability of project outcomes: Are project impacts sustainable? Are outcomes sustainable? Are 
farmers able to obtain improved and recommended animal health inputs, forage seeds without program 
assistance? What can be done to increase sustainability? Is there a well-developed exit and sustainability 
strategy? If so, has the project staff moved to initiate some aspects of those strategies? 
Assessment of project implementation innovations to enhance sustainability, cost efficiency and effectiveness: 
What are some changes that the project team have instituted to enhance effectiveness, sustainability and cost 
efficiency? What informed these innovations? Quantification of their benefits and how do they affect 
achievement of results?
3.0 MTE Methodology
Four key tasks:
39
- Discussions with project technical staff
- Household interviews – survey and focus group discussions
- FGD with management committee members of livestock marketing groups
- Community leaders focus group discussions – targeting sustainable rangeland management
- In Depth Interviews (IDIs) with selected trained master trainers on rangeland management
- IDIs with selected CLWs 
- IDIs with selected private animal health input providers
- IDIs with key stakeholders’ livestock extension staff
- IDI with contact person at ACHM
40
Annex 2: Midterm Evaluation tools
Annex 2 a: Household survey tool
3 ZIMBABWE LIVESTOCK FOR ACCELERATED RECOVERY AND IMPROVED RESILIENCY (ZRR) 
Dear Respondent,
You have been selected randomly from the many persons who are targeted for the Land O’ Lakes intervention in this 
area. The purpose for the interview is to help us understand your current situation so that in future we plan the right 
activities together and measure performance. 
Your participation is voluntary, please feel free to ask for clarification; in instances where you feel so strongly that you 
don’t want to answer, you have the right to do that. All the information which you will provide will be treated as strictly 
confidential and will not be shown to other individuals or organizations. When we compile the report, we will not 
attribute any statement to you, but treat everything as general.
ASSIGNMENT RECORD:
E-Code Name of Enumerator Signature Date Interview Completed
S-Code Supervisor’s Name Signature Date Checked
HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE
4 June 2013
IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARS
1. Province……………………………………………………………………………………… 
1= Manicaland 2= Matebeleland 
 
2. District……………………………………………………………………………………….
 1=Buhera 2=Makoni 3=Mutare Rural 4=Mangwe 5=Bulilima
 
3. Ward ……………………………………………………………………………….. 
4. Farmers Group (Association)………………………………………………………………………… 
 
5. Locality/Village ……………………………………………………………………………………….
6. Name of Farmer Group Member …………………………………………………………………………………... 
7. Age and Sex of Farmer ……………Age 8. Sex (1=Male, 2=Female) 
 
9. Marital Status of Farmer…………………………………………………………………………
1=Monogamously Married 2=Polygamous Married 3=Divorced 4=Widowed 5=Single 
10. Name of Head of Household ……………………………………..……………………………...... 
11. Marital Status of Household head…………………………………………… 
1=Monogamously Married 2=Polygamous Married 3=Divorced 4=Widowed 5=Single 
THE ENUMERATOR MUST READ AND INTERPRET THE PASSAGE BELOW TO THE RESPONDENT 
PRIOR TO THE INTERVIEW
41
12. Age and Sex of Head of Household…….Age Sex (1=Male, 2= Female) 
1. SECTION 1.0: DEMOGRAPHICS
1.1. How many people are members of this household? .......................................................... 
1.2 How many are;
Male Female
Children<12 years
Youth 12-18 years
Adults> 18 years
Disabled Members
Chronically ill members
1.3. What is the current occupation of the Head of the HH................................................ 
1=Formal 2=Farmer 3=Trader 99.Other…
1.4 How long (hrs) do female/male take on goat activities…Female Male
 1=1-3hr 2=4-6hr 3.=7-8hr 4=More than 8hr 
 
1.5 What is the household monthly income? ……………………………………….
 1=USD 0- 100 2= USD101-200 3=USD 201- 300 4=Over USD 300
1.6 What type of main house does the HH live in? ........................................................
 1=Grass thatched 2=Iron roofed 3= Asbestos/tile roof 
2. Asset Ownership
2.1 Name of Asset
2.2 Total Number owned 2.4 Number owned 
jointly
Value US$
Domestic
Cooker/Gas Stove
Refrigerator
Radio
Television
DVD Player
Mobile phone
Sofa set
Sewing Machine
Others (specify)
Transport
Car/Truck
Motorcycle
Bicycle
42
2.1 Name of Asset
2.2 Total Number owned 2.4 Number owned 
jointly
Value US$
Others (specify)
Farm
Scotch cart
Spades/shovel
Ploughs
Sprayer pump
Water pump
Planter 
Harrow
Cultivator
Tractor
Hoes
Sickles
Others (specify)
3. SECTION 3.0: NUMBER OF EATING OCCASSIONS, STAPLE SOURCES, DIETARY 
DIVERSITY AND MONTHS OF INADEQUADE HOUSEHOLD FOOD PROVISIONING
3.1. What is the main staple food for the household?
1=Maize 2=Sourghum 3= Millet 4=Rapoko
3.2. What was the main source of the STAPLE foods for the household for each of the last 12 months?
3.2. MONTHS
June 
13
May 13 April 
13
March 
13
Feb 13 Jan 13 Dec 12 Nov 12 Oct 12 Sept 12 Aug 12 Jul 12
3.2.1 3.2.3 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 3.2.10 3.2.11 3.2.12
Codes: 
0=None
1=Own production
2=Purchase with income
3=Food Aid
4=Gift
5=Bartering commodities with food.
6=Purchase with Loan/credit
7=Selling assets to buy food
8=Purchase from remittances
10=Working for food
99=Other (Specify)
3.3 Current Crop Yields 2012/13 Season
43
Crop Area planted(ha) Yield (# of 
50kg bags)
Maize
Sorghum
Millet
Rapoko
Groundnuts
Sunflower
3.4 Household Dietary Diversity Score - HDDS): Now I would like to ask you about the types of foods that 
you or anyone else in the household consumed yesterday and the day before yesterday? NOTE: Firstly establish 
that these days were normal or usual days and not Special days
3.4.1. 
FOOD 
CODE
FOOD TYPES 3.3.2. Did your 
household consume 
these food types 
Yesterday 
3.3.3. Did your 
household consumed 
these food types the day 
before Yesterday 
1=Yes, 0=No 1=Yes, 0=No
A Sadza 
B Any potatoes, yams, manioc, cassava or any other 
foods made from roots or tubers?
C Any vegetables? 
D Any fruits? 
E Any beef, pork, lamb, goat, rabbit wild game, 
chicken, duck, or other birds, liver, kidney, heart, or 
other organ meats?
F Any eggs? 
G Any fresh or dried fish or shellfish? 
H Any foods made from beans, peas, lentils, or nuts? 
I Any cheese, yogurt, milk or other milk products? 
J Any foods made with oil, fat, or butter? 
K Any sugar or honey? 
L Any other foods, such as condiments, coffee, tea? 
3.5(Month of Inadequate Household Food Provisioning – MIHFP) Now I would like to ask you about your 
household’s FOOD supply during different months of the year. When responding to these questions, please think 
back over the last 12 months. (FOOD supply refers to food that may have been produced, purchased, gifted etc…)
QUESTIONS AND FILTERS CODINGS SKIP
1. In the past 12 months, were there months in which you did not have enough 
FOOD to meet your family’s needs? 1=Yes 0=N0 …………….|___|
IF NO 
GO TO 
4.1
2. DO NOT READ THE LIST OF MONTHS.
PLACE A ONE IN THE BOX IF THE RESPONDENT IDENTIFIES 
THAT MONTH AS ONE IN WHICH THE HOUSEHOLD DID NOT 
HAVE ENOUGH FOOD TO MEET THEIR NEEDS.
If yes, which were the months (in the past 12 months) in which you did not 
have enough FOOD to meet your family’s needs?
A
B
June 2013
May 2013
A…………..|___|
B…………..|___|
44
C
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
I 
J 
K 
L 
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
C…………..|___|
D…………..|___| 
E…………..|___| 
F…………..|___| 
G………….|___| 
H………….|___| 
I…………...|___| 
J………..….|___| 
K…….……|___| 
L……..……|___| 
SECTION 4.0: LIVESTOCK Ownership
4.1 Has your household ever received any Goats from the Land O’Lakes pass on scheme?
1=Yes
0=No If No. go to 4.3
4.2. How many goats have you received from LOL?
4.2.1. Goat name/ 
Tag number
4.2.2. Date received 
(MM/YYYY)
4.2.3. Recipient in 
household
1=Male
2=Female 
NAME No. Month YEAR
4.3. Do you own any other livestock? (Yes =1, No =0) 
(If answer is ‘Yes’ please fill in the Table below, if ‘No’ skip to question 4.3) 
 
Livestock Species
4.3.1Numbe
r owned by
the 
household 
(total)
4.3.2Numbe
r owned by 
male 
4.3.3Numbe
r owned by 
female 
4.3.4Numbe
r owned 
jointly 
4.3.5Tota
l Value 
sold in 
the past 
year 
USD
(July2012- 
June 2013
4.3.6 
Price 
per 
livestoc
k type 
sold
July 
2012 –
June 
2013
4.3.7Tota
l cost of 
transport,
labour, 
levies, 
permits, 
slaughter 
fees, 
herding
while 
awaiting 
slaughter 
incurred 
during 
selling 
in the 
year 
(USD) 
(July 
2012- 
45
June 
2013)
Cattle
Local
Cross / 
exotic
Goats
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Sheep
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Poultry
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Pig 
Local
Cross/ 
exotic
Donkeys/Horse
s 
Rabbits
Other, specify
 4.4 Goat Management
4.4.1 Fodder production 2012/13 season
Fodder crop Area 
planted(ha)
Expected 
Yield (kg)
Velvet beans
Sugar graze
Cowpeas
Soya beans
Yellow maize
Ground nuts
4.4.2 What is the main method of grazing the goats……………………………………
 1=Open range 2=Paddock grazing 3=Zero grazing 99=other (Specify) 
_______________________________
4.4.3 What type of feed do you mainly feed the goats on? ............................................. 
 1=Natural pasture 2=Cultivated pasture 3=Fodder 3=Supplements
99=Other specify______________________________
4.4.4 How many times have your goats (if any) been vaccinated or treated for any disease or received any known and 
approved veterinary intervention in the last 12 months?
4. 4.4a Veterinary intervention
Number of times the animals benefitted 
4.4.4 .b By the 
Department of 
Agriculture
4.4.4.c By CLWs 4.4.4d By other 
veterinarians
4. 4.4.e 
By 
yourself
Vaccinations
Dipping
De-worming 
46
4.4.5 How many of your goats (if any) been treated for any disease or received any known and approved veterinary 
intervention in the last 12 months?
4.4.5a Veterinary intervention
Number of animals which benefited 
4.4.5 .b By the 
Department of 
Agriculture
4.4.5.c By CLWs 4.4.5 d By other 
veterinarians
4.4.5.e By 
yourself
Treatment for disease
Artificial insemination
De-horning
Castration
Any other veterinary 
intervention
4.4.6 How many goats have died between July 2012 and June 2013?
4.4.6.1 Adults
4.4.6.2 Young kids
4.4.6.3 What do they die from?
1=pulpy kidney 2=tick borne diseases 3=internal parasites 4=Pneumonia 5= other 
specify.........................................................................................................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
4.4.6.4 Which season has the highest rate of mortality? 
1=Summer 2=Autumn 3=Winter
4.4.7 Reproduction: We want to talk about 3 of your does’ reproduction 
 
4.4.7aDoe 1 4.4.7bDoe 2 4.4.7cDoe 3
i. Litter size
ii. Number of matings per pregnancy
iii. Age at first kidding
iv. Kidding interval
v. Seasonality of kidding
vi. Abortion rate
vii. seasonality of abortion
4.4.8 LIVESTOCK SUPPORT & OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE
4.4.10a Structure 4.4.6.b Number/Kg owned
Livestock drinking trough (#)
Goat Housing (#)
Livestock feeding trough (#)
Feeding paddocks (#)
Stock feed stored (Kg)
Sprayer (for ticks and others)
Other, specify:
4.4.9 ACCESS TO WATER, FEED & DIPPING SERVICES
4.4.11a 
Immediately 
4.4.11 b Takes a few 
hours (1 to 2 hours) 
4.4.11c Takes several 
hours (more than 2 
4.4.11d Not 
accessible in this 
47 
accessible =1 = 2 hours) =3 community =4
4.4.8.1 How do you rate 
access to water for livestock?
4.4.8.2. How do you rate 
access to pasture for 
livestock? 
4.4.8.3 How do you rate your 
access to dipping services?
5
6 4.5: Rangeland Management
7 4.5.1 How do you decide where to graze the livestock during
i. Dry season…………………………………………………………………………….
ii. Wet season…………………………………………………………………………….
1=Male household head 2=Female household head 3=Spouse 4=Community 5=Other specify
4.5.2 What differences have you realized in the veld and communal grazing over the last 5 years?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.5.3 What are the top 3 challenges in open communal grazing? 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….. 
4.5.4 What are your perceptions towards open grazing with regards to improving your livestock production and 
improving your livelihood?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………… 
4.5.5 How are the goats housed at night?
1=Free range 2=in a goat house renovated once a year 3=in a goat house renovated twice per year 4=Paddock
5=Other Specify…………………………………………………………………
8
9 SECTION 5.0: LABOUR ACTIVITIES for Livestock
5.1 5.1.1 Now I would like to find out about labour for your Livestock rearing activities during the last 6 
months: (Enumerator: Note that if the respondent says YES in 5.1.1.a, continue with the rest of the questions, otherwise go to the next 
labour activity)
5.1.1.a. Labour Activity 5.1.1.b. Did 
the household 
use any labour 
for….
1=Yes
0=No
5.1.1.c. 
Labour 
type
5.1.1.d. 
Number of 
Males who 
provided 
labour for this 
activity
5.1.1.e. 
Number of 
female who 
provided 
labour for this 
activity
5.1.1f Cash 
payment/Value 
of in kind 
payment for 
hired labor in 
the past 6 
months
1=Construction of livestock shelter
3=Forage production
4=Feed Preparation
5=Kid rearing
6=Veterinary Services
7=Transportation/ Marketing
48
Codes for 5.1.1.c
1=Household labour/members
2=Hired labour for in kind payment
3=Hired labour for cash payment
4= Permanent workers
99=Other (Specify)
5.1.2.1 How many permanent workers working with goats do you have? Male Female 
5.1.2.2 How much do you pay the permanent workers per month?.......................
 
SECTION 6.0: GOAT MARKETING
6.1 What are the main markets for goats in the area? …………………………..
1.= farm gate 2=RDC cattle sales pen 3=Collection point 4=Business center 5= Other(specify)
6.1.1 What are the advantages of the main goat market options?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….. 
6.1.2 What are the disadvantages of the main goat market options?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….. 
6.2 How many goats were sold by the farmer in the past year –( July 2012 -June 2013) 
6.2.1What were the reasons for selling the goats 
1=to pay school fees 2= health expenses 3=to purchase food 4= funeral expenses 5=paying 
lobola 6=other -specify 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
6.2.2 Who decides how to use the goat income? ................................................................... 
1=Male head of household 2=Female spouse 3= Female head of household 4=In monogamous and polygamous 
marriages- Both male and female
6.3 What are the goat buyer profiles? .......................................................................... 
1=livestock traders 2=farmers 3=local consumers 4= LOL 5 =Other specify
6.4 What are the pricing criteria used when selling the goats? (Tick all that apply) 
1=sex 2=size 3=body condition 4= age 5=other specify 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………… 
6.5 Are farmers able to access market information for goats? ………………………… 
1=Yes 2= No
6.5.1 What are the sources of information for goat markets?
1= farmers 2=livestock traders 3=local gatherings 4=local authorities 5= Extension officers 6 =Non-governmental 
organizations 7=Other specify …………………………………………………..
6.6 What are the challenges in goat marketing? 
1= Low prices 2=lack of formal markets 3=small flock size 4=joint ownership/family bureaucracy
5=other( specify) 
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………… 
SECTION 7.0: HOUSEHOLD INCOME & ACCESS TO SAVINGS AND CREDIT
49
7.1. HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Source of income Total income (USD) from current season (July 2012 to 
June 2013)
All field crops sold
All garden crops & citrus fruits sold
Goats sold
Other Livestock sold
Labor/Employment
Remittances
Small Business/Trade
Other sources of income (gifts, piece works, trading in 
non-agriculture, etc)
7.2. ACCESS TO CREDIT AND SAVINGS
I have no access to credit and do not save = 1
I have access to savings only = 2
I have access to credit only = 3
I have access to both credit and savings = 4
INSERT CODE
10 SECTION 8.0: EXTENSION SERVICES
8.1. I would like to ask you about the technical assistance services that you or any other member of your household 
have received in the past 12 months (July 2011- June 2012)
8.1.1. Service 8.1.2. Did 
someone in the 
HH receive 
technical 
assistance on . . . 
? 
1=Yes
0=No
8.1.3. Have 
someone in the 
HH used/ 
applied this 
technical 
assistance?
1=Yes
0=No 
8.1.4. Do you 
and your family 
members think 
the technical 
assistance is 
useful?
1=Yes
0=No 
8.1.5 Other Main 
source of this 
technical assistance 
1=Govt extension 
officers
2=NGO (specify)
3=Private (e.g. vets)
4=CLWs
99=Other (specify)
1) Record Keeping
2) Animal Nutrition
3) Animal Health
4) Goat Management
5) Kid Rearing
6) Goat production as a 
business
7) Feed establishment
8) Feed Conservation
9) Stocking
10) Market Linkages (Selling 
Goats on auctions)
If 8.1.4 has at least a YES response, then:
 
8.2 Is there anything you want to say about the technical extension services provided?
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………… 
SECTION 9 GENDER ISSUES
9.1 Do you believe men and women should have equal opportunity access- leadership resource ownership? 
1=Yes 2= NO 
50
9.2 Is there any female household member who holds a leadership position in the community? 1=Yes 2=NO
9.3 Do women experience different agricultural challenges from men? 1=Yes 2=NO
SECTION 10 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
10.1(Tick all that apply)
What type of environmental 
management strategies 
have you put in place at 
your farm
Planting of fruit 
trees and gum trees
Composting animal 
waste
Labeling of 
chemicals 
Disposal of 
vet waste and 
pesticides
 
51
Annex 2b – 1: FARMER FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE 
Name of the Province 
Name of the District 
Name of the Village 
Facilitator/Moderator 
Note take/recorder 
As participants arrive thank them warmly for coming, welcome them and put them at ease by 
friendly conversation. [When the group is complete] Introduce yourself and the note taker. Reaffirm 
from the members that they have come voluntarily to participate in the discussion and that they can 
still withdraw from the group if they wished to. Seek this consent by a show of hands. 
INTRODUCE TOPIC OF DISCUSSION:
The principal focus of the evaluation is to is to document the lessons learned and impacts ( intended or 
unintended) results –considering project design, partners’ priorities, changing extension landscape in country, 
budget and the results realized–to inform project implementation and design of similar projects. 
AGREE ON NORMS AND CONFIDENTIALITY
- Explain the session shall be in form of a discussion. 
- Stress that there are no right or wrong answers.
- Ask participants to feel free to say what they think
- Ask the group to treat what others say as confidential 
- Cell phone use and leaving the room while discussion is in progress etc.
- Tell the discussants how long the discussion will take. 
Remind participants this is voluntary and they are free to leave at the start or any time during the 
discussion. 
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. Membership of the project and linkages 
a. How are you linked with the project?
b. In which year did your become a member of the project? 
c. How were you identified to join the project?
d. What were the terms required before your group joined the project? What challenges did you face when 
joining the project? How did you overcome them?
2. Livestock husbandry practices 
a. What kinds of livestock do you have in your farm (s)? When did you start keeping the livestock you have 
mentioned?
b. What new knowledge have you acquired in since you joined the project? (Probe for each livestock)
c. Have you received any technical assistance from CLWs in the project? What kind of assistance?
d. Have you received any technical assistance from project staff in the project? What kind of assistance?
e. Who else provided technical assistance to you or family members?
f. How did such technical assistance help you improve your livestock husbandry practices?
g. Comment on your livestock body condition, livestock off take, livestock fertility, fodder 
availability, livestock health, and livestock marketing since you joined the project (Probe for each). 
h. Where do you get livestock inputs from? Who are your main suppliers of inputs?
i. Other than livestock input supply, what kinds of services did you receive from the suppliers?
j. Describe some of the best farm practices you have acquired since you joined the project. 
52
k. Do you produce fodder for livestock? Which are your preferred varieties? Why?
l. Has program promoted fodder production, feed preservation including urea treatment beneficial? Why?
3. Rangeland Management
a) Do you graze your livestock communally? 
b) What are some challenges to communal grazing? How are these overcome?
c) How has your communal grazing land changed in the last five years?
d) How is communal grazing land managed in this village?
e) Did you have grazing plans in this village (formal and/or informal) before the project?
f) If yes, how were they arrived at? Who was involved in designing them? Were all farmers following these 
plans? What were the challenges the village had with these plans? How were these challenges managed?
g) What benefits in terms of communal grazing has your community realized since you started participating 
in the project?
h) If better communal grazing land management is mentioned, how relevant/appropriate is the 
project’s approach to managing communal grazing land in this village? (Probe for both communal 
kraaling and grazing)
i) If communal kraaling is mentioned, what are the benefits to this approach? How is the rooster 
developed? How is the decision to locate the Kraal in the farm made? Is it targeted to crop land or to 
areas suitable for cattle/livestock?
j) In your opinion, who should lead efforts to improve the communal grazing land? Is he/she or are they 
doing enough? If not why? What can be done to ensure this happens? 
4. Relevance of the project 
a. What is the most important benefit that you have realized since joining the project? (at household and 
communal levels)
b. What are some of the benefits you have encountered since you started participating in the project? 
c. What are some of the challenges you face in keeping your livestock? 
d. What do you like about the project approach?
e. What do you not like about the project approach? 
f. In your opinion what do think the project should do differently to help farmers maximise their benefits 
from livestock, especially goats?
g. In your opinion do you think the project is using their resources well? Why?
h. How would you compare the project approach with other approaches – e.g. from the Ministry of 
Agriculture, other development projects, etc? 
5. Sustainability 
a. Do you think you will continue with best livestock husbandry practices when the project comes to an 
end? Which practices will you continue applying? 
b. Do you think you will continue seeking technical assistance from the CLWs when the project comes to 
an end? Who in particular will you continue seeing? Why?
c. How has your husbandry skills improved since you joined the project? 
d. Which are your best performing livestock enterprises that you will continue with in future? Where will 
you get inputs from? 
e. Where do you intend to get technical livestock husbandry assistance in future? 
Thank you.
53
Annex 2b -2: KII guide for Extension Officers
 
Key Informant’s Name
Position
Interviewer(s)
Date of Interview
INTRUCTIONS
Introduce yourself and explain the purpose of the end line evaluation.
Use the questions only as a guide and probe further where necessary. 
Seek extra detailed information, in various forms if necessary
TOPICS AND QUESTIONS 
1.0 Awareness and involvement in the ZRR project
i. What do you know about the ZRR project? 
ii. How are you involved in the ZRR project?
2.0 Impact Assessment of the project 
• In what ways and to what extent has the project reduced vulnerability to both economic and climatic 
disasters, diversified livelihoods, built assets, and rebuilt resiliency to shocks for its beneficiaries
• In what ways and to what extent has the project made a positive impact on access to livestock 
information and inputs at the community level?
• What is the impact of the project on use of modern livestock husbandry technologies and 
management practices, goat marketing, and communal grazing lands management in the benefitting 
communities? Which modern livestock husbandry technologies and management practices do you 
promote? Are these the same ones the project promotes?
3.0 Relevance and sustainability of the ZRR Project 
• What other approaches have you successfully implemented in the Ministry of Livestock to promote 
livestock enterprises? How about goat enterprise?
• How would you compare the ZRR approach with other approaches that have been implemented in 
the Ministry? 
• How could the ZRR approach become a sustainable model for livestock services to vulnerable 
farmers?
• Given that the project focuses on increasing farmer knowledge of, and access to modern inputs, 
what has been the change in the related knowledge, skills and practices of benefitting farmers? Are 
the results sustainable?
• What are some of the challenges you face in the course of your partnership with the project? 
• Do think you/your department will continue with the activities initiated by the project? If yes how 
do you intend to continue? If no, why? 
• What are some of the strengths of the project approach?
• What are some of the weakness of the project approach? 
• What do you think should be done more effectively or efficiently? Why? 
Thank you
54
55
Annex 2b – 3 KII GUIDE for Community Livestock Workers
 
Key Informant’s Name
Position
Interviewer(s)
Date of Interview
INTRUCTIONS
Introduce yourself and explain the purpose of the end line evaluation.
Use the questions only as a guide and probe further where necessary. 
Seek extra detailed information, in various forms if necessary
TOPICS AND QUESTIONS 
1.0 Involvement in ZRR project
• What is your role in the ZRR project? 
• What kinds of activities are you involved in the ZRR project?
• What kinds of training have you received from the project?
• What other assistance have you received from the project?
• Which livestock are promoted to farmers in the project?
• What inputs are being demanded by farmers to improve their livestock herd – health, etc? How has 
this changed compared to before the project started?
2.0 Impact Assessment of ZRR project
• In your opinion, in what ways and to what extent has the project reduced vulnerability to both 
economic and climatic disasters, diversified livelihoods, built assets, and rebuilt resiliency to shocks 
for its beneficiaries
• In what ways and to what extent has the project made a positive impact on access to livestock 
information and inputs at the community level?
• What is the impact of the project on use of modern livestock husbandry technologies and 
management practices, goat marketing, and communal grazing lands management in the benefitting 
communities? Which modern livestock husbandry technologies and management practices do you 
promote? Are these the same ones the project promotes?
3.0 Relevance and sustainability of ZRR Project 
• What other approaches have you successfully implemented in the area to promote livestock 
enterprises? How about goat enterprise?
• How would you compare the ZRR approach with other approaches that have been implemented in 
the area? 
• How could the ZRR approach become a sustainable model for livestock services to the targeted 
vulnerable farmers?
• Given that the project focuses on increasing farmer knowledge of, and access to modern inputs, 
what has been the change in the related knowledge, skills and practices of benefitting farmers? Are 
the results sustainable? (Probe for each, especially practices)
• What are some of the challenges you face in the course of your partnership with the project? 
• Do think you will continue with the activities initiated by the project? If yes how do you intend to 
continue? If no, why? 
56
• What are some of the strengths of the project approach?
• What are some of the weakness of the project approach? 
• What do you think should be done more effectively or efficiently? Why? 
Thank you
57
Annex 2b – 4 KII guide for Chief/Village head
 
Key Informant’s Name
Position
Interviewer(s)
Date of Interview
INTRUCTIONS
Introduce yourself and explain the purpose of the end line evaluation.
Use the questions only as a guide and probe further where necessary. 
Seek extra detailed information, in various forms if necessary
TOPICS AND QUESTIONS 
1.0 Awareness and involvement in the ZRR project
• What do you know about the ZRR project? 
• How are you involved in the ZRR project?
2.0 Impact Assessment of the project 
• What are some of the project benefits for its beneficiaries in tis village?
• In what ways and to what extent has the project made a positive impact on access to livestock 
information and inputs at the community level?
• What is the impact of the project on use of modern livestock husbandry technologies and 
management practices, 
• What is the impact of the project on goat marketing, and 
• What is the impact of the project on communal grazing lands management in this village? 
3.0 Rangeland management 
• Is communal livestock grazing practiced in this village? 
• What are some challenges to communal grazing? How are these overcome?
• How has your communal grazing land changed in the last five years?
• How is communal grazing land managed in this village?
• Did you have grazing plans in this village (formal and/or informal) before the project?
• If yes, how were they arrived at? Who was involved in designing them? Were all livestock farmers 
following these plans? What were the challenges the village had with these plans? How were these 
challenges managed?
• What benefits in terms of communal grazing has your community realized since you started 
participating in the project?
• If better communal grazing land management is mentioned, how relevant/appropriate is the 
project’s approach to managing communal grazing land in this village? 
• If communal kraaling is mentioned, what are the benefits to this approach? How is the rooster 
developed? How is the decision to locate the Kraal in the farm made? Is it targeted to crop land or to 
areas suitable for cattle/livestock?
• In your opinion, who should lead efforts to improve communal grazing land? Is he/she or are they 
doing enough? If not why? What can be done to ensure this happens? 
58
4.0 Relevance and sustainability of the ZRR Project 
• What other approaches have been implemented in the area to promote livestock enterprises? How 
about goat enterprise?
• How would you compare the ZRR approach with other approaches that have been implemented in 
the area? 
• How could the ZRR approach become a sustainable model for livestock services to vulnerable 
farmers?
• Given that the project focuses on increasing farmer knowledge of, and access to modern inputs, 
what has been the change in the related knowledge, skills and practices of benefitting farmers? Are 
the results sustainable?
• Given that the project promotes better management of communal grazing lands, what has been the 
change in the practices of benefitting farmers? Are the results sustainable?
• What are some of the challenges you face in the course of your partnership with the project? 
• Do think the village leadership will continue with the rangeland management activities initiated by 
the project? If yes how do you intend to continue? If no, why? 
• What are some of the strengths of the project approach?
• What are some of the weakness of the project approach? 
• What do you think should be done more effectively or efficiently? Why? 
Thank you
59
Annex 3: List of information sources (including documents reviewed, sites visited, 
and key informants, assuming they gave permission to be identified)
• Zimbabwe livestock for accelerated recovery and improved Resiliency (ZRR) Program Funding 
Agreement / Technical Document
• ZRR Quarterly Report April – June 2013
• ZRR Quarterly Report January – March 2012
• ZRR Quarterly Report October – December 2012
• ZRR Annual Report 2012
• ZRR Quarterly Report July – September 2012
• ZRR Quarterly Report April – June 2012
• ZRR Performance Management Plan (PMP)
• ZRR Baseline Report
• ZRR Annual Work plan 2012 – 2013
• Performance Monitoring and Evaluation TIPS (1996, Vol. 2, USAID)
• USAID Evaluation Policy (Jan 2010)